24-Apr-2024 14:39 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 378 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 250] [251 - 300] [301 - 350] [351 - 378]
[Forum] AMP2 breaking GPL licences?ANN.lu
Posted on 31-Aug-2004 11:29 GMT by John Stompton (Edited on 2004-09-01 20:11:04 GMT by Christophe Decanini)378 comments
View flat
View list
With the release of AMP for OS4 the binaries comes with compiler symbols, which reveals few interesting things. Amidog movie player is staticaly linked with libdvdread (GPL) libdecss (GPL) libdvdnav (GPL) and libquicktime (LGPL). Also, mpeg video decoder uses libmpeg2 (GPL) and ac3 decoder uses liba52 (GPL). Apparently, AMP author was warned about that on his discussion board, but seems like he silently ignored the fact of breaking GPL licence(s).

[Christophe - Amidog has released the AMP sources]
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 1 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 31-Aug-2004 09:34 GMT
Dont you have something better to do?
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 2 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by don't break trolls heart on 31-Aug-2004 09:41 GMT
<a href="http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6498&forum=3">AmiDog you are the best amiga programer on the planet !
</a>
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 3 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by hooligan/dcs on 31-Aug-2004 09:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (Anonymous):
See the questionmark in the topic. The guy is unsure ;-)

Anyhoooo... gpl is the root of all evil :)
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 4 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 31-Aug-2004 09:59 GMT
Oh no, not another crucifiction of a commercial Amiga software programmer for coming closer than 3 feet from GPL software... For christ sake, do you people not want software for the Amiga community? I'm asking because this is probably the most effective way of killing Amiga software development.
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 5 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Kronos on 31-Aug-2004 10:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Sammy Nordström):
Now thats quite rich coming from you ....

With open-soure you got exactly 3 options (regardless wether it is GPL or any other licence).

1. Obey to the rules
2. Leave it out of your project
3. Get o.k. from original coders to use it under a different licence

Anything else is just pure IP-theft, and should not supported no matter how much you like the platform or not.
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 6 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Richi on 31-Aug-2004 10:10 GMT
Shame on you, John Stompton
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 7 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 31-Aug-2004 10:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Sammy Nordström):
Wait, so you actually blame the messenger, instead of the guy who has used other peoples work in an illegal way? Brilliant.
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 8 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 31-Aug-2004 10:14 GMT
From http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/GPL%20linking%20exception

Some free software The term free software is used in essentially two different ways:

1. Software that can be used, copied, studied and modified and redistributed by the user;
2. Software which may be copied and used without payment, also referred to as freeware (or gratis software by advocates of the first variety).

These definitions may conflict, and a piece of software that is free in the first sense may not be free in the second, and vice versa.
..... Click the link for more information.
projects, like GNU Classpath GNU Classpath is an attempt to create a free implementation of the standard class library for Java. It is a part of the Free Software Foundation's GNU project. Despite the massive size of the library to be replicated, the majority of the task is done aside from a portable Swing implementation.

GNU Classpath is used by many Free Software Java Virtual Machine projects. e.g. SableVM because every Java Virtual Machine must have its Java Library (called Classpath) to be able to operate.
..... Click the link for more information.
, distribute code under the terms of the GPL The GNU General Public License is a copyleft free software license, created by the GNU project in 1988. It is also referred to as the GNU GPL or, when there is no risk of confusion with other "general public licenses," simply the GPL.

The purpose of the GPL is to grant the user rights to copy, modify, and redistribute programs (normally prohibited by copyright), and to ensure
..... Click the link for more information.
but with the following clarification and special exception:

Linking this library statically or dynamically with other modules is making
a combined work based on this library. Thus, the terms and conditions of the
GNU General Public License cover the whole combination.

As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you
permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an
executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules,
and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your
choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module,
the terms and conditions of the license of that module. An independent
module is a module which is not derived from or based on this library.
If you modify this library, you may extend this exception to your
version of the library, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do
not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version.
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 9 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 31-Aug-2004 10:19 GMT
Also note that it is possible that AmiDog did get the rights to use these packages in a shareware product, releasing something under GPL does not prohibit the author to give specific rights to other persons.
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 10 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by takemehomegrandma on 31-Aug-2004 10:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Sammy Nordström):
> For christ sake, do you people not want software for the Amiga community?

