LGPL VP6 decoder released

[rjamorim]

What rjamin is doing is probably not legal, and he shouldn't do it, but striking him isn't going to stop it.

Why would I be stricken? Did I break forum rules?

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.

Right. I actually just got this e-mail:

Hi, I've been following the discussion about libvp62. I just want to
give you the story how I think this all happend. Short version: this
code is most likely a legit reverse engineering job. Long version: on2
has distributed some java applets with vp5 and vp6 decoding
capabilities. These applets were availible from their homepage without
any shrinkwrap license. One version can be found here:
http://www.martyrtv.co.uk/index_files/truemotion.jar

The nice thing with java is that it is easy to RE, just try it on a java
class with jad. The vp6 applets were obfuscated with Retroguard, the vp5
applets wheren't that obfuscated. On
http://multimedia.cx/eggs/category/reverse-engineering/on2duck/page/1/
can you read abit more regarding the vp5 applets.

I have several versions of the diffrent applets and also some source. I
compared the source of libvp62 and one of the vp5 sources. Although not
a perfect match some functions looked really really similar.

Giving someone fairly experienced with videocodecs and with all this
information, the probability of libvp62 being a valid RE work is quite high.

So we have on2 claiming that the source is from them, I would say it's
from RE work on their binary java applets.
They then claim license breach, well they distributed them by themselfs
without any need to agree on some license. This can
be veryfied by looking at their site from archive.org.

I think this info invalidate their claims of the source beeing stolen.

And then the question about complying with their request. I would like
to see their response to this information, and the best way to get a
proper response is by keeping distributing the source. But I wouldn't
blame you for not wanting the hassle and I can tell you I would stop
distributing the source.

I can back all my claims with source or other information if you doubt
some of my claims.

Sounds very well explained and thought out. I guess that's "reasonable doubt" for you...


Edit: I omitted the e-mail author's name because I don't know if he wants to be identified. He is probably reading this thread anyway, so he can identify himself if he so wishes.

Who knows, maybe he is "ztoon padli" :P

[rjamorim]

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.

That actually made me wonder about the lawyer firm's understanding of open source, source code and software development as a whole. I'm afraid I know more on this subject than mister Berger (or, at least, they expect me to know very little) :rolleyes:

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.

More on that as I reply to Nic's post...

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. ;)

Pathetic, really. I wouldn't hire a lawyer firm like that to defend me from accusations of jaywalking.

[rjamorim]

@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.

I agree. It's no use keeping distributing this code (which is pretty useless to non-programmers) if they plan to FUD any potential user - FFMPEG, ffdshow, MPC, GStreamer or the like. I guess anyone able to take this code and create a clean room reverse engineering out of it already got it. So, I'll probably just remove it from RareWares tomorrow, as a major overhaul of the site is planned (a whole section will be moved to ReallyRareWares) and leave some notice, maybe instructions to download it from The Pirate Bay :D

More than 200 people downloaded it. That's a good enough amount of people to make sure this code won't simply vanish.

[Liisachan]

@shark37
Nice job :)

I'm not sure, but I'm feeling this way:

If truemotion_debug.jar is (or was in the past) in public, and freely accessible via HTTP (meaning, without even EULA)--then, technically, what was apparently done is a reverse engineering in a broader sense, and is generally legal.

[dragongodz]

rjamorim - when you email them that you are removing the download it would be interesting if you pointed out how silly the Hemigway comparison was and see what(if?) response to that aswell.

actually looking around the places where On2 devs have been posting about this i see they seem to have stopped. i am guessing all the calls for proof from lots of places is something they are just not willing to do and can not really argue against. as its been said before, to ask for some kind of proof, even to just select individuals, is not unreasonable. unfortunatly they seem to have decided to now leave it to the lawyers.

[vlada]

Hi,
I think that I just let you know this: In my country is reverse engineering explicitly legal. Any license agreement not written in Czech language is obsolete. SW patents do not exist here. Your own code is copyrighted and that's enough.

[Sirber]

Any license agreement not written in Czech language is obsolete.Isn't it kinda racist?

