LGPL VP6 decoder released

[Sirber]

God bless this mess.I know you love it :D

[Lemonzest]

"The damage in this instance is irreparable, and you must remove the code from its site to stop its participation in damaging On2. Time is of the essence."

as i understand its only a DECODER that has been made, would that not make VP6.2 MORE valuable now it can be played back on opensource platforms and/or mac os x? leading more people to adopt it?

[Sirber]

as i understand its only a DECODER that has been made, would that not make VP6.2 MORE valuable now it can be played back on opensource platforms and/or mac os x? leading more people to adopt it?And more patent holder to analyze the code and sue On2. US is well reknown to sue everyone for any reasons ;)

[Sirber]

@rjamorim

Can you put a download counter on the link? :)

[MfA]

Based on our client's preliminary comparison of the posted code with VP6.2, there appear to be substantial similarities in design elements and structure. Accordingly, On2's copyright in VP6.2 is infringed.
That last sentence is a complete non sequitur. Similarity does not mean the code was copied, the underlying algorithms will enforce structure.

On2, you are reading this ... if you are reasonably sure the code was copy pasted just come out and say so (or at least let your lawyers known that using sophism reflects poorly on them and you). You will instantly get most people here on your side, me at least.

I know being this harsh might seem ungratefull and biting the hand that feeds us, but you knowingly stuck your hand in a lion's den in the first place :) I think if you try plain words (ie. don't let the lawyers talk for you) you will find people to be much less confrontational.

[rjamorim]

@rjamorim

Can you put a download counter on the link? :)

That would only count how many people downloaded the java app, not the chain itself :/

But a quick glance over apache's logs tells me more than 50 people downloaded it already.

[rjamorim]

That last sentence is a complete non sequitur. Similarity does not mean the code was copied, the underlying algorithms will enforce structure.

Hope you don't mind, I'll use these arguments on my reply :B

Here are some more excerpts from it:


It's actually interesting that you mention the DMCA. As far as I have been told,
the DMCA protects citizens' rights to reverse engineer undocumented routines, as long
as that is meant for interoperability purposes (which is obviously the purpose of the
source codes I'm hosting at my website, as they allow the playback of VP6.2 on such
operating systems that go ignored by On2 as Linux, Mac OS X and, matter of factly,
every single Unix derivative out there). Again as far as I have been told, the DMCA
only prohibits reverse engineering on systems related to copyright protection. As
VP6.2 is obviously no DRM framework, that is not the case.

So, as the law actually permits reverse engineering in the scope used for the
sources hosted at my site, it doesn't matter what your license allows people to do
or not.

Last but not least, there are several cases of reverse engineering for the sake
of interoperability on the net. Obviously the most famous case is FFMPEG, that hosts
reverse engineered sources for Windows Media Audio (they reverse engineered Microsoft,
of all people!), Sorenson Video, QDesign Music Codec, etc.

Then, there is the case of OpenOffice.org, that systematically reverse engineers
the file formats used by Microsoft Office's applications. Up to a few months ago, these
formats were not documented (now they are, as an ECMA RFC)

Last but not least, do you have any way to prove these sources weren't reverse
engineered on a "clean room" setup? As far as I know, that would make it completely legal,
as exemplified by Compaq's pioneer work reverse engineering the IBM PC BIOS and giving
birth to the PC Clone market.

> We have contacted other websites that were posting our client's code, and the sites
> immediately removed the code in response to our report.

Too bad they don't have any legal background to know better.


You will instantly get most people here on your side, me at least.

Heck, even I would bring down the downloads if they managed to provide me proof that the code was indeed stolen from them.

[celtic_druid]

Even if the code did breach the DMCA, would that not only have an effect in the USA? The DMCA does not cover actions outside of the USA.

What there should be a law against is companies knowingly misusing the DMCA as a legal threat.

[iwod]

Even if the code did breach the DMCA, would that not only have an effect in the USA? The DMCA does not cover actions outside of the USA.

What there should be a law against is companies knowingly misusing the DMCA as a legal threat.
celtic you should host it over at Aus ^^

[celtic_druid]

Who said I wasn't already?
I think Brazil is safer than Australia though. What with our sell out government and all.

