18-Oct-2021 04:43 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 83 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 83]
[News] Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never')ANN.lu
Posted on 02-Nov-2002 11:36 GMT by catohagen83 comments
View flat
View list
New Frogger release fixes few bugs, introduces ra demuxer and fli demuxer (sadly, no fli/flc video decoder available yet, should be soon). Last, but not least, there is WMA decoder included. Enjoy.
Download 2.05
- Fixed problems with Indeo 3.x playback.
- Fixed seeking in mpeg video files.
- Applied some minor optimizations in mpeg video docoder.
- Fixed bug in mpeg demuxer, possible read/write to 0x0.
- Added Snapshot (F2).
- Updated divx/wmv/msmpeg4/mpeg-4 decoders.
- Updated vorbis decoder. Should be a bit faster too.
- Fixed bug in screen mode ID auto selection.
- Added few more extensions to asl subtitle requester pattern.
- Added standard version strings to all external plugins.
- Updated AVI and ASF/WMV demuxers to handle WMA audio.
- Added WMA audio decoder.
- Added missing RA demuxer, not heavily tested, be carefull!
- Added FLI/FLC demuxer, video decoder will be available soon.

Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 1 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Nov-2002 11:11 GMT
Not to bash the author, but I've got something to say here...
The sources of the svq1 decoder, available on the frogger's web site, are taken from the xine project, as stated in the file header:
* Copyright (C) 2002 the xine project
*
* This file is part of xine, a unix video player.
However, in the same header, also this is written:
* xine is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
* (at your option) any later version.
Notice "GPL" there, and not LGPL.
So I ask: since I can freely download the binaries (as it seems), if I ask the author to send me the Frogger sources, will he send them to me, as required by the GPL?
Also, the fact that now it supports WMA, doesn't come as a surprise, since frogger clearly uses ffmpeg library's parts to achieve its goals, library which just recently added WMA support. It would be nice if the author mentioned this, though.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 2 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by plouf on 02-Nov-2002 12:25 GMT
should i guess its time for sorensor3 ?
(never say never ;-) )
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 3 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by catohagen on 02-Nov-2002 13:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (Fabio Alemagna):
>if I ask the author to send me the Frogger sources, will he send them to me, as required by the GPL?
any software using GPL'ed software/source as parts has to give away source to you
entire software ?
So if Samba was GPL, you can ask for source code for windowsXP, since samba support
is built in ?
Isnt it enough to just give the GPL source you modifyed/used ? in this case
the svq1 decoder source that Sebastian wrote for Frogger ?
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 4 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Nov-2002 13:42 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (catohagen):
> > if I ask the author to send me the Frogger sources, will he send them to
> > me,
> > as required by the GPL?
> any software using GPL'ed software/source as parts has to give away source to
> you entire software ?
Yes.
> So if Samba was GPL, you can ask for source code for windowsXP, since samba
> support is built in ?
Uh? Windows doesn't have "samba support built in", Samba is a open reimplementation of the netbios protocol which Microsoft invented, not the samba team!
> Isnt it enough to just give the GPL source you modifyed/used ? in this case
> the svq1 decoder source that Sebastian wrote for Frogger ?
Nope, that's what the LGPL demands, but the svq1 decoder used in frogger is not under LGPL, it's under GPL, which makes things totally different.
That means that all the versions of frogger which include the svq1 decoder relewased under GPL must be released under GPL too.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 5 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by catohagen on 02-Nov-2002 14:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Fabio Alemagna):
>> any software using GPL'ed software/source as parts has to give away source to
>> you entire software ?
>Yes.
ouch...so this means Frogger is free now...
>Uh? Windows doesn't have "samba support built in", Samba is a open reimplementation of the netbios protocol which Microsoft invented, not the samba team!
sorry....i was just looking for an example :)
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 6 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 02-Nov-2002 14:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (catohagen):
Surely if he includes a module based on GPL code, only the source for
that module has to be released?
In this case, I would think that the source of the "Codecs" file would
have to be published, but not the main program.
Personally, I am happy to pay something for all the work involved in
porting this stuff to the Amiga (or to Amithlon in my case). I
couldn't do it myself, so I don't mind paying someone else to do it.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 7 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Nov-2002 14:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (Don Cox):
> Surely if he includes a module based on GPL code, only the source for
> that module has to be released?
