DGAVCDec future?

[2Bdecided]

Did I miss something while the forum was difficult-to-find (different IP address!)?

Is DGAVCDec gone for good, or just hibernating?

I can't use the NV version - I don't have a suitable graphics card.

Cheers,
David.

[nurbs]

Read a couple of posts following this one: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1347608#post1347608

[2Bdecided]

Oh. Thanks for the link.

That's a real shame.

I hope that if a free (and bug-free) AVC codec becomes available, neuron2 will look at the project again.

(I'm not asking - just hoping - it's free software - us users don't any right to demand anything!)

Cheers,
David.

[Guest]

However I don't see the GPL issue. As far as I know, FFmpeg (and thus libavcodec) is released under the LGPL (GNU Lesser General Public License).

In contrast to the GPL, the LGPL explicitly allows to call LGPL'd libraries from proprietary applications. That's the whole reason why LGPL was created, in addition to GPL.

So if you modify a LGPL'd DLL (library), then you must only make the modified source of that DLL available. Not necessarily the source of the main application.
That's what I thought and that's exactly what I did. I made available the source code for the modified libavcodec.dll. Nevertheless, at the apparent instigation of Dark Shikari, I was placed in the FFMPEG "Hall of Shame".

I'd welcome an explanation for that action, if not an apology, in the hope that the whole misunderstanding might be resolved so that the tool can live on.

[Dark Shikari]

That's what I thought and that's exactly what I did.You explicitly said in the documentation that your included libavcodec was GPL. I don't think you can reasonably claim that you "thought you linked to an LGPL copy."I made available the source code for the modified libavcodec.dll.Where? I was unable to find it.I'd welcome an explanation for that action, if not an apology, in the hope that the whole misunderstanding might be resolved so that the tool can live on.I had basically nothing to do with it. Someone mentioned that DGAVCDec was violating the GPL on IRC, and I confirmed it, and then someone else stuffed it on the Hall of Shame.

It's already been resolved. The instant you promised to resolve the issue, I got you removed, and furthermore, we even went as far to get the policy changed so that non-commercial projects who violate the GPL will not be put on the hall of shame. Everything, as far as I can tell, has been resolved.

What else do you want?

[Guest]

I had basically nothing to do with it. Someone mentioned that DGAVCDec was violating the GPL on IRC, and I confirmed it, and then someone else stuffed it on the Hall of Shame. How could you confirm it when there HAS ALWAYS BEEN a text file in there offering the source code? Even the initial entry in the Hall of Shame points to that. And why couldn't someone email me with their concerns instead of doing something like that?

It's already been resolved. The instant you promised to resolve the issue, I got you removed, No, the source code offer was always there. I told you I withdrew the program and that's when you had the item closed, not removed.

I never violated LPGL and I want that entire entry removed.

and furthermore, we got the policy changed so that non-commercial projects who violate the GPL will not be put on the hall of shame.

What else do you want? I want the entry removed completely.

[Dark Shikari]

How could you confirm it when there HAS ALWAYS BEEN a text file in there offering the source code? Even the initial entry in the Hall of Shame points to that. And why couldn't someone email me with their concerns instead of doing something like that?Erm, because you linked to a GPL libavcodec from a non-GPL program? The complaint had nothing to do with the source code offer.I told you I withdrew the program and that's when you had the item closed, not removed."Closed" means "resolved".I never violated LPGL and I want that entire entry removed.But you did violate the GPL, not the LGPL.

[Guest]

Erm, because you linked to a GPL libavcodec from a non-GPL program? The complaint had nothing to do with the source code offer."Closed" means "resolved".But you did violate the GPL. No, I linked to LGPL ffmpeg code. If you are saying that ffdshow is GPL, be aware that I don't use any ffdshow code, only the libavcodec subdirectory in it and everything in there says LGPL. libavcodec is LGPL, ffdshow cannot make that more restrictive.

I did not violate GPL and until that is acknowledged and the entry completely removed I cannot work anymore on it.

Please spell out exactly what licensing you claim I violated and how. You've made the claim, I am entitled to see your explanation.

