19-Apr-2024 12:01 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 83 items in your selection (but only 33 shown due to limitation) [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 51 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 03-Nov-2002 11:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 50 (Fabio Alemagna):
>I hope there's still some sane amigans out there. I'm sure there are... They just hide.
Shall I call Shawn for you?
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 52 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 03-Nov-2002 11:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 50 (Fabio Alemagna):
1) It does NOT force the software to be free...
2) You did not ASK... You accused and threatened.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 53 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 03-Nov-2002 11:42 GMT
In reply to Comment 50 (Fabio Alemagna):
Has there ever been a court case over the GPL, and if so in which
country?
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 54 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Gabriele Favrin on 03-Nov-2002 11:42 GMT
Today I requested the frogger sources to the author.
I found frogger good but unstable and I want to make it more
stable at least for my system envrionment.
I also asked for the LGPL codecs modified by him.
I'll let you know if he will send the sources me or not.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 55 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 03-Nov-2002 11:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 52 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
> 1) It does NOT force the software to be free...
What exactly are you talking about? What is "it"? What is "software"? Can we have a conversation in plain English?
> 2) You did not ASK... You accused and threatened.
I Asked if I the author would send the sources to me, as required by the GPL. That's all I did. I haven't accused, but notices some facts, that is the LGPL and/or GPL licenses of the codecs used are not respected. That's a FACT. I haven't treatened, I just said that if nothing would be done about this I would inform the interested guys.
The funny thing is that as soon as I did that (because I did inform the ffmpeg guys), the Frogger's author showed up.
Frogger is a publicly downloadable sw which publicly infridges some licenses, I don't see why I can't publicly make people notice it.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 56 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 03-Nov-2002 11:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 53 (Don Cox):
> Has there ever been a court case over the GPL, and if so in which
> country?
http://www.newtechusa.com/Viewpoints/GPLChallenge.asp
That's the only one I know of. In all other cases in which the GPL (or derivative of it) has been infridged, the culprit always ended up spontaneously complying with the license.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 57 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Steffen Haeuser on 03-Nov-2002 15:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 49 (SimplePPC):
>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 ?
This cannot be principially answered. It depends on if mpeg_libMAD is used
as an aggregation of independent programs (libMAD and the Player itselves)
or if the player and libMAD are formed into ONE program. In the first case
only the libMAD is GPL, in the second case the whole player. This is the
same issue like with Frogger. It depends if it is a code aggregation or not.
And I think as such unresolved things are involved it is only the right thing that the author is first informed by private email before such things
are dragged out into the public. What's the purpose of dragging it into
the public anyways ? Theoretically he doesn't even have to answer for it
I think, as he did not receive a request - there's a difference between a
request and a public accusation I think.
After all, it might even be he doesn't read ANN (I know a lot of
software authors do not read ANN due to the sometimes very stupid discussions going on there).
Also think of this: Let's imagine someone blames a player author for
not conforming to the GPL. Let's further imagine it is in the end only a
code aggregation and that he does not have to put THE WHOLE THING under GPL (but only the Codec). This could even be termed badmouthing the author then...
Steffen
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 58 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Steffen Haeuser on 03-Nov-2002 15:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 50 (Fabio Alemagna):
>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.
Technically speaken you didn't ask. ANN Forum != Frogger author. He might
even not read this forum.
At least you didn't unless you also sent a private email (or letter) to the Frogger author asking for the source-code. I don't know this of course.
Well, I just saw someone else requested the source-code now from the Frogger-author like it's supposed to be done, so let's just wait and see what comes out of it.
Steffen
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 59 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by catohagen on 03-Nov-2002 15:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 56 (Fabio Alemagna):
have you checked the amp2 and Moovid archives for similar 'crime' ?
I know its a shitty job, but someone has to do it :)
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 60 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 03-Nov-2002 15:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 58 (Steffen Haeuser):
>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.
Technically speaken you didn't ask. ANN Forum != Frogger author. He might
even not read this forum.
In fact I didn't ask the Author, I asked if _someone_ _knew_ whether the author would send the sources in case one wanted them. *I* am not interested in those sources, so *I* had nothing to ask the Author directly. Mine was just curiosity and concern about the legal state of Frogger.
> Well, I just saw someone else requested the source-code now from the
> Frogger-author like it's supposed to be done, so let's just wait and see what
> comes out of it.
The Frogger's author has decided to comply with the license, after admitting his faults. Look here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tvision/message/1971
He did it in good faith, and I had almost no doubt about that, nonetheless these things need to be fixed.
Also, the ffmpeg guys agreed that the Frogger's author is doing something not right, and agreed on emailing him privately.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 61 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 03-Nov-2002 15:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 59 (catohagen):
> have you checked the amp2 and Moovid archives for similar 'crime' ?