No. Again, that's what LGPL demands, not what GPL demands.
> In this case, I would think that the source of the "Codecs" file would
> have to be published, but not the main program.
If the sources where released under LGPL, sure, but it's not like that.
> Personally, I am happy to pay something for all the work involved in
> porting this stuff to the Amiga (or to Amithlon in my case). I
> couldn't do it myself, so I don't mind paying someone else to do it.
Nothing wrong with paying GPL'ed programs, but the sources must be available to whoever has access to the binaries anyway.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 8 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by catohagen on 02-Nov-2002 15:32 GMT
any1 know if this also affects Moovid too, since it also support
Sorenson Video (SVQ1)
If Moovid also used same sources, its GPL too...
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 9 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Nov-2002 16:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (Fabio Alemagna):
there is the codec and there is Frogger
you can use the codec with frogger
but it is not part of it
so no frogger source
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 10 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Nov-2002 18:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (Anonymous):
> there is the codec and there is Frogger
> you can use the codec with frogger
> but it is not part of it
> so no frogger source
Anonymous, you are definitely wrong. The codec is under GPL, which means that whatever SW uses it needs to be released under GPL too.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 11 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Nov-2002 18:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 7 (Fabio Alemagna):
ffmpeg is under LGPL
NOT GPL !!!!!!!!!!!!
READ THE FUCKING DOCUMENTATION ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 12 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Nov-2002 19:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 11 (Anonymous):
> fmpeg is under LGPL
> NOT GPL !!!!!!!!!!!!
> READ THE FUCKING DOCUMENTATION ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Obviously you haven't read what I wrote: the svq1 codec used by frogger is under GPL, as its sources, publicly available on the frogger's site, show.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 13 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Nov-2002 19:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (Fabio Alemagna):
nope it is not
clearly stated by the documentation in the ffmpeg source pack
all parts of the ffmpeg is under LGPL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
oh wait is that your mother calling you for you to get your breast milk.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 14 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Nov-2002 19:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (Fabio Alemagna):
this is what is stated in the SVQ1 codec source
* This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
* modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
* License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
* version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
*
do you know how to read english do you understand what the above means?
the SVQ1 codec is under the LGPL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 15 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Nov-2002 19:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (Fabio Alemagna):
1) I am not the nr11 ano
2)
You are allowed to mix GPLed and non-GPLed Programms,
only if you LINK with the gpled source your programms
become gpled:
Example: YAST
LPGL allows the linking.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 16 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Nov-2002 19:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 14 (Anonymous):
> Do you know how to read english do you understand what the above means?
> the SVQ1 codec is under the LGPL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know perfectly well how to read English, and I also know WHAT to read. you should read the license of the codecs used by Frogger, which I pasted in the first message. Frogger may now be using the version of that codec which is released under LGPL, but all the versions which use the old codec must be released under GPL.
Mind you, GPL doen't make any distinctions about shared or static libraries.
Moreover, the sources of all codecs whose license is LGPL need to be released too, regardless of the Frogger's sources.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 17 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Nov-2002 19:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Anonymous):
> You are allowed to mix GPLed and non-GPLed Programms,
> only if you LINK with the gpled source your programms
> become gpled:
No, you're not allowed to, unless the "mixture" of those programs is achieved upon some sort of IPC mechanisms which don't require the two programs to know about each other's internals, for example by using pipes.
For all other requirements the LGPL must be used.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 18 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Christoph Gutjahr on 02-Nov-2002 19:31 GMT
Did I miss something? Was the Frogger author signed by Hyperion?
@Fabio:
What's the point, do you want to kill Frogger? Thanks in advance.
I'm pretty sure there must be a more diplomatic way to solve this issue than discussing it on ANN with a bunch of anons?
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 19 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Nov-2002 19:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 18 (Christoph Gutjahr):
> What's the point, do you want to kill Frogger? Thanks in advance.
Kill frogger? I don't want to "kill" anything, I'm just making people notice some facts... Am *I* doing something wrong? It seems to me that it's not ME the one who's doing something wrong...