[edit]

Also, if my software is GPLed, and the license is in english, it's not valid in your country? :confused:

[edit 2]

Here you go: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.cs.html :p

[rjamorim]

Here you go: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.cs.html :p

Well, that GPL has no value. The FSF themselves state that only english language versions have value :)

In vlada's case, in theory, since he can't understand the license (or, even if he understands, it would have no legal value as legal documents must be written in the county's current language), he must refuse to accept it (and therefore not use the software/source code/whatever). YMMV, according to your country's laws, of course.

Actually, that's why software such as Photoshop comes with EULAs in several languages




Aaaaaanyway...

To comply with Herrrrr Berger's polite but pitiful requests, I removed VP6's source code from RareWares.

But wait! You can still obtain VP6 source code from RareWares!
http://www.rarewares.org/files/others/VP6_src_legal.zip

Ohhh, poor pitiful me...

[Sirber]

Hum.... that seems to be legal now :D

[MfA]

The license being invalid doesn't really matter much to the GPL, without the GPL you can't redistribute the source code period.

[rjamorim]

Hum.... that seems to be legal now :D

If they come bitching, I'll follow master Anakata's steps and tell them to go sodomize themselves with retractable batons :)

[Liisachan]

@rjamorim
I will support you. I do feel a little sorry for On2, but their legal-threat approach based on invalid logic is not acceptable. I would feel much more sympathetic without that.

Strictly speaking, saying no to unlawful demands is staying on the right side of the law. I have an impression that they are basically telling the truth, but technically, accepting their logic right away means that any OSS project could be stalled if someone just said "foo.cpp was ours. It was stolen. You mustn't use it and you must delete it immediately." without even showing any solid proof.

Secondly, dimzon asked in March 2006 "@On2Tech Please, any comments about this topic" in this VP7 thread (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=806071#post806071). If "Time is of the essence" they should have answered immediately.

Btw, a clause that prohibits reverse-engineering is, even though being explicitly written in EULA, generally considered as invalid in Japan too; especially prohibiting reverse-engineering that is done for compatibility could be considered as a violation of the antitrust laws. IANAL but if that C++ code is obtained from that .jar--tho this part is disputable--, it could be therefore legal. As another note, they didn't include EULA in .jar when they could have.

Even so, they could ask you to help them. My understanding is that RareWares voluntarily complied with their requests out of kindness, even though technically RareWares did not have any legal duties to do so.

OT--btw, about Musepack.... isnt it a bit too early to move it to RRW???? Besides, you are not hosintg the latest version 1.15v. (1.15u is not the last one!)

[vlada]

Isn't it kinda racist?

[edit]

Also, if my software is GPLed, and the license is in english, it's not valid in your country? :confused:

[edit 2]

Here you go: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.cs.html :p

Well if you want somebody in a non-english speaking country to obey your license, it should be in her/his native language. You can't expect, that everybody will understand English. Also if you want to sell any product in Czech Republic, it must have a manual written in Czech. And I think this is correct, because only a few people can speak english in my country. Much more people can speak Russian and German.

Well this is good for "hardware" products. With SW products, it is quite hard (or rather say impossible) to keep up with this legislative. But so far we have no special legislative for SW manuals/licenses.

It would be quite interesting to see what would happen if somebody would use a GPLed SW in conflict with it's licence. In this case I think if you were the author of the code, you have your copyright for it. If somebody wants to use it, he can't do so unless you let him to. So if he would claim he doesen't understand the license he had no right to use your code. But what if he just missunderstood the license? It is quite complicated, isn't it?

I'm not a lawyer, but my brother and my sister are lawyers, so I'll ask them for their opinion.

[Latexxx]

Well if you want somebody in a non-english speaking country to obey your license, it should be in her/his native language. You can't expect, that everybody will understand English.


Actually, if the gpl would be be void because of language issues, you would have no right to do anything with the program or sources because they are protected by the copyright which doesn't give you any rights to distribute or make copies of the program.

Even running a program which is copyrighted but to which you have no license could be illegal.