[Sirber]

How about sweden? thepiratebay love those kind of letters :D

[celtic_druid]

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/ethics/ny/code/NY_CODE.HTM#7-102
Maybe people should start reporting these attorneys? Lying about the DMCA, etc. sounds like a breech of ethics to me.

[rjamorim]

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/ethics/ny/code/NY_CODE.HTM#7-102
Maybe people should start reporting these attorneys? Lying about the DMCA, etc. sounds like a breech of ethics to me.

Hrm... interesting

Indeed, I completely disagree with On2's strongarmed attitude so far. "We're not even sure the code is really stolen or illegal in any way, but let's FUD everybody hosting it into deleting, as it would require much less effort than actually providing proofs of illegality"

And I agree that lawyers are getting out of hand. They start waving the DMCA at the smallest situations, as if it was some magical bullet for FUD purposes. Highly unethical attitude.

[dragongodz]

hmm the interesting part i find in all this is that On2 appear from that to not know for sure if its stolen code(just saying it looks similar) or reverse engineered.

the use of the "breaking EULA" is also questionable. i mean it is possible to get the dll without installing VP6 and if a person looks hard enough i am sure it could be downloaded from places that dont have an agreement before download either. so in such a case you wouldnt be breaking anything because you didnt agree to anything.

finally when a EULA makes restrictions to rights a countries laws say you actually have wouldnt this put the EULA on questionable legal grounds ? sorry i am not a lawyer but i would find it strange for a bit of text on a web page or in an installer to over-ride actual laws but hey with the ways some countries work nowdays who knows. i would be interested to hear what any third party/unbiased legal eagles has to say on that.

at the moments this is all looking like a big mess. saying they are not lawyers and prefer to be just doing their work rather than running around after this code seems to me to have exploded somewhat in their face. its certainly not winning freinds by sicking the lawyers instead of a personal email. anyone on the ffmpeg dev mailing list will have already seen this aswell.

[On2Tech]

Speaking as an engineer I think that it is inconceivable that this code was created as part of some “clever” black box reverse engineering exercise. I am not a lawyer but just so that you know “there appear to be substantial similarities” in this context means that large chucks of code can be matched up and shown to be LINE FOR LINE identical with one of our older source code trees. The author has changed a few variable names etc, but in many cases that is about it.

Also, the code contains references to things that were changed slightly in later versions of the VP6 bitstream (including FLASH 8) which further confirms that it could not possibly have been created by reverse engineering from Flash content.

Finally, as for the damage it causes On2.... Revenue from sales of VP6 continues to contribute significantly to our bottom line. This is a current revenue generating product, so of course we are concerned about the distribution of ripped off / stolen code.

On2Tech

[Sharktooth]

At this point it's useless to take down the downloads (the code is already floating around on P2Ps too :( )... but IMHO releasing an official open source free for non commercial use decoder will make no harm to on2, will solve all problems and possibly bring on2 some new *nix customers.

EDIT: Sorry for the confusion. I mixed up free-codecs with rarewares and i thought (from the filename) the file was published on P2Ps. So no worry... it's not there:)

[MfA]

On2Tech, in that case Im very sorry for you this happened and I hope rjamorim takes the code down soon.

[rjamorim]

On2Tech, in that case Im very sorry for you this happened and I hope rjamorim takes the code down soon.

What, you think I was born yesterday? That's not what I meant when I said I wanted proof.

BTW: Their lawyers didn't reply yet. My reply to their first C&D was sent this morning.

[dragongodz]

I am not a lawyer but just so that you know “there appear to be substantial similarities” in this context means that large chucks of code can be matched up and shown to be LINE FOR LINE identical with one of our older source code trees. The author has changed a few variable names etc, but in many cases that is about it.
and this is more information than you have been willing to share before.
a good point was also raised on the ffmpeg dev mailing list. when an OSS author claims his code has been ripped off the first thing he is asked for is atleast some kind of proof. the same has been expected from On2 but you guys have not shown anything. are you really surprised people are questioning your actions of sicking the lawyers to say it MAY have been stolen ? come on On2Tech surely you can see what a PR mess these actions have made even if you are right ?
you have been around here long enough to know if you treat this community(and i mean more than just the Doom9 users) with a little respect and openness they are willing to help and support you back. as someone who helped beta test for you guys in the past i know this is so. however sicking the lawyers on this same community causes nothing but bad blood in the end.