Why would I kill Frogger? Only the sources need to be released, the author can still sell it, if he wishes so.
> I'm pretty sure there must be a more diplomatic way to solve this issue than
> discussing it on ANN with a bunch of anons?
Diplomatic? Don't get what needs to be "diplomatic" about all this... do you mean that I should have emailed the author privately? Why? So that people don't notice anything? And why should I care? To me it's better if people notice.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 20 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Nov-2002 19:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (Fabio Alemagna):
why?
all prior versions of ffmpeg has been under LGPL has dictated by the
COPYING document in the source pack.
the svq1 has NEVER been under anything but LGPL the fact that something is written
in the source code does not mean that it rules under that License since
the existance of a COPYING or LICENSE document rules over that unless
a specific mentioning of the specified source code is mentioned and under which
license that part rules under which usually resides in a README
.... but there has never been that for svq1.c or svq1.h
you should first have contacted the author of frogger
second contacted the authors of ffmpeg.
(btw. what do you think you'll get for this?
the source code for frogger so that you can compile your own version for your
PC?)
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 21 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Nov-2002 19:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 20 (Anonymous):
Whatever, Anonymous, (or should I call you Jan-Erik Karlsson?), believe whatever you want, even that what's written in the souces doesn't matter... :)
However, even what you say doesn't conflict with the requirement that the sources od all codecs under LGPL must be released under LGPL, which, to my knowledge, is not the case now.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 22 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Nov-2002 19:50 GMT
In reply to Comment 20 (Anonymous):
Oh, forgot to answer to this:
> (btw. what do you think you'll get for this?
> the source code for frogger so that you can compile your own version for your
> PC?)
LOL :) On my PC I use mplayer, which is far better than Frogger, although it uses the same codecs :)
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 23 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Sebastian Weimer (Anonymous (130.83.244.130)) on 02-Nov-2002 20:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (Fabio Alemagna):
>No, you're not allowed to, unless the "mixture" of those programs is achieved >upon some sort of IPC mechanisms which don't require the two programs to know >about each other's internals, for example by using pipes.
>For all other requirements the LGPL must be used.
The border not so clearly
to quote the gpl faq
|What constitutes combining two parts into one program?
|This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide.
I think it comes down to this question
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 24 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 02-Nov-2002 21:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (Fabio Alemagna):
You can use the codec in another product if you like... So no, it's wrong...
And moreover... WTF DO YOU WANT!?
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 25 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Nov-2002 22:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 23 (Sebastian Weimer (Anonymous (130.83.244.130))):
> to quote the gpl faq
> |What constitutes combining two parts into one program?
> |This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide.
>
> I think it comes down to this question
Sure, but you missed to quote the whole answer to the question:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
"What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).
If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.
By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program."
You see, of course in the end is the judge that decides, it's ALWAYS HIM that decides, but surely you don't want to arrive at the point in which you have to talk to a judge, do you?
Anyway, the ffmpeg guys might as well close an eyes about the usage of the GPL code in Frogger, since now that code is released under LGPL, and if they decided to ask the Frogger's author to release the frogger's source they would go against the very same principles which led them to change the license, but of course this doesn't meant that the sources of the modified codecs don't have to be released, rather it REALLY means that AT LEAST the sources of the codecs have to be released.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 26 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Nov-2002 22:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 24 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
> You can use the codec in another product if you like... So no, it's wrong...
Eh? Care to translate in English?
> And moreover... WTF DO YOU WANT!?
Nothing, never wanted nothing, just asked a legitimate question and raised some issues. Aren't I allowed to do that?
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 27 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 02-Nov-2002 22:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 26 (Fabio Alemagna):
In the tvision ml you clearly stated that if the Frogger sources are not
released, you'll notify the authors of ffmpeg and the svq1 decoder.
What do you want? An AROS port? You'll get a d***.
If you're here to kill frogger, kill yourself instead. Idiotic wanker...
And take 4play with you...
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 28 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Nov-2002 23:02 GMT
In reply to Comment 27 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
> In the tvision ml you clearly stated that if the Frogger sources are not
> released, you'll notify the authors of ffmpeg and the svq1 decoder.