[vlada]

Actually, if the gpl would be be void because of language issues, you would have no right to do anything with the program or sources because they are protected by the copyright which doesn't give you any rights to distribute or make copies of the program.

Even running a program which is copyrighted but to which you have no license could be illegal.

Yes, I basically agree with this. I think I said it simliar later in my topic. Or at least I wanted to - can you see the possiblity of missunderstanding something because of language?

But it is much more difficult to apply this to a binary. Because I don't think a binary file can be copyrighted.

[Sirber]

If you go in properties, there is a copyright notice.

[vlada]

Sirber> Yes, but usually only for name and/or logos.

[Sirber]

It should cover the whole file.

[Latexxx]

But it is much more difficult to apply this to a binary. Because I don't think a binary file can be copyrighted.

A binary file of a program is copyrighted because it is a work. This is easy: if it does something (i.e. outputs text or calculates 1+1), it isn't trivial and is copyrighted. And you don't need a copyright notice because under Berne Convention copyright is granted without any notice.

If you have a binary file which is full of random shick shit (or random ones and zeros, if you prefer), that wouldn't be copyrighted.

[GodofaGap]

Sirber> Yes, but usually only for name and/or logos.
Names cannot be copyrigthed. They fall under the term "trademark".

Binaries certainly fall under copyright.

[Liisachan]

A binary file of a program is copyrighted because it is a work. Not always. Copyright is not natural nor universal, but artificially defined by local laws. So its concept varies from place to place, from time to time. It's not surprising that binary is not copyrighted in some contries. There are even non WIPO-contires where there is no copyright at all.

Btw, I'd like to add that Rarewares.org is not just 'reckless'--they did delete dvdaripper & ppcmripper when asked to do so, in 2005.

[rjamorim]

@rjamorim
I will support you.

Thank-you very much :-)

I have an impression that they are basically telling the truth, but technically, accepting their logic right away means that any OSS project could be stalled if someone just said "foo.cpp was ours. It was stolen. You mustn't use it and you must delete it immediately." without even showing any solid proof.

Yes, that was something that got me wondering. These guys seem to believe FUD is the easiest solution to their issue.

Secondly, dimzon asked in March 2006 "@On2Tech Please, any comments about this topic" in this VP7 thread (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=806071#post806071). If "Time is of the essence" they should have answered immediately.

Hehe, they only really hurry with it when it matters...

Btw, a clause that prohibits reverse-engineering is, even though being explicitly written in EULA, generally considered as invalid in Japan too; especially prohibiting reverse-engineering that is done for compatibility could be considered as a violation of the antitrust laws. IANAL but if that C++ code is obtained from that .jar--tho this part is disputable--, it could be therefore legal. As another note, they didn't include EULA in .jar when they could have.

Indeed.

And that's another thing that is making me wonder. I think that I was actually more on the legal side with the libVP6 sources at RareWares than with the jar. The jar is obviously copyrighted, and I have no written permission to redistribute it. But if the sources are really reverse engineered from the Jar (and it doesn't matter to me how the Jar was obtained by "Ztoon Padli") and the Jar has no EULA clearly stating it can't be used for reverse engineering purposes, that C++ code is obviously legal from any point of view.

So, I plan to put the libVP6 back there - and without NChain this time, as that woulnt't really help me or anyone else in court. What do you guys think?

Even so, they could ask you to help them. My understanding is that RareWares voluntarily complied with their requests out of kindness, even though technically RareWares did not have any legal duties to do so.

True, but I'm still considering that. They claim On2 is losing money daily while libVP6 is being redistributed, but that's hard to swallow. I prefer to believe is some conspiracy theory that was posted in this same thread earlier, that On2 doesn't want other companies poking around their sources and finding patented routines.

OT--btw, about Musepack.... isnt it a bit too early to move it to RRW????

I don't think so. According to the logs at RareWares, Musepack downloads have been in decline for months. And latest polls at HA (that is one of the few places on the web that still cares about Musepack) show that even old time fanatics are giving up on it.

I'll take this opportunity to add icons to the "lossless" and " others" sections, giving a better look to the site as well.

