PotPlayer Thread gone? [Archive]

Temeteron

25th August 2012, 14:59

I download today and install Daum PotPlayer 1.5.34023 64bit windows 7 and i want to ask you something.The updates coming separately in English from here http://www.dvbsupport.net/ is for 64 bit too or only for 32 bit?and something else,if i install stable version like Daum PotPlayer 1.5.34023 i need to uninstall and install each new stable version come or i just need to install updates from http://www.dvbsupport.net/ and thats all?Thank you for your time

Wilbert

25th August 2012, 15:15

Temeteron

25th August 2012, 15:22

OK.Im new at forums and dont know how exactly forums work.I wait until broblems fixed

LoRd_MuldeR

25th August 2012, 15:26

OK.Im new at forums and dont know how exactly forums work.I wait until broblems fixed

Then you should have a look at the rules again, especially rule #6:
http://forum.doom9.org/forum-rules.htm

As long as PotPlayer continues to violate the GPL and/or ships with "cracked" software, we cannot allow discussion here...

waltdisneypixar

25th August 2012, 21:31

Keiyakusha

27th August 2012, 17:49

What cracked software does it include?
That's pretty valid question. You maybe closed thread but this action didn't deleted the actual software from people's harddrives. I don't see how I can know what is cracked there so i can remove it, unless you'll tell me... Many dll's that come in package - i can only guess what are they, if they are from some cracked software I want to know about it in more detail.

Guest

27th August 2012, 18:56

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1588895#post1588895

In fact, I misread a post in the PotPlayer thread, and regret my carelessness.

http://roundup.libav.org/issue2112

11mail22

31st August 2012, 15:05

somehow strange.

At first you supposed the usage of cracked software in potplayer, which seems to be not the case.

Than you dig out a GPL issue (2112) which is 2 years old?

Hope it will be clarified soon, so potplayer community get their thread back.

Guest

31st August 2012, 15:34

Than you dig out a GPL issue (2112) which is 2 years old? The issue is still active and Daum is not addressing it. Our policy is to respect the claims of the copyright holders/licensors.

petran79

4th September 2012, 10:03

same reason Kmplayer thread is gone too or was it mainly about the installer issue?

But even VLC player has not settled some things straight, concerning GPL.

I'll settle for MPC then.

Wilbert

4th September 2012, 18:34

As far as i can see, only the Potplayer and the Light Alloy threads are moved.

waltdisneypixar

6th September 2012, 19:14

fred_gaou

13th September 2012, 00:38

What's new?

Is there a way to solve the problem, a file to add or delete in PotPlayer distribution offered in that forum, etc?

Guest

13th September 2012, 00:41

Daum is apparently uninterested in complying with GPL/LGPL. The source code they provide must match the executable.

fred_gaou

13th September 2012, 01:13

If I've got it right, it's about the ffcodec.dll file provided by daum? They compiled their own version and don't provide the source code anywhere since http://potplayer.daum.net/devel/ffmpeg.zip doesn't match the ffcodec.dll? Or the problem would be Potplayer itself can't use gpl software as long as PotPlayer is not a GPL software?

And so, Daum refused to clean that situation?

Guest

13th September 2012, 01:30

All I know is what the copyright holder told me. My understanding is that they use LGPL. They are required to provide source to the DLL that matches the distributed DLL. According to the copyright holder, it does not match and Daum is therefore in violation of the license. It is not up to me or the Doom9 forum to follow up with Daum. But you are free to ask them why the source code does not match what they distribute.

ZoNi

4th October 2012, 12:34

Any news? Is there a problem with official PotPlayer (korean) or translated version or both?

Keiyakusha

4th October 2012, 13:06

can anyone (from doom9) actually compile latest sources that potplayer provides and check if result matches to the distributed dll? This is if I understand the problem correctly.
Also I hope they at ffmpeg didn't matched provided source code to the beta version of the player, but to release version?
Also I hope they compared it to korean version, and not english version. English version is not supported, its a hack by 3rd parties.

moshmothma

4th October 2012, 16:46

This is really absurd and disappointing....Your rule 6 clearly does not pertain to some dispute between software developers and the use of open source code...you have only conveniently converted it to a really selfish and misguided (perhaps even personnel) attempt to litigate a scenario which falls way outside of what this forum is/should be about...
The developers can hash out whatever they need to on another stage..put those threads on Potplayer and Light Alloy back up for the community for continued discussion, development, and enjoyment.

strumf666

21st October 2012, 17:57

Any news/progress?