Also, the code contains references to things that were changed slightly in later versions of the VP6 bitstream (including FLASH 8) which further confirms that it could not possibly have been created by reverse engineering from Flash content.

and these things could not have come from a person reversing older content or an older version of the dll etc i take it ?

[foxyshadis]

He's an engineer, he's probably on rather unsteady footing just talking about it. Statements on here could be used in discovery or court, like email, at a later date. (I'm not sure what the exact legal grounds of forum postings are, but they have to be a lot firmer than heresay.) If you want to rant to someone, call up On2's legal, or directors, or someone else higher up in the food chain.

Yes, I think the lawyers handling this so far are rather brain-damaged, since this could all have been resolved a month ago with a little private code-sharing and a few announcements about the obviousness of the theft; but they're lawyers, that's what they're here for.

[dragongodz]

If you want to rant to someone
who is ranting ? i would say the majority of posts have been very on topic of how On2 could have done this better and infact should be changing what they are doing to clear this up properly.
trying to find out more facts and making suggestions about what is being done wrong is hardly what i would call ranting.

Yes, I think the lawyers handling this so far are rather brain-damaged, since this could all have been resolved a month ago with a little private code-sharing and a few announcements about the obviousness of the theft;
exactly my point. if On2 had even just ask a few well known indipendant members of the OSS community to look at sections of their code to compare, and then asked them to give their opinions on if it looked atleast suspicious or not, we would have something more solid to believe.

[GodofaGap]

you have been around here long enough to know if you treat this community(and i mean more than just the Doom9 users) with a little respect and openness they are willing to help and support you back.
Yet "the community" does not show any respect back to a company that certainly has made contributions to OSS in the past. For example, rjamorim could have send an email to On2 asking what exactly the problem was with the published source. And if then he wouldn't have had a satisfactory reply he could have put the source up anyway. Instead he just put it up without a thought, apparently being protected by his geographical circumstances.

Very respectful towards On2 all of this. Yes indeed.

[celtic_druid]

On2 had had ample time to clear this up before he started hosting the source.

Everything they had done uptil that time suggested that the source was actually ok. Otherwise why all the FUD when they could have provided real evidence?

If he had asked then I would think he would have just gotten an answer of no you can't put it up, once again with no real evidence of why not. So why bother asking?

[GodofaGap]

Oh, I am not suggesting that he would have gotten an useful reply. Only that it wasn't very respectful; the "proper" course of action would have been to ask first, even if it seems futile.

[rjamorim]

Very respectful towards On2 all of this. Yes indeed.

Why should I respect them? Because they once upon a time open sourced VP3? That doesn't buy sympathy with me.

I posted the sources because I was pissed they were strongarming people hosting them without any modicum of proof - or, as you should say, respect for these people - and with FUD menaces. IMO, companies that do that deserve no respect, no matter what good deeds they did in the past.

[Inventive Software]

That sorta attitude could get you striked here. Have some respect for the company that you're leeching from.

[rjamorim]

That sorta attitude could get you striked here. Have some respect for the company that you're leeching from.

Maybe you should be stricken instead for calling me a leech? :-)

[dragongodz]

calm down guys or you will have a mod threatening to close this thread.

the "proper" course of action would have been to ask first, even if it seems futile.
no the proper course of action would have been On2 to provide some proof ,with which it would have got peoples support, instead of sicking the dogs... er i mean lawyers on to people. people have just reacted to what On2 did first.

Very respectful towards On2 all of this. Yes indeed.
well as i said i have beta tested for them and had no problem with them until this. the course of action they have chosen to take has lost a lot of my respect because it shows they do not respect the OSS community. you reap what you sow.

[Inventive Software]

OK, by leeching I mean this. Taking the software that has been described in this thread as illegal and in breach of the license that On2 provides, and posting the sources when you know darn well that it's gonna cause controversy. My $0.02. My last word on the legality of this.