> I know its a shitty job, but someone has to do it :)
I did notify the ffmpeg guys about those, but since I have no proves that they infridge anything, I just told'em to check them out, if they wish. Seeing if they infridge the GPL and LGP licenses is a tougher job for those two programs, because there's no source code available at all, for what I can see, thereofre some disassemblying is required. It will be up to them to decide what to do.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 62 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 03-Nov-2002 16:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 50 (Fabio Alemagna):
> 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.
And why did you ask this question on a public board that serves as NEWS site and not a discussion board?
What if the author of frogger newer reads ann.lu because its full of crap written by strange people like you?
You surely have a huuuuuuuuuuge mental problem. Visit a doctor ASAP!!
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 63 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 03-Nov-2002 16:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 61 (Fabio Alemagna):
AROS hacker, right? again, visit a doctor ASAP!!
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 64 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by alan buxey on 03-Nov-2002 16:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (Fabio Alemagna):
..this is the 'cancer' of GPL that people
have talked about before....and also a good
look at the legalities is needed. GPL
really needs some legal testing.
IF the main code is a port of GPL program, then
yes - the source code must be released.
if a playback module is based on GPL..then only the
sourcecode for that needs to be released.
IF, however, that code is GPL and not LGPL then
you state - correctly - that the WHOLE program
must be released as sourcecode. i have big big issues
with this as do many other people. this is where
GPL causes big problems....and if my code uses
a function of some GPL code to do its work why
SHOULD my whole program be open to view freely?
As for Frogger.... you already can download the binaries
freely....is there a specific agenda or reason why
you want the sourcecode for it?
alan
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 65 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 03-Nov-2002 16:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 62 (Anonymous):
> > 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.
> And why did you ask this question on a public board that serves as NEWS site and
> not a discussion board?
I posted a comment to the announcement of a new Frogger's version. My question was intended for this site's audience, not for the Frogger's author drectly, that is I was asking you guys if you knew whether the author would send the sources upon request.
What's wrong with that? Does it bother you so much that such thing got noticed?
However, the discussion is finished because the Frogger's author acknowledged his fault and said he will cope with the license.
As for the doctor, ever tried following your same advices?
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 66 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 03-Nov-2002 16:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 64 (alan buxey):
> IF, however, that code is GPL and not LGPL then
> you state - correctly - that the WHOLE program
> must be released as sourcecode. i have big big issues
> with this as do many other people. this is where
> GPL causes big problems....and if my code uses
> a function of some GPL code to do its work why
> SHOULD my whole program be open to view freely?
Because when you decide to use GPL'd sw then you have to cope with its license, if you don't like it then don't use it and do it by yourself. Why is that so hard to understand? The GPL says this: "Look, I give you permission to create a derivative of my sw, but the condition for this is that you have to make your SW GPL'd too. Do you agree? If yes, then go ahead, if not, bye."
> As for Frogger.... you already can download the binaries
> freely....is there a specific agenda or reason why
> you want the sourcecode for it?
I don't want it, I just want that things to go the way they have to. If frogger uses GPL'ed or LGPL'ed code, then it must cope with those licenses, that's all.
Why can't I make people notice that?
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 67 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Alkemyst on 03-Nov-2002 17:05 GMT
I have not read all the comments cos im tired.
I have not read any GPL or what ever, but here is my guess.
I make an player that uses a GPL library, that is in Libs: ,
Note that i dont bulid the library into the player its self.
I then alter the library to support more formatts, i would then guess that i would have to submit the library back to the commuity, but not the player its self
as the player is not GPL.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 68 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 03-Nov-2002 17:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 67 (Alkemyst):
> I have not read any GPL or what ever, but here is my guess.
That's your problem, and everyone else's too: no guesses are allowed, only a proper knowledge of the matter. If you don't know how the GPL works, don't make any guess.
In short: you are wrong. Definitely wrong.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 69 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 03-Nov-2002 19:41 GMT
Fabio Alemagna wrote:
"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?"
and then repeatedly that:
"The author is not complying with the codecs' licenses"
still without having asked the author, and as such without knowing if the (L)GPL licenses were broken or not.
Lying for the pleasure of trolling and wasting other people's time.
That's unconstructive behaviour obviously.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 70 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 03-Nov-2002 20:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 69 (Anonymous):
The Frogger's author himself admitted he did something wrong, and the ffmpeg guys agreed with me, so no, I'm not lying.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 71 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Alkemyst on 03-Nov-2002 21:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 68 (Fabio Alemagna):
There was no need to insult me as i was never claiming that i knew anything in the first place.
but your a Moxxxx fxxxxx
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 72 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 03-Nov-2002 22:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 71 (Alkemyst):
> There was no need to insult me as i was never claiming that i knew anything in
> the first place.
Gosh, when and where did I insult you? What is that you find insulting in my words? Which part exactly of what I wrote is insulting?
> but your a Moxxxx fxxxxx
Look, _those_ are insults.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 73 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Steffen Haeuser on 03-Nov-2002 23:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 72 (Fabio Alemagna):
Hi!