Besides, you are not hosintg the latest version 1.15v. (1.15u is not the last one!)

And what is version 1.15v? It's a faster compile! AFAIK, they didn't change one line of code comparing to 1.15u, they just used another compiler version with different optimizations. I find that to be a sham to fool people into believing development is active. It would be like feeding Vorbis 1.1 through ICL, get a slightly faster build and claim it to be Vorbis 1.2!

[rjamorim]

Btw, I'd like to add that Rarewares.org is not just 'reckless'--they did delete dvdaripper & ppcmripper when asked to do so, in 2005.

Indeed, in that case, the lawyers actually had a point: I was distributing copyright protection circumvention tools. That is illegal not only under the DMCA, but under Brazilian law as well.

On2's case, OTOH, has been nothing but FUD so far.

[vlada]

Indeed, in that case, the lawyers actually had a point: I was distributing copyright protection circumvention tools. That is illegal not only under the DMCA, but under Brazilian law as well.

It's legal here. But I don't know for how long it will be. Btw. so even DVD Decrypter is illegal in Brazil?

[rjamorim]

Btw. so even DVD Decrypter is illegal in Brazil?

Apparently, yes. I didn't research sufficiently into the matter...

[Liisachan]

And that's another thing that is making me wonder. I think that I was actually more on the legal side with the libVP6 sources at RareWares than with the jar. The jar is obviously copyrighted, and I have no written permission to redistribute it.

That's what I thought too.

But if the sources are really reverse engineered from the Jar (and it doesn't matter to me how the Jar was obtained by "Ztoon Padli") and the Jar has no EULA clearly stating it can't be used for reverse engineering purposes, that C++ code is obviously legal from any point of view. Even if the JAR had such EULA, it would be probably invalid here, but anyway the fact is, the JAR doesn't have such EULA. So you are right. As another note, the fact that they prohibited RE in their EULA also suggests that RE is legal by default. If RE was illegal by default, they wouldn't need to prohibit it in EULA, because it would be already prohibited by laws. They made such EULA because they believe they need to, meaning they believe RE is not illegal unless otherwise contracted. That's what I believe too.

Now, Gabest released a FLVSplitter that is working better than On2's official decoder.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=819371#post819371
I had some problems with ON2's VP6 deocder, but now it works just fine. Many thanks to Gabes, celtic_druid and screw.

I'd say it is possible that Gabest's code is significantly different than On2's one, because it's working better. If it was just "stolen" and copy-and-pasted, it should have the same bug than On2's decoder, but in reality, it isn't.

Anyway, now that MPC, one of the most popular players for Windows, is supporting VP62, I suppose that format is getting more and more popular, and indirectly making more money for On2.

[rjamorim]

Yet another mail from them: (they are threatening me!)