[Dark Shikari]

No, I linked to LGPL ffmpeg code. If you are saying that ffdshow is GPL, be aware that I don't use any ffdsho code, only the libavcodec subdirectory in it and everythere says LGPL.Let's quote from your actual "libavcodec.txt":

The libavcodec.dll shipped with DGAVCDec is a GPL binary. I built it from the
source code available here:

http://sourceforge.net/project/downloading.php?groupname=ffdshow-tryout

I have made a small modification to return a different version string to
manage compatibility issues. This modification is available on request.Are you saying that libavcodec.txt is wrong?

[Brazil2]

DGAVCIndex was an Avisynth source filter purely for H.264/AVC streams
Let's hope this 'was' will become a 'is' soon when all this fever will cool down ;)

[Guest]

Let's quote from your actual "libavcodec.txt":

Are you saying that libavcodec.txt is wrong? Well, yes, it is, because libavcodec is LGPL. You know that as well as everyone else.

My omission of a letter L in a notice is not itself a violation, it is just that, a mistake. A real violation must involve my using source code licensed under GPL.

So, again, what GPL code from libavcodec did I violate? Please be specific. Tell me what file from libavcodec you claim I used that is marked as GPL.

[Dark Shikari]

Well, yes, it is, because libavcodec is LGPL. You know that as well as everyone else.

Anyway, again, what GPL code did I violate? Please be specific. Tell me what file from libavcodec you claim I used that is marked as GPL.libavcodec can be compiled with or without --enable-gpl. This enables a few extra bits of code, such as the libxvid IDCT, some additional H.264 assembly code, and so forth. Thus, libavcodec can be either LGPL, GPLv2, or GPLv3 (or even nonredistributable) depending on how you compile it and what you link it to.

Obviously, in your case, there is absolutely no reason to use anything but the LGPL version, which is why this is at most a silly mistake that you can easily fix by moving to the LGPL version. Specifically, there two possibilities I can see:

1. You accidentally included a GPL version. You fix it by including an LGPL version.
2. You included an LGPL version correctly, but you accidentally messed up libavcodec.txt. You fix it by modifying libavcodec.txt.

Note that since you have no download on your page, I am using this version (http://www.videohelp.com/tools/DGAVCDec). There are a bunch more subtle problems with this version (most notably, it doesn't actually include the license), but I recall that you had a more recent one--can you link me to it so I can check it?

[Guest]

As far as I know I did not compile with --enable-gpl (in fact, I never even heard of that option). I can verify that only when I return home.

Since you claim to have "confirmed" the violation, what evidence do you have that suggests I compiled with --enable-gpl?

Since you say you have the policy not to put Hall of Shame on noncommercial uses, why can't the entry be entirely removed?

Finally, in another post, since removed as OT, you said "fortunately DGAVCDec is still available at videohelp.com so we can use it". But why aren't you putting them in the Hall of Shame? It reeks with hypocrisy.

[Dark Shikari]

Since you claim to have "confirmed" the violation, what evidence do you have that suggests I compiled with --enable-gpl?When I "confirmed" the violation originally, there were enough separate violations (such as not including the license) that I was quite sure that there was a violation regardless. You fixed many of these, from what I recall, but only after I notified you of them, which was after I "confirmed" the violation. I didn't do anything related to the Hall of Shame during this time period.

Remember, just because you fixed the problems doesn't mean the problems never existed in the first place. It's perfectly fine to admit that you made a mistake and get on with things, everyone does that.Since you say you have the policy not to put Hall of Shame on noncommercial uses, why can't the entry be entirely removed?I'm pretty sure no bugtracker entry has ever been removed, nor do I have rights to remove them, nor will I be able to convince the admin to do so.

Also, the bugtracker is not the Hall of Shame. Non-commercial software can still get entered at the bugtracker, just not added to the Hall of Shame.Finally, in another post, since removed as OT, you said "fortunately DGAVCDec is still available at videohelp.com so we can use it". But why aren't you putting them in the Hall of Shame? It reeks with hypocrisy.As I said, the policy changed, so ffmpeg no longer puts non-commercial software on the Hall of Shame.