Well, still the whole issue depends if the player and the codecs are a
"single program" or if they are "an aggregate of seperate programs". In one
case all goes into GPL, in the other case only the codec goes into GPL.
You can read details about this on the GPL FAQ (as sadly the GPL itselves is not very specific about it) in the points: "What is the difference between mere aggregation and combining two modules into one program?"
and more importantly - as this is EXACTLY the case at hand - "Can I use
the GPL for a Plugin for a non-free program?"
As according to the author (I asked him by email) he is using LoadSeg for
loading a plugin - which is following a similar purpose on a plugin for
an Amiga-program like fork/exec on Linux which are specifically mentioned
in this section of the GPL FAQ as a valid argumentation that ONLY THE PLUGIN
would go into GPL.
And so we would be here again - a lot of "noise" and in the end everything
falls down to nothing. A lot of stuff could have been avoided, if the whole
stuff would not have been discussed on a public forum.
Steffen Haeuser
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 74 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 03-Nov-2002 23:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 73 (Steffen Haeuser):
> As according to the author (I asked him by email) he is using LoadSeg for
> loading a plugin - which is following a similar purpose on a plugin for
> an Amiga-program like fork/exec on Linux which are specifically mentioned
> in this section of the GPL FAQ as a valid argumentation that ONLY THE PLUGIN
> would go into GPL.
No, I'm sorry but that's not correct. LoadSeg() merely loads in memory the plugin and relocates it, if you want an analogous of fork()/exec() pair then you gotta have a look at System(), or at the LoadSeg()/CreateNewProc() pair. As long as the plugin and the main program share the same address space and memory structures, and as long as the main program invokes functions that are present in the plugin trough the mechanism of a simple C function call, then the couple (main_program, plugin) doesn't costitute a mere aggregate, but rather a whole program.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 75 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Steffen Haeuser on 04-Nov-2002 15:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 74 (Fabio Alemagna):
>No, I'm sorry but that's not correct. LoadSeg() merely loads in memory the >plugin and relocates it, if you want an analogous of fork()/exec() pair >then >you gotta have a look at System(), or at the >LoadSeg()/CreateNewProc() pair.
Sure. But that does not really change the situation as far as the GPL is concerned. I wanted to keep my post easy.
>As long as the plugin and the main program share the same address space >and memory structures, and as long as the main program invokes functions >that are present in the plugin trough the mechanism of a simple C function
There are - even the GPL FAQ admits this - borderline cases, like cited by me.
>call, then the couple (main_program, plugin) doesn't costitute a mere >aggregate, but rather a whole program.
Be aware that this is ONE possible interpretation (like done in the GPL FAQ). The GPL FAQ outlines that there might be others and "ultimately only a judge can decide". After discussing with Sebastian, I am quite sure this can only seriously be called an aggregate of several executables.
Still I do not see a point in public accusations here.
Steffen Haeuser
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 76 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 04-Nov-2002 18:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 71 (Alkemyst):
AAAAAAAAAAAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAH!
Point 1) A MOS FANATIC!? LOL!
Point 2) A MOS version of frogger is already available... Why would he want
the source?
Your point?
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 77 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Alkemyst on 05-Nov-2002 00:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 76 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
I dont see what your saying has anything todo with my comment.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 78 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 05-Nov-2002 09:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 74 (Fabio Alemagna):
"No, I'm sorry but that's not correct. LoadSeg() merely loads in memory the plugin and relocates it, if you
want an analogous of fork()/exec() pair then you gotta have a look at System(), or at the
LoadSeg()/CreateNewProc() pair. As long as the plugin and the main program share the same address
space and memory structures, and as long as the main program invokes functions that are present in the
plugin trough the mechanism of a simple C function call, then the couple (main_program, plugin) doesn't
costitute a mere aggregate, but rather a whole program. "
Try explaining that to a judge.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 79 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 05-Nov-2002 12:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 77 (Alkemyst):
Reread your post god damn it!
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 80 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Alkemyst on 05-Nov-2002 15:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 79 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
But i dont not mention anything about MOS in my comment.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 81 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Alkemyst on 05-Nov-2002 15:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 79 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
YOU FOOL i get what your on about know.
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 82 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 31-Aug-2004 12:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 81 (Alkemyst):
Mother Fucker
Frogger 2.05 (code name: 'never say never') : Comment 83 of 83ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 01-Sep-2004 03:08 GMT
In reply to Comment 74 (Fabio Alemagna):
"as long as the main program invokes functions that are present in the plugin trough the mechanism of a simple C function call, then the couple (main_program, plugin) doesn't costitute a mere aggregate, but rather a whole program."

Given the design of AmigaOS, MorphOS and AROS, that means that all I have to do is write a single GPL program, and that way I will force both Genesi and Hyperion to open up ALL their source code: every single system library is in the same address space as my executable.

Brilliant, Fabio. Insanely great way to "take care" of the competition.
Anonymous, there are 83 items in your selection (but only 33 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 83]
Back to Top