I think they open-sourced VP3 to further challenge the superiority of the MPEG codecs and the other proprietary codecs. That and the fact that they provided the code to the Theora project, and saw fit to open-source it for everybody's benefit. (That's my opinion, and in no way constitutes what ACTUALLY happened!) I don't think that they'll do the same thing for VP6 until THEY (ON2) FEEL READY. They're more likely to do it for VP4 or VP5, VP4 being very similar to VP3. They're not gonna be pushed around by somebody in the company that's stealing their code. They probably (though it's unconfirmed) know who the culprit is and have dealt with him accordingly. (I'd have strung him up by the computer wires he used to post the code on the internet. That'll teach him for leeching! ;))

[bratao]

But i dont get the point yet..
They sell a Encoder ! a decoder sholud give long life to their encoder...

[Sirber]

they give free the DLL for the decoder...

www.on2.com

[rjamorim]

Hello.

On2 lawyers just replied to my letter to them, and to my pleasant surprise, they were very respectful, tactful and polite (as far as lawyers can go, of course). They were also helpful explaining their point of view on this situation:

Dear Roberto:

You seem intelligent, thoughtful, and respectful of others as well as the law.

Perhaps you are not aware that On2 is a small technology based primarily video codes company started by free thinkers as yourself. On2 decided that the way it could grow and employ those who became dedicated to its mission was to make its software proprietary. I need not remind you how easily large, well financed companies can steal the software of small companies, especially when offered as open source. I daresay On2 would long ago have fired its loyal employees and closed its doors if such predators had open access to On2's technology.

So On2 has occasionally distributed some software as open source and kept other software proprietary. That is a dynamic decision because as On2 continues to employ its software employees, its technology advances and some prior versions can be made public without jeopardizing On2's core business.

Turning to the instant matter, VP6.2 is not open source. The source code is proprietary, clever, and reflects the skill and judgment of its software engineers. Someone without access to the source code could not have written the code which has been posted. Here in the U.S. as well as around the world and in Brazil, the term “substantially similar” is the code word for copyright infringement. I cannot post On2's material source code which correlates that published because I would be open sourcing proprietary code. This is not sowing fear, uncertainty, or doubt, as you say, but instead trying to keep a trade secret secret.

So how was On2's source code purloined? Well, someone could have gained access and without authorization passed it on - you can easily imagine many other scenarios.

One thing is certain, the published, unauthorized On2 VP6.2 code is just too similar to the authentic. It never has happened that when a copy is so close to the original that the copy was independently created. No one would believe someone claiming to have independently written the same words as in Hemingway’s Old Man and the Sea; you would not, nor would I. If we need to prove this in a court, we will, but by then many innocent people will be hurt, and I hope that is not your intent. Any such court proceeding will be confidential, and a judge will review our evidence and be as convinced as we that the posted VP6.2 code is so close to that of On2 that it had to be copied. Copyright protection means that unless the original author willingly and affirmatively gives permission, his work cannot be copied as it is here. The entire work (be it Hemingway’s or On2's) need not be copied for it to be infringed; copying a few paragraphs of Hemingway or a block of code from VP6 is still infringement. Thus, breaking the code into somewhat smaller pieces as done by Noise Chain does not avoid infringement.

Now turning to the reverse engineering issue - you understand “shrink wrap” licenses. Any authorized user of an On2 product agrees in advance not to reverse engineer it. This again is part of On2's methodology to stay in business, improve its code for its users and keep the predators away. It simply follows that if anyone did reverse engineer or decompile that could only have been taken from a purchaser whose agreement not to undertake that activity was required to use it. Now if someone else had an unauthorized copy and reverse engineered that code, then it would be reverse engineering of an unauthorized copy which is stealing property. From our software engineer’s review of the published codes, we believe that actual code was stolen - but if not, and it was reverse engineered, we have the same type of illegal activity which On2 cannot permit.

You have correctly identified that the DMCA has a reverse engineering provision, but it does not afford one a blanket right to reverse engineer. Here is the relevant portion of the DMCA pertaining to reverse engineering (the entire DMCA is available here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c105:6:./temp/~c105pA2262:: )

(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.