April 25, 2006
Dear Roberto:
I was quite pleased with your response to my letter. As you will see, there are still further
issues to be worked through, but I do want you to know that I have been the intellectual property
lawyer for On2, formerly Duck, since its inception in 1992-3. At that time, video codecs were not
as prevalent, and On2 was a pioneer in this industry.
I think you would also be pleased to know that we have had no litigation concerning intellectual
property rights of Duck or On2 the many years I have been in this position. As you know, lawyers
are not necessarily the most highly regarded people within the software industry. On the other
hand, some of us are more able to find more intelligent ways to resolve disputes than running to
court or asserting rights that our clients do not have. We have that approach with anyone with whom
we have had any kind of problem involving intellectual property rights, and we have been usually
successful in avoiding my law firm having to conduct litigation.
Turning now to your new approach - I still think you will see that what you are doing is not
fair, reasonable, or acceptable to On2. If you have been following On2 these many years, you will
know that On2 publicly released its VP3 source code and announced it as available for use and
copying. Outside of that release, On2 has consistently employed the license terminology frequently
found within this industry when posting code whether Java obfuscated code or the like.
The code to which you refer posted February 5, 2005 inadvertently omitted that license notice.
As you know, substantially for all time before and time subsequent to that date, such license
language has consistently and appropriately been placed on code released by On2. The inadvertent
omission of that notice on that release would not serve as permission for unauthorized use of the On2
code. Certainly, you have been put on notice, as have others on Doom9, that On2 asserts the
existence of the license. To be most fair, I do not think either you or others on the site are the
type who would jump on an inadvertent omission by some software engineer at On2 as a vehicle by which
to attack overall On2 policy. Even further, I do not think you want predators of small companies
like On2 to have improper advantage.
Independent of the license, the decompiled code bears substantial similarity to the On2 code.
To that extent, On2's copyright rights against unauthorized copying and distribution also are in
effect. So, even if someone could try to argue that the inadvertent omission of the license that
one time provided some type of waiver, certainly that waiver does not eliminate copyright protection
(separate from trade secret protection). On2 has never dedicated the source code as Open source.
On2 respects those members in the software community who privately work with its code, and in
the instant case, some members of this community have had unauthorized access to the code of which
we complain. We would like that activity to stop immediately. I would certainly appreciate your
removing the posting leading others to decompile the complained of code. To the extent such
unauthorized material is out there, On2 does not agree to nor does it authorize further use of this
improperly obtained code.
In the real world, the private use by some of this code will take place. On2 does not have the
resources nor interest in stamping out every instance of every improper use of its software. On
the other hand, please be certain to know that to the extent any of this use jeopardizes On2's
commercial interests and its desire to remain and succeed in business, On2 will, reluctantly, take
legal action if it is necessary.
So what do we make of all this writing - I guess the simplest conclusion would be that the
sooner your most recent posting is removed the better, not just because On2 has legal rights which are
enforceable in Court, but because we believe from your communications that you do respect On2's
position and do not seek to damage the company.
We hope this is acceptable, and that On2 can stop paying for our time in trying to set right
what should be set right.
Thank you for your prompt cooperation.
Very truly yours,
LEVISOHN, BERGER & LANGSAM, LLP

Peter L. Berger

[rjamorim]

And my bastard reply:

Greetings.

--- Barry Negrin <b.negrin@LLBL.com> escreveu:
> Turning now to your new approach - I still think you will see that what you are doing is
> not fair, reasonable, or acceptable to On2. If you have been following On2 these many
> years, you will know that On2 publicly released its VP3 source code and announced it as
> available for use and copying. Outside of that release, On2 has consistently employed the
> license terminology frequently found within this industry when posting code whether Java
> obfuscated code or the like.

I completely agree, that approach is unappropriate. That's why I returned to my old
method of distributing only the sources, only this time I gave up on nchain as it, as
we can all agree, was a lame method. Technical hair-splitting wouldn't hold in courts.

Anyway, my rationale is this:

- There is now a possible - and probable - legal source for the code that doesn't
involve theft or breaking of NDAs, that is, the very reverse engineering that I was
walking people through. Decompiling code is not a nice thing, but it's still legal
as, as you must be aware, one could freely obtain that Java code from On2's home
page without first agreeing to any EULA or license. From there, decompilation is
a snap. (it's worth mentioning that C++ code can't be claimed to be copyrighted
by On2 if it was really decompiled, since the reverse-engineer took the care of
completely porting it to another programing language, and therefore he owns the
© to that code)

- I don't buy the argument that "On2 is being damaged every moment the posted VP6.2..."
I highly doubt that companies licencing your decoder (Adobe/Macromedia, AOL/Nullsoft,
eBay/Skype, AutoDesk, etc.) are suddenly stopping paying licensing fees because they
found out about libVP6 and are migrating to it. If any, this library will enormously
help your format raise in popularity, as it will be easily playable on all players
of all platforms, and won't force people to stick to Flash player.

- I understand you guys would like to keep your algorithms closed (for whatever
unfathomable reason), but I don't buy the argument "That code belongs to us. I swear.
Take it down". Otherwise, it would be all to easy for companies to stomp on every
open source project out there - just send a nasty C&D claiming "foo.c belongs to us!
it is stolen code! take it down NOW!!!!"

