PotPlayer Thread gone? [Archive] - Page 2

Asmodian

14th December 2012, 22:28

And the whole gpl is not about freedom but to prevent this jealousy.

I thought it was to force the people who based their work on the code they get from open source to also release their code so the next developer can benefit from their improvements?

Why doesn't the developer of PotPlayer just release their code? If they are not trying to make money off of it, why not? The community could benefit if they had access to PotPlayer's code.

Is it just that the developer is jealously guarding their code and thinks someone might make a better player based on their work if they were to release it?

jackuars

5th May 2013, 06:20

This discussion is ridiculous and closing the PotPlayer thread is stupid. PotPlayer wouldn't be hosted on software download sites, if it violated the copyrights. Moreover if found, those people who claim violation could actually sue the developer of PotPlayer. I don't see any instance of it, and unless proved the PotPLayer thread should be open..

LightSabre

25th June 2013, 22:35

I just noticed the following text in the latest version of PotPlayer 1.5.3562 (the English translated version), in the About section on the Copyright tab - among other things there is the following text:
- This program contains the video decoder FFmpeg (http://ffmpeg.mplayerhq.hu) was used, FFmpeg subject to the LGPL license. LGPL license, refer to the installation directory LGPL.TXT. The modified FFmpeg sources can be downloaded from the http://potplayer.daum.net/devel/ffmpeg.zip.

Any comments?

Wilbert

26th June 2013, 20:34

The claim was that they distributed the GPL version of ffmpeg (instead of the LGPL one), hence the PotPlayer must released under the GPL. If they don't want to release the PotPlayer under the GPL, they must use the LGPL version of ffmpeg (and package it for the public). Neither has been the case (since ffmpeg.zip is still from 2010).

SuLyMaN

30th June 2014, 08:23

Hi guys. Just an update. The FFMEG hall of shame has been put 'on hold'. There are absolutely no entries there "until the entries are updated". http://www.ffmpeg.org/shame.html

Maybe that mods can consider putting the potplayer forum back up? Thanks!

mzso

30th June 2014, 10:13

Judging by the internet archive it's being updated since 2011.

nevcairiel

30th June 2014, 13:36

Maybe that mods can consider putting the potplayer forum back up? Thanks!

The absence of the hall of shame on the FFmpeg website doesn't absolve anyone that breaks their license in any way.

So what exactly changed? I don't see PotPlayer being open source all of the sudden or at the very least releasing their modified ffmpeg sources, do you?

SuLyMaN

1st July 2014, 09:48

Well, my view of that is that the authors of FFMPEG themselves do not have a list of 'offending' softwares. What has changed for me since last time I visited the FFMPEG website is that there is simply NO LIST AT ALL on their website stating any offending software. I clearly remember last time I visited the ConvertXtoDVD software was in their list.

[ReX]

2nd July 2014, 23:56

Doom9

5th July 2014, 10:17

Has anyone checked a recent distribution of Potplayer and the sources they offer to see if anything has changed? That's what would be required for a determination if the thread could be reopened (assuming they really do follow the license now - so using the LGPL version of ffmpeg AND really shipping the full sources so that their distribution of ffmpeg can be rebuilt).

Sparktank

5th July 2014, 11:01

Nothing's changed. Still no sources and only the LGPL.txt linking to software used and the modified ffmpeg source that LightSabre pointed out (http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1634238&postcount=55).

And that site ("http://potplayer.daum.net/devel/ffmpeg.zip") actually leads to a blank page with...
dfsgsfg2

hello_hello

6th July 2014, 05:16

I don't develop/write software so maybe I'm missing something, and I've been wanting to ask for a while but refrained due to the past forum moderation, however.....

I do fail to see why the whole Potplayer issue isn't a bit of a storm in a teacup and why it's doom9's responsibility to be the GPL police anyway. Especially as this forum contains plenty of discussions regarding software such as DGIndex.... there's even a sub-forum dedicated to it.... yet not so long ago the forum seems to have been purged of DGIndex download links (although a link to a previous version remains on the download page).... the thread discussing/linking to a modified version seems to have vanished.... and if you visit neuron2's website you're provided with the following information:
http://rationalqm.us/dgmpgdec/dgmpgdec.html
"Version 1.5.8 is the latest full released version. Note that binaries are no longer provided due to potential MPEGLA licensing liabilities. You'll have to build it yourself, or find binaries elsewhere."