And stop saying "I"; I had very little to do with most of this. If anything, I've been on your side almost this entire time, trying to help you fix your problem and get you off the Hall of Shame, yet you still continue to blame everything on me.

[Guest]

When I "confirmed" the violation originally, there were enough separate violations (such as not including the license) that I was quite sure that there was a violation regardless. You fixed many of these, from what I recall, but only after I notified you of them, which was after I "confirmed" the violation. I dispute everything you say here. You have yet to document even one violation and I am still asking for you to tell me specifically what libavcodec licensing I violated.


Remember, just because you fixed the problems doesn't mean the problems never existed in the first place. There was NEVER a violation of libavcodec and you are being disingenuous in this whole matter.

Tell me what I violated! I've asked three times now.

[Dark Shikari]

I dispute everything you say here. You have yet to document even one violation and I am still asking for you to tell me specifically what libavcodec licensing I violated.Yes, I've already told you twice that you didn't include the license.Tell me what I violated! I've asked three times now.I've already said it multiple times, but I will say it again!

These are from 1.09, before you modified it to abide by the license:

http://i49.tinypic.com/2cmx0s3.png

1. The LGPL is not included with libavcodec.dll. ALL distributions of libavcodec.dll MUST include the LGPL or whatever license it's under.

2. The libavcodec.dll shipped with DGAVCDec is a GPL binary. I built it from the
source code available here:

http://sourceforge.net/project/downloading.php?groupname=ffdshow-tryout

I have made a small modification to return a different version string to
manage compatibility issues. This modification is available on request.This is not a source offer. A link to the source code, hosted on an unrelated website, is not sufficient. You have an offer for the modifications, but the offer must cover the full source, not merely the changes. This is a stupid technicality, but it exists nonetheless, and you must follow it, because even if it's dumb, that's what the license says. Again, don't blame me for this: this is what the license says, and I can't change that.

More importantly, your link doesn't go to any particular version of the source code--the link must go to the specific source that you used to compile libavcodec so that others can duplicate the process themselves.

There was NEVER a violation of libavcodec and you are being disingenuous in this whole matter.Why the heck do you expect me to help you if you keep treating me like this? I am trying to help you.

[Guest]

So my intent was clear by offering the notice. Also, I did point to the original code and offer my changes, and did deliver that to several people.

Then because of what you admit are stupid technicalities, instead of emailing me, you and the other person decided to put me in the Hall of Shame.

That's why I have trouble seeing your role as a friendly one.

So my bottom line remains: remove the entry completely. If it isn't removed, then I have no interest in continuing this discussion or working with libavcodec.

Given that such entries will not be made in the future, why is it so difficult to remove this one? It's all about that for me right now. Your choice: a stupid entry in a database or continuation of DGAVCDec.

Oh you missed one of my questions: Why aren't you going after videohelp.com for the LGPL violation? I've asked them to remove it but they are not responding.

[Dark Shikari]

So my intent was clear by offering the notice. Also, I did point to the original code and offer my changes, and did deliver that to several people.

Then because of what you admit are stupid technicalities, instead of emailing me, you and the other person decided to put me in the Hall of Shame.I didn't decide to put you in the Hall of Shame. The only role I played was that someone asked me if DGAVCDec was violating or not, and I said it probably was. Ever since, I've been trying to help you resolve the problem, and you've blocked my help at every single step of the process.

The reason I'm dealing with "stupid technicalities" is because I need to convince the ffmpeg legal people that you are in compliance. It is not my fault that I have to deal in these technicalities; if you want "off", you have to, and I have no control over this whatsoever.So my bottom line remains: remove the entry completely. If it isn't removed, then I have no interest in continuing this discussion or working with libavcodec.

Given that such entries will not be made in the future, why is it so difficult to remove this one? It's all about that for me right now. Your choice: a stupid entry in a database or continuation of DGAVCDec.What the heck do you expect me to do? I can't do that, I don't have access to it, and I certainly can't convince the people in charge to do it if you refuse to abide by said stupid technicalities.