Therefore, I will not discuss this matter any further until you provided me with
proofs that code indeed belongs to you and indeed was stolen from On2. RareWares
has always been proud of not falling for empty threats, and it's not the latest
FUD that will make us change our behaviour.

Regards;

Roberto Amorim.

PS: Stop already with the "big predators against us small companies" thing. Outgrow that
inferiority complex. And while at it, stop clinging to the old VP3->Theora thing to
fish for sympathy among techies.

[Sharktooth]

IMHO this is going a bit too far...

[dragongodz]

hmm an interesting email he sent.

To be most fair, I do not think either you or others on the site are the type who would jump on an inadvertent omission by some software engineer at On2 as a vehicle by which
to attack overall On2 policy.
hmm doesnt seem to get that its these threats of litigation without any proof that is what people are attacking.

Independent of the license, the decompiled code bears substantial similarity to the On2 code.
To that extent, On2's copyright rights against unauthorized copying and distribution also are in effect.
do i read that right ? is he trying to say that even if you reverse engineer ,or decompiler in this case, the java code that since its similar enough to their normal code then it is covered by the normal codes copyright by default ?

I guess the simplest conclusion would be that the
sooner your most recent posting is removed the better
hmm so the simplest conclusion wouldnt have been for On2 to show atleast some kind of proof when this all started ? hmm right. :sly:

And while at it, stop clinging to the old VP3->Theora thing to fish for sympathy among techies.
HAHAHA well said. that chestnut has got so old its moldy. :D

[rjamorim]

IMHO this is going a bit too far...

Please elaborate. I want to hear everyone's opinion.

[Liisachan]

@rjamorim
Be careful, this lawyer is serious this time.
He intentionally said confusing things. He could have just said "You have no right to redistribute that copyrighted jar" which the court would soon agree. That was indeed illegal. Simple copyright infringement.

But he made a long discussion about EULA ("There was no EULA in the Jar, still our EULA is applied to it") which the court would not likely to agree, and I bet he knows that. Which means, he is hiding the true strategy he would use in the court, as many people would do before the court fight.

You have a point when you say "Show me a proof." But they could say too, "Show us a proof that the code was really obtained by RE" and you can't. The possibility is 50-50. Decompiled .class looks very similar to vp62.cpp. If vp62.cpp is actually made that way, it's legal. On the other hand it is also possible that both are just based on the same On2's file, not directly related, and the .cpp was accidentally leaked or intentionally stolen. If so, we rather have to feel sorry for them, even though there is a comparative fault. (It was their fault to let their secret out. They should have more secure code management, if it's that valuable. They might want to sue the person who actually broke their security and stole the files.)

And I agree with: "I do not think you want predators of small companies like On2 to have improper advantage."
If there was LGPL lib around there, Adobe etc will stop paying the license fees in the end, for the decoder part. Their concerns are reasonable. Big companies can be shameless anyway. As for VP3, well, celtic_druid said it's like "Op shop" (Australian English for "charity shop".) Haha. Maybe. They gave it to xiph because it no longer made money. Still... we should give them some credit, since they did that by their free will when they were free not to open-source VP3.

This mess aside, I still would like to keep supprting any person/organization that is trying to make non-MPEG non-MS codecs (SNOW, Dirac; RV10, VP7; Theora...). I hope you/they can reach a middle ground with them/you, instead of time/energy-wasting legal action, so that they can use their resources for developing/improving new codecs.

I mean, don't let this lawyer leech money from On2. Just like you, I'm sure On2's devs don't want lawsuit either. The only person who could make money out of this right away is him.

[dragongodz]

You have a point when you say "Show me a proof." But they could say too, "Show us a proof that the code was really obtained by RE" and you can't.
sorry but that is incorrect. it is On2 that is making the assertion that it is possibly stolen code so it is actually up to them to provide proof period. the rebuttal that it could be from reverse engineering or other by people other than the original author of the code is a suposition and just a possability put out to give a different possible origin. the burden of proof still resides with On2 to prove their claim first.