As I said, I don't write software, but the "source code only" thing......
Not that I particularly care. LAME has been distributed the same way for as long as I an remember and I use it regularly (as I use DGIndex regularly), and I'd be surprised if similar "potential licensing issues" didn't apply to ffmpeg, but while we're allowed to discuss software which even the author states has "potential MPEGLA licensing liabilities", when it comes to software where the crime is not adhering exactly to a "you're welcome to modify and re-distribute it anyway" license, discussion is banned.

neuron2 isn't in court defending his software against a MPEGLA lawsuit, neither are the developers of LAME, and the author of Potplayer has no lawsuit pending against him which I'm aware of, so I'm struggling to find a moral distinction. I'm really not trying to start an argument over this but I would like to understand the rationale. Especially as the way I understand it, the moderator which took it upon himself to be the Potplayer morality police is also the author of DGIndex.

Doom9

6th July 2014, 10:53

You're comparing copyright infringement with potential patent infringement (depending on which codec we're talking about a certain number of binary distributions are even allowed), and MPEGLA (big guy) with ffmpeg (little guy). Yes, we are not the copyright police, however, it would set a rather bad precedent and be quite offensive to all the open source developers that frequent this board if we let the obvious things slide - plus we've previously shamed license violators ourselves (for instance I have removed software from the download archive).

If you want the thread back, why not contact the makers of Potplayer, let them know they have this issue (the GPL vs LGPL thing with ffmpeg has crept up before and was resolved iirc), ask them to build against the LGPL licensed ffmpeg and provide the full modified sources to get us back to the right track. If they are nice and reasonable people, they'll thank you for the chance to clear this up rather than face a lawsuit some time in the future (always a possibility), if they ignore the issue, they should be shamed much more proactively.

Asmodian

6th July 2014, 11:09

I guess I think of it as stealing from your neighbor (nevcarvial, for example) instead needing to be aware of licence issues with the MPEGLA; nevcairiel won't think of it as stealing if you simply release the source code for any changes you make and the MPEGLA only wants bigger media companies paying licence fees (100,000 units or more (http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf)). Copyright vs Patient too.

You do understand the spirit behind open source? Free as long as you let the community use the code you create using their code. It is supposed to encourage more developers; to use the useful code everyone creates in your project you have to help development for everyone else too.

edit: Doom9 posted while I was typing. :o

mzso

6th July 2014, 12:50

You do understand the spirit behind open source? Free as long as you let the community use the code you create using their code. It is supposed to encourage more developers; to use the useful code everyone creates in your project you have to help development for everyone else too.

edit: Doom9 posted while I was typing. :o

So free, but also with mandatory free shackles? It's quite the paradox. . These "free" things result in such "productive" thinks like "let's remake ZFS from scratch because it's different kind of free". FOSS if more like religion than anything.
Patents and copyrights garbage are even worse though.

Asmodian

6th July 2014, 23:48

Just don't use their code if you don't like their licence, no reason they need to let you use their code. They spent years writing it. Free as in "we don't need money for it" not free as in "do whatever you like with it".

If not for being open source ZFS wouldn't be in use anywhere but Solaris so I don't understand the point of the comparison, would it be more productive to write ZFS from scratch again for every single project that wanted that functionality? Ok, incompatible licence issues are annoying and can cause headaches but better that than simply no access to the code at all. You seem to be under the assumption ZFS (or ffmpeg) would exist as they are now without the open source restrictions, this is not the case.

Are you really arguing that FOSS is too restrictive? I assume you have another model that works better? People don't seem big on releasing code "free for anyone to do anything they like with", there are a few projects but it is rare. Do you believe people should have some control over what they create or are you arguing for a "all information free from any restrictions all the time" social order? ffmpeg seems to be a major success, it wouldn't be where it is now if people could take it, improve it for their own project, and not release the improvements. All they have to do is release the source code, that is it. Nothing too hard, no other religious rights need to be performed. It seems a small price to pay for getting all the work that went into ffmpeg for free.