(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.

(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term `interoperability' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.


(17 USC § 1201(f), emphasis added.)

What does this mean? First, the copy must be lawfully obtained. Next, you don't have an unlimited reverse engineering ability, only "to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title," i.e., do not constitute copyright infringement. So basically, one can reverse engineer the code to make it work with other software and even share his work with others, but one may not copy and share the whole entire code. That's copyright infringement. The law (but not On2's shrink wrap license) permits you to reverse engineer VP6.2 and generate patches that will enable it to work on other operating systems, but you are obviously not allowed simply to make the whole code available to anyone who wants it in the hopes that they will develop such patches. Posting it in its entirety on rarewares and then saying that anyone who downloads it is only doing so to make it work with other software is a violation of the DMCA and not protected under the limited reverse engineering exception. That exception only enables you to get code A to work with code B; it is not a free hand to simply release the entire code in the hopes that someone else will fix an interoperability problem.

You have cited examples of others who have reverse engineered. Compaq did what it did decades before the DMCA existed. IBM allowed it to happen and decided not to pursue Compaq, believing the real money was in software, not hardware. On2 isn’t held to IBM’s or anyone else’s business decisions, none of which affects the scope of the DMCA at any rate.

So where are we? While you are in Brazil, your country is no kinder to illegal copyright infringement than is the U.S. Infringing copyrighted material is just not permitted in almost all countries.

Your publishing the code and continuing to do so ensnares others into also committing illegal acts. Some are here in the U.S. and others are elsewhere, but to my knowledge, most software aficionados do not willingly violate the law. They just don’t want to be outlaws. But by your encouraging such behavior, you are ensnaring them and causing them problems.

Now I do not know if you will voluntarily remove the VP6.2 code from your website, but I hope you will immediately. To the extent there is any way to prove our issues without jeopardizing On2's proprietary position, we are willing to do so, but first the code must be removed now.

You understand On2 can go to court here in the U.S. to reach to American infringers who may or may not know they are violating the law. Additionally, On2 can proceed against you in Brazil. All of this is unpleasant and can be expensive and burdensome.

I would hope you understand why On2 maintains some of its software as proprietary, and that you will respect On2's position. We would hope not to need the courts in this effort.

As we have stated in our letters, time is precious. On2 is being damaged every moment the posted VP6.2 On2 code remains available, and On2 is willing to pay our law firm to do what is right. Our experience over the years is that most people respect the right way and do not need to be bothered by lawsuits.

I look forward to your prompt agreement with my request on behalf of the software engineers of On2 as well as its management.

I do not intend to write continuing letters arguing the law with you as On2 would like your prompt cooperation as it has had from other websites which carried unauthorized code.

Very truly yours,
LEVISOHN, BERGER & LANGSAM, LLP

Peter L. Berger

I'm considering complying to their request. I think they deserve it now. What so you guys think?

[Sirber]

Bah, I wouldn't mind you to remove it.

[buzzqw]

is a correct and polite answer and deserve your respect.

I will remove it

BHH

[gabest]

Nice..., but the code cannot compare to Hemingway's writings, rather simple and unoptimized :P. And what about the fact that they offer their decoder for free, how can another one hurt their revenues like this.

[Doom9]

Since I make my money by creating intellectual property I cannot help but chime in.

The question it comes down to is simple: was code which was not released under a license that permits copying, copied and contained in the decoding lib? If yes, there's a problem (that's what SCO bases their whole FUD campaign on), if not, there's no problem at all - ON2 cannot prevent anybody from creating a third party decoder. If said person were to be given access to the specs or source code without permission, but did not copy anything, it would come down to ON2 having to prove in court that not only did said person have access to such material, but also that such access constitutes an illegal activity - and keeping in mind that copyright law varies from country to country the latter part is hard to prove and even harder to enforce.. you simply move hosting and the problem is solved. If you don't agree with that, have a look at material posted on US servers that's illegal in many European countries (for instance, denying the Holocaust) - and just as the US defends their freedom of press over laws of other countries, other countries not only have the right but the obligation to do the same to the US.