Yes, what's wrong with that? Are you afraid of something? Are you implicitely confirming that Frogger uses GPL code in an illegal way?
> What do you want? An AROS port? You'll get a d***.
God, please not! I hear from all places that Frogger is the most unstable player available for Amiga... And why should I port Frogger? I can port mplayer directly.
> If you're here to kill frogger, kill yourself instead. Idiotic wanker...
Kill frogger? Why should releasing the sources of Frogger, or its codecs, or both, have to kill it?
And, even if it did, would that be my fault, or ther author's?
And why are you so willing to pay for a piece of sw which doesn't even work properly?
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 29 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 02-Nov-2002 23:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 28 (Fabio Alemagna):
You make me sick. *F*U*C*K* *O*F*F*!
WHY THE *FUCK* are you here? Cause you like showing us that you're someone
cause you're in the AROS team, now lot's about the GPL? After that I'm 100%
sure... You're in the line with 4play... You're just an asshole
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 30 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by catohagen on 02-Nov-2002 23:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 28 (Fabio Alemagna):
Frogger works ok.....just because you've heard its not working, you take his
word as your opinion about it ?
Frogger plays mpeg/divx fine and the slider response is instant, i haven't
tryed players on linux, but in windows slider lags like hell...maybe its
windows's shitty filesystem i don't know...also try playing broken avi files
in windows....you have to use a util to fix it.....frogger plays them too
Anyway....I still can't belive that just because a plugin module is gpl
and then whole program that uses that plugin is gpl ?
what if someone else writes a plugin for a software, and used gpl source,
is that software also gpl ? even if author of software didn't know/did it ?
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 31 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Nov-2002 23:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 29 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
Let me tell you just one thing: you really deserve your name, at least in sweden :)
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 32 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 02-Nov-2002 23:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 31 (Fabio Alemagna):
Let me tell you one thing. Alkis is not my full name... :)
Just a serious question... What are you doing here? What exactly do you want?
Why are you attacking anyone you can? Cause it makes you feel good? If it does,
the you should REALLY visit a doctor...
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 33 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Nov-2002 23:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 30 (catohagen):
> Frogger works ok.....just because you've heard its not working, you take his
> word as your opinion about it ?
Err... I talked to a lot of people who all had the same opinion about it (a bad one), why should I believe you? Just because I heard you saying that it is working, should I take your word as my opinion about it? ;)
Anyway, whether it works ok or not, I don't really care about... I was just replying to an accusation for which I'm doing this to have the sources so that I can port it to AROS :) I tell you again: there are far better players out there to be ported to AROS.
> Anyway....I still can't belive that just because a plugin module is gpl
> and then whole program that uses that plugin is gpl ?
Yes.
> what if someone else writes a plugin for a software, and used gpl source,
> is that software also gpl ? even if author of software didn't know/did it ?
No, of course not. In that case it's the user of the plugin that is not complying with the GPL.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 34 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 02-Nov-2002 23:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 33 (Fabio Alemagna):
Tell you what... You're worse than 4play:) (that IS an insult...)
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 35 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Nov-2002 23:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 32 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
> Just a serious question... What are you doing here? What exactly do you want?
> Why are you attacking anyone you can? Cause it makes you feel good? If it does,
> the you should REALLY visit a doctor...
Alkis, or drunk, or whatever is your name, what do YOU want, exactly? What is that you have against what I said? Don't you think it's right what I said? If not, why not? Can you motivate?
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 36 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 02-Nov-2002 23:38 GMT
In reply to Comment 35 (Fabio Alemagna):
Fabio, or asshole, whatever your real name is, I ask about the motivation behind
all the stuff you are doing... What the fuck are you? The protector of justice?
In my oppinion you're a really bad person. You're just an asshole... Nothing
less nothing more. You don't deserve being in here...
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 37 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Gabriele Favrin on 02-Nov-2002 23:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 30 (catohagen):
>Frogger works ok.....just because you've heard its not working, you take his
>word as your opinion about it ?
It crashed me while trying to play an ogg file.
It freezed my machine and cause a loong validation.