Anyway we are getting circular here, the arguments seem to simply be "I don't care about open source, Doom9 shouldn't either" and "I care about open source, Doom9 should too". Since Doom9 already said they do care about open source we have our answer.

foxyshadis

7th July 2014, 06:40

So free, but also with mandatory free shackles? It's quite the paradox. . These "free" things result in such "productive" thinks like "let's remake ZFS from scratch because it's different kind of free". FOSS if more like religion than anything.
Patents and copyrights garbage are even worse though.

This argument is literally 25 years old, and yes, GPL was expressly created by Richard Stallman to create a world that was entirely open-source via license infection, and yes, the debates around it are religious in nature. There's no point in rehashing all that here. Other products use MPL, LGPL, BSD/CCby3, or PD/CC0 to be more permissive, and projects are free to use those libraries, too. Others use non-commercial and no-derivative licenses. Until we enter a world where nothing is owned by anyone, people are free to choose how much ownership they want over their works.

Doom9 decided long ago that discussion of GPL-violating products is equivalent to discussion of any other pirated product, no arguments have swayed that decision yet. There are other forums that aren't as worried about niceties.

turbojet

7th July 2014, 06:40

Is there any evidence the ffmpeg source was changed for potplayer? I've been using it for awhile and nothing stands out to me.

foxyshadis

7th July 2014, 06:47

Is there any evidence the ffmpeg source was changed for potplayer? I've been using it for awhile and nothing stands out to me.

It includes GPL code, not just LGPL. Beyond that, they violate every part of the LGPL, as well.

mzso

7th July 2014, 12:11

This argument is literally 25 years old, and yes, GPL was expressly created by Richard Stallman to create a world that was entirely open-source via license infection, and yes, the debates around it are religious in nature. There's no point in rehashing all that here. Other products use MPL, LGPL, BSD/CCby3, or PD/CC0 to be more permissive, and projects are free to use those libraries, too. Others use non-commercial and no-derivative licenses. Until we enter a world where nothing is owned by anyone, people are free to choose how much ownership they want over their works.

Well, maybe there's something to it then.... :)
Hah! Ownership. In the real world you don't really have ownership over something you can't protect. You release something on the internet you instantly start owning it. Even if it's closed source and DRM'd you don't because they're hacked and DRM-s are all broken quickly.

Just don't use their code if you don't like their licence, no reason they need to let you use their code. They spent years writing it. Free as in "we don't need money for it" not free as in "do whatever you like with it".
Or just use it don't give a crap about what they think. And they can do precious little against it. In some legislations you may be bothered by law enforcement (But they mostly do that to protect big corporations) but in others they don't give the slightest crap. You can also hide using one of these zealot licenses if you put in some effort.
It will be just shallow ideology, and optional in practice until there's only one free license which enforced by all the states, and even the closed source programs' source code are submitted and evaluated by the authorities. I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Asmodian

7th July 2014, 20:12

In the real world you don't really have ownership over something you can't protect.

This is something society is for, to help people protect their property when they don't have the might to protect it on their own. Shaming a bad actor is as tough as we get for something like this. ;)

It will be just shallow ideology, and optional in practice until there's only one free license which enforced by all the states, and even the closed source programs' source code are submitted and evaluated by the authorities. I don't see it happening anytime soon.

There are murders and rapes in the real world, it is a messy place. I will not lose sleep over open source licence violations. This doesn't mean Doom9 should turn a blind eye to them.

tuco76

4th September 2014, 08:40

Having lurked far and between for quite a while, I just registered.
So, first off, hi everyone :)

As for the subject, I think everything is clear and seattled so far.
I do not know too much yet about the whole GPL thing, but I get the point about Doom9's decision.
Sad for me nevertheless, since I use PotPlayer (with mainly LAV) for years.
On last stable version, I discovered PP does not use FFmpeg as Built-in for certain audio formats anymore (DTS, AC3,...)