They gave it to xiph because it no longer made money. Still... we should give them some credit, since they did that by their free will when they were free not to open-source VP3.
they have been spending that credit big time the moment they started calling lawyers on to people instead of doing the right thing. to keep repeatedly bemoaning this 1 thing they did as if that makes them some kind of saint to OSS and should therefore not be required to provide any evidence is rubbish. releasing VP3 source code did nothing for OSS because not only had it stopped making money it was easily surpassed in quality.

This mess aside, I still would like to keep supprting any person/organization that is trying to make non-MPEG non-MS codecs (SNOW, Dirac; RV10, VP7; Theora...).
i agree. thats why people on this forum have beta tested for companies such as On2 and Ateme etc. however this requires both sides to have some respect for each other. sicking lawyers on people who have simply asked for some proof to back up their claims is not respect.

[vlada]

If there was LGPL lib around there, Adobe etc will stop paying the license fees in the end, for the decoder part.

You think that you can use MPEG-4 decoders like libav or XviD in commercial products without paying licence fees to MPEG LA? I don't think so. And it is the same case of VP6. An opensource decoder doesen't allow anybody not to pay licence fees to a format owner.

So now when there is an LGPL VP6 decoder, it doesen't make any changes to companies like Adobe/Macromedia.

[Liisachan]

But there are many shameless companies too, like Sony (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/15/1250229).

[rjamorim]

the burden of proof still resides with On2 to prove their claim first.

Exactly. And both me and you guys have been asking for proof from the start. In this situation here, what haves more weight, the LGPL slapped at the top of the source files or the word from some lawyer? Which one am I supposed to believe by default?

I don't believe the courts would consider me guilty for preferring to believe in what is written than in what is said.

I hope you/they can reach a middle ground with them/you, instead of time/energy-wasting legal action

I want that too! It would only take On2 themselves contacting me and explaining the situation, and stopping relying on legal firms whose tactic is basically FUD.

[Sharktooth]

Please elaborate. I want to hear everyone's opinion.
i mean i dont think on2 deserves that from this community.
they kindly asked to remove the sources. you may argue they havent the rigths to say so but they spent a lot of time and research in their codecs and maybe they're loosing money due to the availability of their source (they have customers that are paying for that decoder). on2 is a small company and loosing customers or money may condemn them to a non bright future...
however since im a supporter of the open source, i wish on2 releases the official decoder source under gpl or similar license so everyone will be happy (on2 included).

[CEC]

Come on people, who are you kidding???????:sly:

This code is on2 property!!

Can someone please say (with the hand on the heart) that it isn't??

[rjamorim]

Come on people, who are you kidding???????:sly:

This code is on2 property!!

Can someone please say (with the hand on the heart) that it isn't??

I don't know what's the point of the "hand on the heart" thing, but up to some days ago, I was 50/50% in doubt whether it was code leaked from On2 or a real reverse engineering effort. Since the Java decompiling possibility came into light, I'm much more inclined to believe this code indeed doesn't belong to On2.

[CEC]

I don't know what's the point of the "hand on the heart" thing, but up to some days ago, I was 50/50% in doubt whether it was code leaked from On2 or a real reverse engineering effort. Since the Java decompiling possibility came into light, I'm much more inclined to believe this code indeed doesn't belong to On2.

But, didn't on2 made this JAVA??? :confused:

If on2 made that JAVA then it must belong to them! Right??

[rjamorim]

But, didn't on2 made this JAVA??? :confused:

If on2 made that JAVA then it must belong to them! Right??

Not if the Java code was used as a source of inspiration to whoever created the library.

Remember, the sources I'm hosting at RareWares are C++, not Java. So, if the applet is indeed the origin of this whole controversy, the library creator at least took the initiative of rewriting the source in C++ - and therefore the copyright would now belong to him.

[Liisachan]

CEC: Like you said, we all believe that the code was originally written by On2 either way. And I'm feeling sorry for On2 too, but if Zeitoun Padli created libvp62 by decompiling that .jar, it could be leagal (in many countries incl. the US), and if so, libvp62 does not belong to On2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering

In other words, simply put, On2 owns that binary ("machine") and sorce code ("step by step recipe: how to make the machine"), but they do not own the algorithm ("idea") behind it (in some freakin' countries where software patents are legal, this gets yet another condition: "unless it is patented").