Again, I have absolutely no control over this. My decision-making power is zero. I am only trying to help you do what the ffmpeg legal people want you to do. I cannot make anything happen on my own.

I'd love for DGAVCDec to be developed again--which is why I'm doing the best I can to try to help you resolve the issue. There is absolutely nothing more I can do than what I am doing now. I am not to try going to hack the bugtracker for you and remove the ticket.Oh you missed one of my questions: Why aren't you going after videohelp.com for the LGPL violation? I've asked them to remove it but they are not responding.Why do you keep talking about me? I didn't add you to the Hall of Shame and I have absolutely nothing to do with "going after" anyone.

Let me put it in simple terms:

1. I cannot get your entry removed from the bugtracker myself. There is absolutely nothing I could do to make that happen, no matter how much I wanted it to happen.

2. Said "stupid technicalities" are sufficient for the ffmpeg legal people to consider you in violation. I cannot change this fact. The most I can do is to try to help you resolve them.

3. I want DGAVCDec to continue existing. If I didn't want to, why in the world would I be trying to help you?

[Guest]

The original bugtracker entry says:

"Dark_Shikari found a possible license violation by DGAVCDec"

You did not email me or otherwise notify me about it. Instead you instigated/confirmed/approved the creation of the tracker entry. Had you emailed or PMed me, I would have immediately resolved the technicalities. Why did you not email or PM me?

Are you going after videohelp.com? Have you instigated a Hall of Shame bug tracker entry for them? If not, why not?

[Dark Shikari]

The original bugtracker entry says:

"Dark_Shikari found a possible license violation by DGAVCDec"

You did not email me or otherwise notify me about it. Instead you instigated/confirmed/approved the creation of the tracker entry. Had you emailed or PMed me, I would have immediately resolved the technicalities. Why did you not email or PM me?I did not tell anyone to create the tracker entry. All that happened was someone on IRC mentioned it and I checked it out. I didn't PM you because that was the responsibility of the person creating the tracker entry. If they didn't contact you, that isn't my fault--how was I supposed to know that?Are you going after videohelp.com? Have you instigated a bug tracker entry for them? If not, why not?Since you are refusing to read my posts, I will simply repeat my old posts.I didn't add you to the Hall of Shame and I have absolutely nothing to do with "going after" anyone.

[Guest]

Do you know how to contact "cehoyos"?

[Dark Shikari]

I don't believe you. Have a nice day.Well if you insist on this, here's my ultimatum.

This is my last post on Doom9 until either you apologize or Doom9 himself apologizes for your behavior in this thread.

I don't want to post on a forum where I get treated like crap by the moderators and have no recourse to do anything about it. You've already been harassing me via PM for a few days to try to "get back" at me for something I didn't even do--this is the last straw. I will absolutely not stand for this kind of treatment any longer.

You have a nice day, too.

[Guest]

You've already been harassing me via PM for a few days to try to "get back" at me for something I didn't even do--this is the last straw. Stop making wild claims. I deleted the blatant advertising in your sig and informed you about it in PM. When you asked for clarification, I provided it. Doom9 is quite welcome at any time to review my PM history.

[Atak_Snajpera]

I think it is time too finish this dispute:
1) Neuron2 please just do what they want and everybody will be happy.
2) The guy who put you on that stupid list should remove that entry immediately

This funny that after those months suddenly somebody realized that DGavcdec has some license issues :) I'm also surprised that neuron didn't get any emails with warning. Especially that he is not some guy who makes another 'ffmpeg GUI ripoff'! Also despite not free DGNV tools he was still willing to improve DGAVCDec for free.

I have to say that this behavior on display by neuron2 perfectly, I mean, 100% perfectly illustrates the point about his abuse of moderator powers.
Abuse or not personally I don't care! Life does not end at this forum.

[Guest]

Closing as it is becoming strike bait.

I've broken out the technical stuff on FFMPEGSource2 to a new thread.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=151105