HoP

24th October 2012, 19:01

Any news/progress?

bump :D

Fuzzycat

14th November 2012, 13:31

Bermp!

SuLyMaN

16th November 2012, 08:27

Yeah seriously potplayer is by far and by a mile the best player I've used in the past few years. When its going to be up again!?

Superb

16th November 2012, 11:07

@Commenters above me: why don't you guys care when a closed source software (PotPlayer) violates the license of an open source project (ffmpeg/libav)? That's the real question.

Keiyakusha

16th November 2012, 15:43

@Commenters above me: why don't you guys care when a closed source software (PotPlayer) violates the license of an open source project (ffmpeg/libav)? That's the real question.

Why should simple users care about that? Not everyone even know what opensource means. We use what is good. Besides it is not yet proven that it violates something. There is high chance that the ones who came to that conclusion compared apples to bananas, that's why it appeared to be violation. However no one proved that there is no violation either. Not much people seem to be interested in taking time to compile the stuff in question.

Asmodian

16th November 2012, 20:17

I consider myself a simple user (I haven't contributed to any open source projects :( ) and care very much about open source software following the rules. A lot of people put a lot of work into the open source software with the understanding that their work and works based on their work will always be free and open. Any improvements will be available to them and they can see and learn from them.

As soon as people stop respecting open source rules it damages the entire community. We do not want to put any potential developers off "because someone will just steal my work and call it their own".

The entire point of ffmpeg/libav being open source is that any improvements done are available for everyone. If there is a question about it it is usually up to the developer to clear it up. All they need to do is post the source for their version of ffmpeg/libav, and if it is the same as something already available just state where to get it.

Keiyakusha

16th November 2012, 20:43

I consider myself a simple user (I haven't contributed to any open source projects :( ) and care very much about open source software following the rules
I think I made it clear enough what I mean by "simple user". You shouldn't omit the later part of the post. Maybe I should have said "end-user" instead. If you know, if you care - good for you. Feel free to never install software in question. The question, if I understand correctly, was "why someone doesn't cares". And the answer is "it is naive to even expect that everyone will care about it". Actually the ones who care about stuff like this is very small part of the userbase. As an end-user I only care about how good software is, its features etc, not how it was made, by who and using what. So does majority of others. And I want to be able to discuss the topic with other users. How to configure something or whatever. If some devs have problems with other devs - its their problems, I couldn't care less.

As soon as people stop respecting open source rules it damages the entire community. We do not want to put any potential developers off "because someone will just steal my work and call it their own".
Who are "we"? I don't see your point. If "we" = "the doom9 community", "we" have nothing to do with it. If player in question was developed here, then maybe it makes sense, but its not. Its devs don't even read this forum. So far not having ability to discuss player itself only does damage to community. So if devs are put off by something, it will be so regardless of what we discuss here. We can't stop player development from here or something. You shouldn't assume that what you think is right is the same for the whole community.

The entire point of ffmpeg/libav being open source is that any improvements done are available for everyone. If there is a question about it it is usually up to the developer to clear it up. All they need to do is post the source for their version of ffmpeg/libav, and if it is the same as something already available just state where to get it.
Exactly. Source is available and comparison was done. However it is not clear if they compared right things and noone seems to have time to work on resolving this issue. But even if there is violation, there is no reason to ban discussion of it on some totally unrelated website such as doom9.

Asmodian

16th November 2012, 23:32

If you really want to discuss it and think there are no problems just do the comparison.

All I see is people saying "I don't care about open source licences so reopen the Pot Player thread".

I understand Doom9 to be quite strict about such things, which I admire.

But even if there is violation, there is no reason to ban discussion of it on some totally unrelated website such as doom9.

I don't understand this, if there really is a violation shouldn't the player be black listed? What else could "we", as a community, do?