It is quite possible that Zeitoun Padli actually did decompile that jar. If so, libvp62 is legal. We have a written permission to use libvp62 under LGPL anyway, so, unless otherwise proven, it is assumed to be LGPL'ed. On2's lawyer keeps saying "No, it's On2's. No it's On2's." but that doesn't change anything. What if, for instance, I said "CEC, what you just posted is my property. You are infringing my copyright. Delete your post right away, or I have to, reluctantly, sue you"...? You would be like "Huh?!" no? You would think for a while and then say "Show me a proof." That's normal. If I could let you delete your post by just saying "It's mine, not yours." that would be terrible. In that sense that lawyer is doing a really poor job, but it can't be helped, because On2's devs probebly don't believe him enough to show him the source code. And that lawyer doesn't know how to use diff anyway.

Someone would have to give him a nice gui like WinMerge and explain how to use it. It's just a waste of time to involve non-geek lawyers here. On2Tech could just PM rjamorim, and everything will be settled and that'd cost 0$ and just a few minutes.

The disturbing fact is, now Zeitoun Padli can say "I decompiled that jar to make libvp62" even tho actually he or she didn't. It is still possible too that the code was simply leaked or stolen. The situation being like above, probably On2 couldn't prove what they first insisted ("the code was solen") even if they did their best. Maybe they don't know the fact themselves either. Maybe the code was not stolen after all, but just was RE'ed.

So my point is, it is only natural for rjamorim to say "Show me a proof" but in this case because of the existence of that jar, rjamorim is actually asking what is technically impossible. Some kind of compromise is needed.

[CEC]

O.K. I see the point now!!

But it is sad you know! :(

[CEC]

Check this out:

http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=7052110&forum_id=9050

[Liisachan]

No, I was wrong. On2 may prove the fact very easily. If a few long comments match, we can only conclude that cpp src was just copy-and-pasted. The probability that such a thing accidentally happens is almost 0. Comments can't be obtained by decompiling the .class either. And like I said before, variable names could be a solid evidence too. So, On2 doesn't have to even show the src. They could just quote some of unimportant comments.

CEC: thanks for posting an intersting link :)

[Sirber]

Wouldn't VP6 decoder have some assembly? C++ alone is not that fast.

[Sirber]

@rjamorim

http://multimedia.cx/eggs/index.php?p=12

[videomixer9]

Just boycott On2 and their stupid codecs and the problem is solved, noone will need an decoder for this anymore. And the crappy flash movies aren't worth it anyways. Low quality junk that's encoded with a junk codecs that can disappear from the market imo. Noone needs closed architecture codecs that cannot be decoded with whatever library you want.

Too bad most people are not caring about stuff like this, otherwise the problem would've solved itself by noone even licensing any On2 Codecs.

Even the funny Winamp TV stations that use VP62 now look much better with streamed h264.

Boycott On2 now and have a more happy future without all thesestupid problems. If On2 doesn't want a free decoder based on whatever they sho their arrogance towards the end user and don't deserve any attention. Luckily the scene pretty much ignores these stupid useless codecs.

Also boycotting any of the licensors for this crap codec just like licensors of real codecs would be a nice idea too, whyever e.g. Macromedia licensed that crap, Flashvideo is already famous for it's crappy quality everywhere, most people seems to laugh their asses off by the crap quality of those videos.

[celtic_druid]

VP62 is better than Sorenson Spark and that was better than a series of jpg's (or maybe not?). I don't really see it is usefull as a straight video stream, but as part of a multimedia package where you can incorperate bitmaps, vectors, text and video.

[vlada]

i mean i dont think on2 deserves that from this community.
they kindly asked to remove the sources. you may argue they havent the rigths to say so but they spent a lot of time and research in their codecs and maybe they're loosing money due to the availability of their source (they have customers that are paying for that decoder).

As I already wrote before, the fact, that you have an opensource decoder, doesen't allow you to use the fromat freely. So this is a false argument.