And with that, the DMCA is out of the picture. The software is not hosted in the US, and there's no proof that it was created in the US. I find it quite offensive when US lawyers try to enforce US laws in other countries.. get the hell out of our legal system.

I agree with Mr. Berger under the assumption that code was indeed copied - but the rest of the argumentation is bogus at best. Shrink Wrap licenses have been found invalid in many European countries. So if I were to reverse engineer a copy of an On2 decoder, that would be perfectly legal where I live.

And the whole DMCA angle, that reverse engineering is about circumventing copy protection.. this clearly isn't even an issue here.

So risking to repeat myself, it comes down to "was the code reverse engineered" (in which case, there's no problem), or was it copied, in which case we have copyright infringement (and nothing else.. just goes to show how well the "old" copyright law still serves us.. it transfers just nicely into the digital age).

And having a last look at the DMCA interpretation, So basically, one can reverse engineer the code to make it work with other software and even share his work with others, but one may not copy and share the whole entire code. That's copyright infringement.is worded ambigously. If "whole entire code" refers to the code that is required for interoperability, and does not contain portions of a work protected by copyright, then that code can be shared just fine. But, it the code infringes on copyright (because it was copied without permission), then it must not be shared. But once again, we're not dealing with copy protection so the DMCA angle is void.


I cannot post On2's material source code which correlates that published because I would be open sourcing proprietary code. Reminds me of SCO. Let's recall Sigma and XviD.. the XviD team properly backed up their claims, and in no way would publishing the matching original source code constitute open sourcing proprietary code.. the code would still be protected under copyright law unless the code comes with an open source or other license that allows free use. It may be that On2 does not wish to share their original code, but since the cat's out of the bag, one has to raise the same questions as in the SCO case. Microsoft makes significant portions of their cash cow software available under a "look but don't copy" license.. if Microsoft can, why can't ON2? The code is already out, clean room reverse engineering will be possible and a perfectly legit decoder will come out sooner or later anyway.. showing the code to prove the allegations would be the right thing to do here. So, if I were in this situation, I'd honor the request, but insist that irrefutable proof be provided within a certain period of time. When being accused of aiding in copyright infringement on mere heresay, if you comply (under threat of a lawsuit nontheless) courtesy also goes the other way.


Last but not least:
On2 is being damaged every moment the posted VP6.2 I can't follow that. Does anybody have to pay for a VP6.2 license? Does any company that used to pay for a license now use the code in question and has stopped paying license fees? Because safe for those conditions I can't see how ON2 can be losing money over this. A VP6.2 decoder in ffdshow (as an example) would most certainly not cause any financial harm to anybody.. there's plenty of decoders in there already, for formats where you have to pay license fees for a decoder (MPEG-2, 4, ...). It's not like any organization that is spreading a decoder in sufficient numbers to fall under the licensing requirements for those codecs would be using ffdshow anyway - or do you have any examples to the contrary?

[dragongodz]

I cannot post On2's material source code which correlates that published because I would be open sourcing proprietary code.
this assumes that the source must be shown to the whole general public which is false. as i alrady said the proof could be shown to a select amount of independant individuals who could then substantiate the claim. until something is shown to someone independant there is no proof of anything either way.

No one would believe someone claiming to have independently written the same words as in Hemingway’s Old Man and the Sea; you would not, nor would I.
i had to laugh at this example because its so far different than this case it beggars belief. hows it different ? people can read and compare the words. now if someone wrote a story and Hemingway came out later and said it contains large parts of 1 of his works which people have not read and are not allowed to what then ? would you still believe Hemingway or would you(or a court) ask that someone be allowed to read those parts to compare ?
sorry but that statement is either (1) a joke,(2) coming from someone who doesnt have a clue about the comparison or (3) someone purposfully trying to make a smokescreen so they dont have to prove anything. since its from a lawyer i will leave that up to yourselves to decide. ;)

EDIT: of course Hemingway is dead so the question becomes a "if it happened while he was alive" or "if he was alive now". if you get what i mean. hey i wasnt the one who used Hemingway to start with.