Anyway this thread is ridicolous, as well as it's reidicolous
to have peope who thinks it's right to GET other's work, rearrange it
and sell it without respect licences. OSS software doesn't just mean
FREE software and FREE SOURCES, it's a different way of sharing
work. Now, all these offensive words against Fabio aren't
the right way to show how MATURE and SERIOUS is the Amiga
community. I think that someone should not only inform
the ffmpeg authors but also write on slashdot about this nice
guy and all people who 'support' him, to show WHAT is not
the so called 'Amiga Community'.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 38 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Nov-2002 23:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 36 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
> Fabio, or asshole, whatever your real name is, I ask about the motivation behind
> all the stuff you are doing...
First of all, what is exactly that I am doing? I asked one question. That's all that I did. The rest came all from you "nice guys" :)
In the second place, the motivation behind my question was to see whether the author is respecting the license of the code that he uses and sells. Why am I interested in it? Because I believe in free sw and open source in general, and I just cannot stand people who play that way with other people's money.
> What the fuck are you? The protector of justice?
Maybe. Something wrong with that? "It's a tough job, but someone gotta do it".
> In my oppinion you're a really bad person. You're just an asshole... Nothing
> less nothing more. You don't deserve being in here...
Whatever, drunky, but take a chill pill, your blood pressure is getting to high :)
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 39 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 03-Nov-2002 00:13 GMT
Return of the GPL-nazis?
Come, quick, put this up on slashdot! :-D
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 40 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Christoph Gutjahr on 03-Nov-2002 00:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 19 (Fabio Alemagna):
>> Diplomatic? Don't get what needs to be "diplomatic" about all this...
That's obvious.
>> do you mean that I should have emailed the author privately?
Yes.
>> Why? So that people don't notice anything?
To give the author a chance to respond to your accusations. If he ignores you, insults you or doesn't come up with a reasonable explanation, you can still badmouth him in public and try to enforce the GPL by motivating the masses to lynch him immediately.
For all you know, he could..
a) have got a closed source licence from the original authors
b) be willing to send you the sources
c) be totally surprised that he's breaking the GPL (*if* he is, I'm not the one to judge that)
>> And why should I care?
This guy is *developing*, good, *useful* stuff for AmigaOS. That's why you should care.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 41 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 03-Nov-2002 00:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 40 (Christoph Gutjahr):
> >> Why? So that people don't notice anything?
> To give the author a chance to respond to your accusations.
What is my accusation? That he's using GPL'd code in Frogger? That's a fact, not an accusation, a fact that shows up just by looking at the Frogger's webpage and downloading the sources of the only two codecs whose sources are available.
> If he ignores
> you, insults you or doesn't come up with a reasonable explanation, you can
> still badmouth him in public and try to enforce the GPL by motivating the
> masses to lynch him immediately.
I haven't badmouthed anyone, I just asked whether would he send those sources to me. All the badmouthing came from the others who replied to my post.
> For all you know, he could..
> a) have got a closed source licence from the original authors
Unlikely, very unlikely.
> b) be willing to send you the sources
That's what I asked.
> c) be totally surprised that he's breaking the GPL (*if* he is, I'm not the
> one to judge that)
He is, and everyone who understands English can understand that too, given he/she first readed the license.
> >> And why should I care?
> This guy is *developing*, good, *useful* stuff for AmigaOS. That's why you
> should care.
This guy is porting other poeple's sw on AmigaOS and not telling the whole story to his customers, moreover this guy is not complying with the licenses of the codecs he uses. So, if he doesn't care about so important stuff, why should I?
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 42 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Steffen Haeuser on 03-Nov-2002 01:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 41 (Fabio Alemagna):
My point of view about "Frogger and the GPL":
It is clear that the answer to this question depends on if this is
"mere aggregation" or if it is "one program". I'd recommend to the author of
Frogger to investigate this ASAP (this depends on how the Codecs communicate with
the main program of course, and that I don't know for Frogger), so that people
cannot claim nasty stuff about him anymore, and give a report on his findings
then. To answer all questions and such.
Personally I'd GUESS it is mere aggregation (and so does not require GPL-ization of Frogger),
but I really cannot know as I do not know which sort of mechanism Frogger uses
there.