Doom9, as a community, really has no way to enforce the open source licences except things like this. I wouldn't want the developers sued or anything but I strongly believe there has to be something to encourage people to follow the open source licences. The developers on Doom9 are very careful about this and non-compliance has always been a big deal here.

strumf666

16th November 2012, 23:39

Banning discussion without the accusations having been proved seems a bit harsh.

Keiyakusha

17th November 2012, 00:34

If you really want to discuss it and think there are no problems just do the comparison.
It should be done by some known programmer who knows what he is doing. Even if i'll succeed in correct compiling of the needed stuff to compare it, noone will believe me. I won't believe myself actually.
Personally I don't really want to discuss it btw, don't take it too literally. At this point I know enough about this player. I just look at this from perspective of the user who does not know enough. And since player is korean with no official English version, that thread was handy for these users. I don't think that there is no problems, I don't know. I just asked someone to verify making sure that he is comparing it to official Korean release version and not some 3rd party hacked beta-version.

I don't understand this, if there really is a violation shouldn't the player be black listed?
I don't understand your question too. Blacklisted by who? What this will achieve? As long as the software is good, I will use it regardless of where it is blacklisted, and will recommend it to others.

hello_hello

17th November 2012, 02:50

Until it's deemed legal to discuss it here again, there's several Potplayer threads over at the videohelp.com forum.

Asmodian

17th November 2012, 02:54

As long as the software is good, I will use it regardless of where it is blacklisted, and will recommend it to others.

This makes me sad. :(

mzso

29th November 2012, 22:41

This makes me sad. :(

What makes me sad is that a handy forum is gone for a really good media player.

I also value the the actual properties of the player to whatever lame ideologies it MIGHT breach.

Asmodian

30th November 2012, 02:05

lame ideologies

lol, very convincing, lots of sympathy for you. :rolleyes:

Open Source Software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software)

ZoNi

30th November 2012, 12:40

As long as the software is good, I will use it regardless of where it is blacklisted, and will recommend it to others.
Same here.

To be honest, I don't understand what is the problem here, since doom9 is not some court or anything similar to ban discussions about any program.

mzso

30th November 2012, 13:22

lol, very convincing, lots of sympathy for you. :rolleyes:

Open Source Software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software)

Of course I know what open source software is. It's often advertised as free, but it just bounds devs. Real free would be public domain. With the variance and restrictions of these licences a lot of development is just plain strangled and the free software "market" is hopelessly fragmented.

ZoNi

30th November 2012, 13:32

Your rule 6 clearly does not pertain to some dispute between software developers and the use of open source code
It seems you are right. I think admins/mods should make poll here, about this "problem" to see what members think.

Asmodian

30th November 2012, 22:24

6) No warez, cracks, serials or illegally obtained copyrighted content! Links to content of a questionable nature (e.g. anything you don't own and/or have downloaded), asking for, offering, or asking for help/helping to process such content in any way or form is not tolerated.

Seems pretty clear to me, just because they would be happy to give it to you if you follow their rules doesn't mean it isn't illegally obtained if you do not.

Edit: I do agree the open source community has its issues and it isn't a perfect system. I also believe this, even more so, about other types of media's copyrights. I also respect the developers, if you don't like their licences do not use their code. If you don't think it is worth the cost do not buy it.

How different licences benefit the community or not isn't really the issue here.

strumf666

2nd December 2012, 14:32

Is/was there some proof or are we are talking about alleged licensing violations?

clsid

2nd December 2012, 17:43

Yes, there was proof. The FFmpeg DLLs contain the settings that are used during build. You can see that with a hex editor. It showed that GPL was used. That means that the full source of PotPlayer must be published. Not doing so is a violation of the GPL.

The developer of PotPlayer was already stealing from several other open source projects long before PotPlayer even existed. He used to be developer of KMPlayer. He stole code from ffdshow and MPC. This was very obvious because of the similarities in the functionality offered, and was also proven by the presence of some very specific bugs in KMPlayer that also existed in MPC. Details can be found somewhere on this forum several years ago. Don't ask me for a link, I can't be bothered to search for it.