[Nic]

@rjamorim: I would comply. They have been respectful enough now and to be honest a VP62 decoder source code isn't going to be much use to anyone if On2 will try and shutdown/takedown anything made from it. I have a feeling they're not going to let the issue drop, IMHO it isn't worth your efforts rjamorim.

-Nic

[Sirber]

Do we close this thread?

[BoNz1]

Ok, so I have a little theory as to where the code came from, since nobody seems to know and On2 seems far to embarrassed to say anything, you might guess that it's pretty funny. And I think it is. And I have a good hunch it isn't just a theory...Since a lot of people who are more in the know than I am think this is where it came from.

You might remember a little while ago that On2 had some Java applets on their website to demonstrate VP5/6. Unfortunately, for On2 they never required anyone to sign any license of any sort. The code did not come from someone hacking the company network or a disgruntled employee. It came from those applets according to what I have heard.

[Sirber]

Isn't java kind of easy to decompile?

[Liisachan]

Sirber: yes. but if you do that, you can't get the original variable names. So, that's not the case if we believe that lawyer.

[soresu]

So, if true this would mean that any reverse engineering of it is not actually bound to silence by the DMCA?

[CEC]

Can you imagine what might happen if someone put the code of their encoder on the net???????:eek: :eek: :eek:
They are nearly crying with the fact that their decoder code is out!!!

[siddharthagandhi]

What rjamin is doing is probably not legal, and he shouldn't do it, but striking him isn't going to stop it. Everyone already knows the link and as long as this thread is viewable anyone can still acess the code, so that won't stop anything.

[MfA]

Googling a bit variable names seem to be actually included in unobfusciated byte code (or at least they were at one point in time).

[dimzon]

Sirber: yes. but if you do that, you can't get the original variable names.
Debug information...

[shark37]

You might remember a little while ago that On2 had some Java applets on their website to demonstrate VP5/6.
TrueMotion Streaming Java Applet 1.1 (http://web.archive.org/web/20050320020716/http://www.on2.com/applet/)

Unfortunately webarchive page refers to .jar and .avi files located on www.on2.com -- see <applet...> fragment of page source below

<applet archive="truemotion.jar,on2_speex.jar" code="On2.VPXDecoderApplet.class" width="240" height="144">
<param name="InputFileName" value="http://www.on2.com/applet/potter240-300.avi">
<param name="Seconds" value="50,60">
<param name="soundSystem" value="JSND">
<param name="JumpToURL" value="http://www.on2.com/sales.php3?qs1=Java%20Licensing">
<param name="StartImage" value="http://www.on2.com/applet/intro.jpg">
<param name="EndImage" value="http://www.on2.com/applet/end.jpg">
<param name="PostProcessLevel" value="0">
<param name="timeout" value="10000">
<param name="credits" value="http://www.on2.com/applet/credits.txt">
</applet>

But...
with a little help of Google anyone can still take a look at "truemotion.jar" :D
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=EGLC,EGLC:2006-14,EGLC:en&q=truemotion%2ejar

From
"G o o g l e's cache of http://www.martyrtv.co.uk/index_files/ as retrieved on 5 Jul 2005 23:55:54 GMT." (http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:OQqdWN-fYpMJ:www.martyrtv.co.uk/index_files/+truemotion.jar&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4)
one still can download http://www.martyrtv.co.uk/index_files/truemotion.jar :D

Sirber: yes. but if you do that, you can't get the original variable names.
Interesting that there was debug version of the applet -- "truemotion_debug.jar" unavailable now :)
"G o o g l e's cache of http://manzanaroja.com/on2/test/ as retrieved on 19 Aug 2005 11:09:02 GMT" (http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:KbAkg8nE_D4J:manzanaroja.com/on2/test/+truemotion.jar&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5)

[bratao]

In java decompile you get the original variable names !
This not happen, only if the developer use some type of obfuscator..
But the normal compile , in a decompile you get the original names !

[bratao]

Update>
I download truemotion.jar and the file VP6Decoder.class in essence is the source found in cvs..
But this code is obfuscate , you cant get the original variables names..
"Obfuscation by RetroGuard - www.retrologic.com (author: Mark Welsh, markw@retrologic.com)"

but exist a debug version, its possible that this version is not obfuscated !