At all costs, no matter if it even parasites on other peoples hard work? I'd say "obey the license" instead! I really hope that this is not a case of braking the GPL ...
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 11 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 31-Aug-2004 10:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 7 (Anonymous):
"Wait, so you actually blame the messenger, instead of the guy who has used other peoples work in an illegal way? Brilliant."

There's a way to report a gpl licence abuse, this here won't help, but contacting the authors of the libs in question might.

Also note that LGPL does offer the right to link a closed project with it, while GPL *might* prohibit it, see the post of mine before.

And third, as kronos stated, you can always get permission of the author of the package.
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 12 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 31-Aug-2004 10:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (takemehomegrandma):
Insteadof posting such threads Johan should have contacted the people involved (amidog & the authors of the said libraries).

No matter what you or i say won't have any importance to this, and in a free world we still live by the "innocent untill proven guilty" part.

And no, the fact that AMP is linked to said libs isn't proof, the absence or presence of an agreement between him & the respective authors of said libs howerer, would be.
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 13 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 31-Aug-2004 10:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (don't break trolls heart):
He's not "the best programmer in the world" but he's a good one and a very good
chap. Whichever side you're on, attacking his is an idiocy.
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 14 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by pixie on 31-Aug-2004 10:37 GMT
it's all work GPL!? so what is the problem of having a program not free to use some free libraries!?? It must be the worst thing in computer world! sigh
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 15 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by pixie on 31-Aug-2004 10:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (Kronos):
Caution at this kind of reasonings... it can well be come from guys that afterwards have no problem in breaking EULAS... Not saying you have Kronos, it isn't straight driven at you
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 16 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 31-Aug-2004 10:42 GMT
In reply to Comment 14 (pixie):
"it's all work GPL!? so what is the problem of having a program not free to use some free libraries!??"

As I understand it, no problem provided AmiDog makes his source code available to users of his program. Has anyone requested the source code?
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 17 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Tryo on 31-Aug-2004 10:49 GMT
Here's an interesting read of what happened to Frogger:

http://www.ann.lu/comments2.cgi^view=1036236980&category=news
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 18 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Tryo on 31-Aug-2004 10:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (Tryo):
Correct link: http://www.ann.lu/comments2.cgi?view=1036236980&category=news
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 19 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Kronos on 31-Aug-2004 10:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (pixie):
Well there is big difference in an EULA and a OS-licence.

The open-source licences gives you rights that you otherwise wouldn't have on a free piece of SW.

The EULA tries to take away the rights you have under the law for a product you payed.
Most countries put their consumer-laws over EULAs meaning that clauses of the EULA are invalid when they limit what the law defines as "fair use".

But comparing apples with turnips has allways been fun, so why stop now ....
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 20 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 31-Aug-2004 11:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Sammy Nordström):
> Oh no, not another crucifiction of a commercial Amiga software programmer for
> coming closer than 3 feet from GPL software... For christ sake, do you people
> not want software for the Amiga community? I'm asking because this is probably
> the most effective way of killing Amiga software development.

Ah, I see, so breaking licenses, as long as the software is for AmigaOS, is ok?

The GPL license is quite clear, if you don't agree with it then do not use the software licensed under that license.
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 21 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by pixie on 31-Aug-2004 11:01 GMT
This GPL libs allows you to see a movie!? Then use them only! ;)
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 22 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by pixie on 31-Aug-2004 11:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 19 (Kronos):
you didn't get my point after all, it's what you get when you starting comparing tulips with oranges... ;b
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 23 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Elwood on 31-Aug-2004 11:09 GMT
So NEVER use GPL !
I'll bet that he can do much better code than the GPL one he uses...
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 24 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by pixie on 31-Aug-2004 11:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 20 (Fabio Alemagna):
@Don Cox:
> As I understand it, no problem provided AmiDog makes his source code
> available to users of his program. Has anyone requested the source code?

Source code for the librarie I would assume... :?

@Fabio:

> Ah, I see, so breaking licenses, as long as the software is for AmigaOS, is ok?

And if you're not paying for the GPLed libraries but rather on the main program exe!? But that doesn't require work...

> The GPL license is quite clear, if you don't agree with it then do not use the software licensed under that license.

Actually it seems it's not so clear ;b, take comment 8 by Amon_Re for example...
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 25 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 31-Aug-2004 11:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 24 (pixie):
> > Ah, I see, so breaking licenses, as long as the software is for AmigaOS, is
> > ok?
>
> And if you're not paying for the GPLed libraries but rather on the main
> program exe!? But that doesn't require work...