Please be aware that according to the GPL FAQ "in the end only a judge can
decide if it is mere aggregation or a single program". This means if one guy
says "He has to release it" and the Frogger-author says "It's aggregation, I
do not have to release it" the only thing the guy wanting the source-code
is to sue him (if he cannot come to terms in other ways with him). Or let
the FSF sue him, in case they agree with him on the matter.
Any other
talk is useless. Note that the GPL FAQ lists some ideas about when something
is aggregation and when not, but of course, as this FAQ is not part of the
GPL these are not required to accept. The GPL FAQ says itselves that in the
end only a judge can decide if it is aggregation or not. And that those
criteria it offers about aggregation are only meant as suggestions to decide
in such a matter.
*Personally* I'd make the difference on the question "Can it theoretically
also be used by a different program than Frogger - assuming the author of the
different program gets the API documented by the Frogger author". If the
answer is "Yes" I'd think we should call it "Mere Aggregation". If it can
ONLY be used by Frogger even if the API is known than I'd think Frogger would
fall under the GPL. As then it would be "one program".
It is of course true that the Plugin in question will DEFINITELY fall under
the GPL, no matter of what the result of the aggregation-question. So at
least the source-code of the plugin will need to be put into GPL. Though
of course you can ask for it in a MUCH nicer way. You don't have to do it the
"You bastard harmed the GPL, now give it away at once" style. That's absolutely
not needed.
To the guy demanding GPL-ization of Frogger: You could have discussed this
with the author in a civil manner by email instead of dragging it into the
public.
Steffen Haeuser
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 43 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 03-Nov-2002 01:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 42 (Steffen Haeuser):
> You don't have to do it the
> "You bastard harmed the GPL, now give it away at once" style. That's absolutely
> not needed.
I didn't do that. I just asked whether I could get the sources or not.
> To the guy demanding GPL-ization of Frogger: You could have discussed this
> with the author in a civil manner by email instead of dragging it into the
> public.
What's wrong with making the thing public? The author is not complying with the codecs' licenses either way you put it, be it mere aggregation or not, because the code of all codecs used by frogger, which fall either under the GPL or LGPL license, must be released under their respective licenses.
Don't understand why one can publicly behave incorrectly and I cannot publicly make people notice it.
Strange conception of the "right thing" that you guys have... got me thinking.
Steffen Haeuser
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 44 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 03-Nov-2002 01:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 43 (Fabio Alemagna):
> Strange conception of the "right thing" that you guys have... got me thinking.
>
> Steffen Haeuser
Oops, that last line shouldn't have been there... forgot to delete it, sorry.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 45 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Steffen Haeuser on 03-Nov-2002 02:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 44 (Fabio Alemagna):
No problem... I think most people should have understood you just forgot to
cut the line...
Anyways, I think before blaming someone for something you should give him the opportunity to reach without any public accusations.
And as you are surely aware the matter if something is a aggregation or
a single program *is* a bit a matter of gray. Not knowing his plugin-API
I could not say which way it is. So you could easily have accused
something in public, and later found out you were wrong.
After all - what would it have cost you to wait with any public statements
and just contact the guy privately ? If he did not reply the way you
wanted to you still could drag it into the public - and lost nothing more
asides from a few-days-delay maybe. But as to my experience most authors
of Amiga software generally react to their email, even if it is unpleasant
to them, so you could discuss surely it with him ...
I think GPL or Not-GPL there are ALWAYS certain "niceties" which should
be followed. And accusing someone of violating a licence, there he should
be given the chance to react *before* this is dragged into the public.
Anything else is very aggressive behaviour IMHO. It is like shouting
"You bastard did not comply to the licence, now do so at once!" You still
could have dragged it into the public, if everything else fails. But doing
this before anything else ?
Personally I do not see the sense in discussing it publicly anyways (unless
you are unsure if you are right or not and want to ask other people about it - but even this could be done by private email to some people whom you
think are acknowledged enough about the GPL to actually help you there). If you are sure about your point I do not see much more options asides from:
- Ask the Frogger author by email to send you the source-code
- sue him (which also would not make sense before you discussed it with him
privately)
- ask the FSF if they'd sue him (where they would surely ask you first thing
if you asked the guy privately about it)
Anything else does not really make sense to me.