Also some copyright info has changed I think, might be a reaction to the reported issues (hope so, at least :) )

http://s14.directupload.net/images/140904/5n46tnnj.png (http://www.directupload.net)

It's copyright info says:

* Copyright Information
- This software includes a video decoder based on FFmpeg (http://www.ffmpeg.org) which is licensed under LGPL license.(To review the LGPL license, look for LGPL.txt in install directory) The modified FFmpeg source can be downloaded from http://potplayer.daum.net/devel/ffmpeg.zip.
- This software uses Zlib library (http://www.zlib.net) which is licensed under zlib license.
- This software uses rar library made publicly available by RARLAB (http://www.rarlab.com)
- This software uses png library (http://www.libpng.org) which is licensed under zlib/png license.
- This software uses OGG (VORBIS) library made publicly available by Xiph.org (http://www.vorbis.com) which is licensed under BSD-like license.
- This software uses BASS library (http://www.un4seen.com)
- This software uses MediaInfo library (http://mediaarea.net)
- This software's installer was made using NSIS (http://nsis.sourceforge.net) which is licensed under zlib/libpng license.
- This software uses FreeType font renderer library (http://www.freetype.org)
- This software copyrights (C) are owned by Daum Communications (http://www.daum.net)
- Translated by http://www.dvbsupport.net/

I don't know if this is actually sufficient, or possibly might change the deal for Doom9's decision,
at least it looks like some reaction!?

Thanks for any feedback on this..

nevcairiel

4th September 2014, 08:57

tuco76

4th September 2014, 09:30

It might be OK if they actually provided the ffmpeg.zip they are linking. Check the URL, its invalid. As long as they don't do that (and someone checks that they actually only use LGPL, and not GPL), its still as bas as ever.

Thanks for the quick reply!
Damn, my bad I haven't checked the URL. I might give it a try reporting, which seems quite tricky since the dev seems not to be into English too much, and neither I am into Korean ;)

I'll check as you adviced with upcoming releases, really hope they get that sorted out.

I've got one or two questions concerning LAV, will post them in your thread then.

And BTW, thank you so much for this whole project :)

filler56789

4th September 2014, 14:16

FWIW, and to whom this may interest, there is a "PotPlayer topic" at VideoHelp dot com

(no links, sorry, just go there and :search: ).

Just like the original topic started by leeperry, it is UN-official and "community-driven".
If it's not as popular as it should be, just put the blame on mzso :p

tuco76

4th September 2014, 22:14

Just like the original topic started by leeperry, it is UN-official and "community-driven".
If it's not as popular as it should be, just put the blame on mzso :p

Yeah, and when he started that [much appreciated] thread, the first post was like:
"Why?" :p
Actually, that's a good point IMO.
I'm really gratefull mzso, sheppaul and others helping out there, immediately and competently.

But it starts really bugging me, since PP's been out for quite a while, still no (usefull) official English forum
[or, at least, an engl. bug tracking site, even the deinstall dialogue/selections is still Korean].
Makes me feel somewhat unwanted and unadressed.
Also, obviously theres (still) not too much concern for that GPL issue.
Which is quite basically, IMO.

I really love(d) PP, but I'm just about changing my mind, I guess.
In fact, I re-installed MPC-HC today and started configuring shortcuts etc.
[I didn't even know LAV's = Built in meanwhile :o]

QBhd

5th September 2014, 07:27

Still a fan of PP and I get my English updates at dvbsupport... at least it tracks the changes... I will say that I am not a fan of any issues regarding licenses, that is not cool.

QB

tuco76

5th September 2014, 11:22

Still a fan of PP and I get my English updates at dvbsupport...
QB

Sry for again talking about PP, just to clarify:
There is no issue with getting English versions/ updates, also videohelp provides English versions since years ago, I guess.

I was more referring to the contact/bug report site [which I wont link, its in the videohelp PP thread]

Its entirely Korean, and it seems Google translate-proof (or I'm too stupid yet ;) )
Apreciated you're still a fan, I won't totally give up on it either.
So I guess let's see what's gonna happen next :)

Currently, for any more conversation about PP, the prev. mentioned thread might be place to go.
Before some staff might get serious health issues about us still and steadily ignoring their decision :p

Zarxrax

6th June 2015, 19:59

Hi, I am wondering if this issue has been resolved.
In the most recent version of PotPlayer, it appears that open source codecs such as ffmpeg and libav are optionally installed by a 2nd installer after the main installation is completed.

I also examined the strings contained in the file FFmpeg64.dll which is installed through this secondary installer, and I see the following:
libavcodec license: LGPL version 2.1 or later
libswresample license: LGPL version 2.1 or later
libavutil license: LGPL version 2.1 or later

And I do not see any strings related to GPL licensing. Do these changes resolve these long-standing issues, or are they still in violation?