I'm not sure of what you mean by that.

> > The GPL license is quite clear, if you don't agree with it then do not use
> > the software licensed under that license.

> Actually it seems it's not so clear ;b, take comment 8 by Amon_Re for
> example...

I don't see anything special in Amon's message. ClassPath's license explicitely allows for combining the library with other binary modules under specific circumstances, but that's a license extension. The GPL'd libraries used by AMP do not contain such an exception, af far as I am aware of, hence the plain GPL applies, and if there might be doubts about the GPL when shared libraries are involved, it here appears that the libraries are statically linked with the program, thus there may be no doubt whatsoever.

If AMP's author hasn't gotten a special deal with those libraries' authors AND if the AMP distribution does not contain a written offer for the sources AND if AMP's author is not willing to release the sources on demand, then AMP is in breach of the GPL.
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 26 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 31-Aug-2004 11:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 20 (Fabio Alemagna):
>Ah, I see, so breaking licenses, as long as the software is for AmigaOS, is
>ok?

I wasn't talking about wether it was ok to break licenses or not, I was talking about this kind of public crucifiction of programmers everytime someone *suspects* a violation of the GPL. As explained multiple times in this thread already, there are appropriate ways of handling these kind of issues and posting this kind of threads on public forums are not one of them.
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 27 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 31-Aug-2004 11:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (Fabio Alemagna):
>If AMP's author hasn't gotten... <snip>

Exactly, "if". Do you want to know for sure? Then go find out instead of posting this unsubstantiated defamation of AmiDog.
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 28 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Nicolas Mendoza on 31-Aug-2004 11:41 GMT
Did anyone ask for the sources like the GPL states?
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 29 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by pixie on 31-Aug-2004 11:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (Fabio Alemagna):
I just mean the libraries doesn't work alone... but it's ok to use reverse engineering to the the OS3.* codes because they aer well documented but using gpl libraries isn't... because isn't needed reverse engineering... for me it's weird...
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 30 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Ronald St-Maurice on 31-Aug-2004 11:45 GMT
Well then the author can choose to release the source code in 2099. And comply with the GPL at same time.

(IIRC you don't have to release the code right away)
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 31 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Kronos on 31-Aug-2004 11:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 30 (Ronald St-Maurice):
Said who ?

Used GPLed sources ? Must supply full sources for created binaries.
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 32 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Ronald St-Maurice on 31-Aug-2004 11:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 31 (Kronos):
The GPL license is known for being full of loopholes.
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 33 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 31-Aug-2004 11:50 GMT
In reply to Comment 29 (pixie):
Nice one, pixie! Like, he thinks it's more important to protect the intellectual property of an open source programmer that gives away his work with source code to everyone for free than a commercial programmer that is developing software for a living. I'd say that's Fabio in a nutshell for you. =)
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 34 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 31-Aug-2004 11:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (Fabio Alemagna):
That's alot of ANDs (or IF's actually, if he has a deal with the authors he doesn't need to provide his sources eg)

Really, what's the point of us bitching here about it when we aren't in a position to knowall the details?

Just contact the people involved& clear it up with them, i doubt the ogle guys for instance read ann.lu anyway
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 35 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 31-Aug-2004 11:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (Fabio Alemagna):
BTW, comment 8 was an example, i don't know the exact licence included with said libs.

It was just an example that some revisions of GPL have precisely exceptions, so it's not because some package contains the phrase "GPL licence" that it's always exactly the same, you have to read it first :P
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 36 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 31-Aug-2004 11:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 28 (Nicolas Mendoza):
I didn't & i won't, got no use of them, also, nobody has bothered sofar to actually verify if he's actually breaking the "licence", he got have gotten a different licence by the authors of said libs.

If you suspect a GPL violation, go through the gnu organisation, don't come to nn.lu & troll like a madman.