I hereby formally request the moderators to ban any discussion of PotPlayer and KMPlayer until the full source code of those programs is released. Users that engage in any further discussion should be punished with a rule 6 strike. Mwhohahahahahahahaha.

ZoNi

3rd December 2012, 14:43

Hehe, too bad "open source" is not realy "open" :(

Anyway, I still prefer PotPlayer over MPC-BE.

fred_gaou

5th December 2012, 10:05

Is the potplayer skins thread (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=164222) closed for the same reason?

I love doom9 but if potplayer users want to keep chatting and posting stuffs about potplayer on the web (in english language), they'll have to find another place I guess. Just PM me if you have an idea about the best place to keep talking about it. -_-'

manolito

5th December 2012, 20:17

Even if it does not affect me personally since I do not use PotPlayer, I cannot resist to jump in here, because this discussion seems quite ridiculous to me.

Chip.de (German computer magazine)
Heise.de (c't computer magazine)
softonic.com
CNet.com
Brothersoft.com
Softpedia.com
Videohelp.com
majorgeeks.com
digital-digest.com

You know what all these sites have in common? They are all established and well respected in the community, and they all offer PotPlayer for download.

So according to Asmodian and clsid all these sites also distribute, promote and support illegal software, right? C'mon guys, get serious, please.

Most of us live in countries where someone is regarded being innocent unless he is proven guilty by a court of law. There are many examples which show that the GPL can be enforced by taking offenders to court. So why is nobody doing this in the case of PotPlayer?

Why should I believe some few people who alledge that PotPlayer violates the GPL? Even more so as it sometimes seems that these folks have some personal issues with the author of this software? Prove it in court!

I have been a member here for a couple of years, so I am familiar with this "Holier than thou" attitude at doom9. But for a forum which has its own section just for "Decrypting" (which is illegal in almost every country I know) to ban discussion about a software like PotPlayer is just plain ridiculous.

Cheers
manolito

nevcairiel

6th December 2012, 08:10

So you rather see it allowed and possibly alienating the actual developers (like myself) from whom they stole (parts of) their code?

And why i don't sue them? Mostly because an international lawsuit over the GPL is a nightmare, and lawyers are expensive. The whole thing can get very messy, which is why so many people just "steal" open source projects and use them in their software. Actually delivering court-ready prove of it is hard, at least if you don't have the resources of a whole company backing you, which many open source projects do not have.

Oh, and "alledge", we can easily prove that they include GPL components from ffmpeg, because they are stupid enough to also include the version strings when building ffmpeg, which includes the license it was built under.
Personal issues? Damn right, if they steal my code, it is personal.

If they asked and offered to properly credit me, i would probably even be willing to re-license code for them to use in closed source, but they did not even bother.

PS:
Many of those "well respected" sites you list there are pages that collect downloads from all over the web, not caring about licenses, just trying to get more people to their pages.
And the ones that are actually respectable would probably even take it down if approached through the correct channels.

QBhd

6th December 2012, 13:11

I agree... as much as I love PotPlayer if they did not go through proper channels to include Open Source material and then try and sell a finished product with it, I am not happy and agree that steps should be taken to rectify the situation.

QB

Keiyakusha

6th December 2012, 13:33

and then try and sell a finished product with it
They are not sell it, they give it for free.
As for devs, they are just jealous that using their code someone made way better software. And the whole gpl is not about freedom but to prevent this jealousy.
This quote from the post above is the only appropriate here: Mwhohahahahahahahaha.

strumf666

6th December 2012, 14:12

ZoNi

8th December 2012, 19:52

I love doom9 but if potplayer users want to keep chatting and posting stuffs about potplayer on the web (in english language), they'll have to find another place I guess. Just PM me if you have an idea about the best place to keep talking about it. -_-'
Try VideoHelp :)
http://www.videohelp.com/search?siteurl=forum.videohelp.com&q=potplayer

Ch3vr0n

9th December 2012, 05:28

They are not sell it, they give it for free.

Tell that to fengtao and his dvdfab stuff :p *cough ffmpeg* (before their *statement of OS code use*)

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?