The only thing why it would make sense to me to drag it into the public would be if you are not sure if you are right, to discuss this with others.
Steffen Haeuser
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 46 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Gabriele Favrin on 03-Nov-2002 04:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 45 (Steffen Haeuser):
IMHO Fabio did the right thing.
Best thinng is to talk in public, so he will get a public
answer and no answer will mean something as well.
Also all attacks he got means something about how MATURE
and intelligent is the so called 'Amiga community' right
now.
Amiga present and future depends on a lot of open source software
and it's time that both Amiga USERS and PROGRAMMERS learn
what exactly is OSS and to respect licences (for programmers)
and being respected (as users).
I look forward for Frogger sources (full or at least the
codecs). Maybe Amiga community will ne able to make it a bit
more stable then now! ;-)
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 47 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Sebastian Weimer on 03-Nov-2002 08:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 23 (Sebastian Weimer (Anonymous (130.83.244.130))):
>> to quote the gpl faq
>> |What constitutes combining two parts into one program?
>> |This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide.
>>
>> I think it comes down to this question
>Sure, but you missed to quote the whole answer to the question:
Hmm I tried to quote the part you left out ;)
> but of course this doesn't meant that the sources of the modified codecs
> don't have to be released, rather it REALLY means that AT LEAST the sources of
> the codecs have to be released.
I with agree with you here
Sebastian
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 48 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Timothy De Groote on 03-Nov-2002 10:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 43 (Fabio Alemagna):
1st) Steffen and i have private opinions and if a member of Hyperion expresses a view it should not be seen as 'officia' Hyperion view. Steffen expresses his personal view so don't imply things about 'you guys think what is the right thing'
2nd) What purpose does this serve ? the GPL does not require sources to be released unless someone ASKS for them at the author and if the author feels he doesn't have to then this is too bad. Sue him if you want. OTOH are you interested to port Frogger ? If not why would you want the source ? So you must be a programmer then ? :)
3rd) Congrats to Frogger author for contuning work on it, i registered it and i don't give a rats ass if it's GPL or not. GPL is not ment to tease people or other nasty stuff.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 49 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by SimplePPC on 03-Nov-2002 10:32 GMT
Small question,
IF an MP3 Player uses a GPL library like mpeg_libMAD or something does that imply the Mp3 player has to be opensourced ?
IF Frogger uses a system that makes it able to use CODECS and the CODECS are
opensourced i do no see the problem.
What if the Frogger author finds a bug in the CODEC and fixes it and posts the
fix to the CVS of that CODEC ? Will you kick him off because he uses to CODEC
for a player ? :) makes no sense at all :)
GPL shouldn't be used as a bad thing IMHO
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 50 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 03-Nov-2002 11:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 48 (Timothy De Groote):
> 2nd) What purpose does this serve ? the GPL does not require sources to be
> released unless someone ASKS for them at the author and if the author feels
> he doesn't have to then this is too bad.
I asked if I could get hold of the sources, that's all I did. I don't see any write offer for sources in the Frogger's distribution, so there is indeed a problem, from wherever you look at it.
> Sue him if you want. OTOH are you
> interested to port Frogger ?
No, not at all. I'm interested in open source and free software, though, and I don't like when people don't respect other people's work.
> If not why would you want the source ? So you must be a programmer then ? :)
I don't want the sources, in fact, but since Frogger uses modules under GPL and LGPL, it has to comply with those licenses. It's about legality and illegality, it's about honesty and disonesty, and it's about ethical and unethical behaviour. I never step back when I can do something to fix things.
> 3rd) Congrats to Frogger author for contuning work on it, i registered it and
> i don't give a rats ass if it's GPL or not. GPL is not ment to tease people
> or other nasty stuff.
GPL is meant to let the SW free. you may disagree with that, or you may not, but you are FORCED to stay at what GPL says, if you want to use GPL'ed sw. If you don't like the GPL then don't use SW under GPL and do it by yourself.
Is that so hard to understand? I'm ashamed by the level of ignorance and disonesty that I'm facing with almost all the guys that replied to my post. I hope there's still some sane amigans out there. I'm sure there are... They just hide. At least that what I like to believe...
Anonymous, there are 83 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 83]
Back to Top