Use the appropriate channels for the appropriate goals, hell, if the original poster bothered enough to look in the exe & to look up the libs, he could have bothered to actually read the licences & notice that the link explicitly specifies what to do when you see violation
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 37 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 31-Aug-2004 12:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 33 (Sammy Nordström):
No, Fabio has a point, so does the original poster, they're just going at it the wrong way & prefer to crusify people without knowing the full facts.
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 38 of 378ANN.lu
In reply to Comment 7 (Anonymous):
Message removed by Christoph Gutjahr for violation of ANN's posting rules.
Specific reason from moderator: trolling
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 39 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 31-Aug-2004 12:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 8 (Amon_Re):
GPL and LGPL are different...
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 40 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 31-Aug-2004 12:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 39 (Anonymous):
Well duh! I know that doofus, reread what i've been writing all day
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 41 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 31-Aug-2004 12:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 38 (Anonymous):
Please say coherent things and not act like a troll hiden as anonymous. You need think about it and explain a lot more about you said and not spread FUD all time like others...
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 42 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 31-Aug-2004 12:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 27 (Sammy Nordström):
> Exactly, "if". Do you want to know for sure? Then go find out instead of posting
> this unsubstantiated defamation of AmiDog.

I posted "unsubstantiated defamation?" How exactly? Now, that's defamation! Now either you show me where and how I defamated AmiDog, or you're guilty of defamation against me :-) (no, it's not a joke, I'm serious)
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 43 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 31-Aug-2004 12:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 33 (Sammy Nordström):
> Nice one, pixie! Like, he thinks it's more important to protect the intellectual
> property of an open source programmer that gives away his work with source code
> to everyone for free than a commercial programmer that is developing software
> for a living. I'd say that's Fabio in a nutshell for you. =)

Sammy sammy, always the usual rubbish? There's no IP to protect when talking about *API's*, API's are not part of any IP. Go get an education before shouting crap.
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 44 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Sigbjørn Skjæret on 31-Aug-2004 12:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 33 (Sammy Nordström):
"Like, he thinks it's more important to protect the intellectual property of an open source programmer that gives away his work with source code to everyone for free than a commercial programmer that is developing software for a living."

WTF? Are you serious!?

You think it's ok to rip off someone who kindly gives you access to their work, provided you follow their rules, but it's not ok to call attention to the fact that someone not only does so, but also profits from it?

..it's not the blatant disregard for other peoples hard work that gets me, it's people like you who always crawl out of the woodworks to defend them, something you certainly have no business in doing in the first place .. there's only one person who can even try to defend this, and that's the suspected violator...


- CISC
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 45 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Sigbjørn Skjæret on 31-Aug-2004 13:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 32 (Ronald St-Maurice):
No loopholes that allows you to use unlicensed copyrighted work though...


- CISC
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 46 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 31-Aug-2004 13:04 GMT
Authors response here:
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=6498&forum=3&start=20&viewmode=flat&order=0
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 47 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Sigbjørn Skjæret on 31-Aug-2004 13:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 46 (Anonymous):
..well, if you don't fully understand a license you are required to accept to be able to reuse the product in your own (if you don't accept the license, the work falls under copyright, and any use of it would be a breach of the aforementioned), simply stay away from it .. it's as simple as that really...

And regarding "For example, the plugins are seperate programs being started from AMP but they are then calling AMP to get the work done, not the other way around. So, what does that mean according to the GPL?" ..it means your code falls under the GPL .. GPL does not allow any kind of static or dynamic linking of code outside the exception mentioned in section 3...


- CISC
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 48 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 31-Aug-2004 13:49 GMT
Using a GPL'd source without releasing the sourcecode for the program
is piracy. If you sell the result, it's even worse of course: Then
you are selling pirated software to make a personal profit.

I haven't looked at AMP and I don't know if there are different parts
of the AMP package that can be considered different programs. Of
course I don't know about the (rather theoretical IMO) possibility
that the AMP author got special permission. I'm just saying that
there's *no* defense for stealing other people's work, like some
people in this thread are implying. This is not directed towards the
AMP author btw, as I don't know his stance, just towards people in
this thread.
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 49 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by LOL on 31-Aug-2004 13:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 48 (Johan Rönnblom):
Has anyone ever seen the sources of ixemul for MOS? We all know the MOS people don't care about GPL.

And those sweat comments by Fabio A. whenever he reads AmigaOS4 somewhere.
AMP2 breaking GPL licences? : Comment 50 of 378ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 31-Aug-2004 14:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 49 (LOL):
I'm sure if you ask the MOS authors for sources for their ixemul, you
will get it. I think I've heard of someone who did this. You should
better prove that you have the resulting binary though, preferrably by
including the MD5 of the binary, and of course the exact version so
they can find the correct sourcecode.

Anyway you're obviously just trying to switch the subject here.
Anonymous, there are 378 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 250] [251 - 300] [301 - 350] [351 - 378]
Back to Top