XViD Development stopped

[Darrius "Junto" Thompson]

Originally posted by Doom9
you might want to have a look at
./codec/decoder/mbdecoding.c
./codec/encoder/putvlc.c
./codec/encoder/putvlc.h
and then have a look at the latest OpenDivX release..

You can actually just look at the header on these files from Sigma. They all say Copyright (C) 2001 Projectmayo. The code fell under our OpenDivX license and opens up an entirely new can of worms for us. It's just interesting that they then put "Copyright 2002 Sigma" right with it as they did with all the other code. Sure they opened the code but it's they still claim ownership with the copyright notice.

Darrius

[athos]

I have informed the swedish newspapers at IDG, www.idg.se. Hope they will take up the story.

This story should be of interest also to other opensource people, as the outcome will tell if big corporations are allowed to break the free software licenses for profit.

[KAMiKAZOW]

Originally posted by Wimpy
I am ignoring, but what does 'troll' mean exactly?
A troll is someone who posts something just for the reason to cause trouble.

[int 21h]

Originally posted by Darrius "Junto" Thompson


You can actually just look at the header on these files from Sigma. They all say Copyright (C) 2001 Projectmayo. The code fell under our OpenDivX license and opens up an entirely new can of worms for us. It's just interesting that they then put "Copyright 2002 Sigma" right with it as they did with all the other code. Sure they opened the code but it's they still claim ownership with the copyright notice.

Darrius

This demonstrates that no one is safe from the Control+C Coding Department (Copyright 2002 Sigma).

I am also of the opinion that this would be an easier battle with more allies, obviously the legal aspect of this is on shaky ground, however, just letting more people know (Sigma Vendors, Sigma Partners, etc.) will help.

[GreatLord]

Sigma Designs have remove that you need to sign when you download the src code,

The download link are plase in the press releas, from sigma Designs.

here is the link
http://www.sigmadesigns.com
See you self.

[Doom9]

still doesn't quite work out. When you go to the site there's a popup, where you can get more info or download directly. In any case if you want to download via that window you'll have to go via the Sigma SLA which conflicts with the GPL. And the installer I have here still comes up with the Sigma SLA, not the GPL.

[SirDavidGuy]

then after that they can go after Koepi for distributing XviD binaries

As long as he distributes less than 500,000 a year, he's safe.

[MfA]

Only true for the patent pool stuff.

[GreatLord]

Okey
I have try to compile the Sigmas Src code in VC6.0 with intel compiler 5.1 and nasm

It seam they have done some thing with the src it does not work to compiler as they descbit.

some formual the forget ;
include <stdio.h>
and more

[Stabmaster-Arson]

XVid distribution is legal. It os for non commercial, educational purposes. This is allowed for in copyright law, and DMCA. As for the mpeg 4 patents I believe they allow for non commercial use for no charge. Tis mean Koepi and the gang are in the clear :\

[tanksimpson]

I posted an inquiry on the Envivio forum and this is what they said:

http://ubb.envivio.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=31860025&f=494606401&m=6496010301&r=9536072401#9536072401

In case the link is bad, here is what Boris, an Envivio engineer said:

"We have a good relatioship with SigmaDesigns, which is one of our close partners.
They have developed their own encoder, which has nothing to do with Envivio products."

[midiguy]

I have heard something else recently. whether or not it is true, I am not sure. But I heard from some people on irc (who might be considered "DivX Experts") that Sigma was planning on releasing an encoder which would just be a rip off of virtualdub. Apparently, any plans for this encoder have been halted by Sigma beacuse of the recent developments with XVID and all that.. It seems we are finding out more and more about all these people that Sigma has ripped off. I would like to see a website devoted directly to this Sigma issue, with al list of all the people they ripped off. Also, just wondering, there hardware decoder chip, could it be that they ripped that off to? and the real question is, can we really ever know?

[Danny]

Has anyone else received this e-mail also in reply??

>From: "Tech Support" <Tech_Support@sdesigns.com>
>Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 4:59 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Interested Parties concerning Sigma's MPEG-4 CODEC
>
> Thank you for contacting Sigma Designs and requesting information that
> relates to our MPEG-4 CODEC and the availability of its source code. We
> would like to take this opportunity to address the relevant issues
> that
have
> been raised.
>
> To begin with, Sigma developed an MPEG-4 CODEC to assist in the
> proliferation of MPEG-4 content and to ensure that users can create
content
> libraries compatible with the ISO MPEG-4 video specifications and its
> implementation in silicon. Fulfilling this goal was carried out in two
> steps. The first was the introduction of an MPEG-4 CODEC, provided free
of
> charge, so that worldwide users could begin encoding new content. The
> second was the release of source code, so that the development
> community could continue with technical improvements. Sigma never
> intended in
making,
> nor realized, any profits from this code base.
>
> Several weeks after the CODEC was first released, Sigma was contacted
> by
the
> XVID development team regarding the use of certain portions of their
> code. Upon examination, it was determined that one of our programmers,
unbeknownst
> to management and contrary to Sigma's policy, had utilized some routines
> posted by XVID as open source. During the past four weeks, Sigma had
> communicated with XVID to resolve the situation. As a result, Sigma
> has decided to make the current version of the MPEG-4 CODEC available
> under
the
> GPL license.
>
> Sigma is a supporter of the Linux operating system, appreciates the
> work being done by the open source community, and continues to issue certain
> other code under open source arrangements. Though we believe that we
have
> acted as expediently as possible, Sigma Designs sincerely apologizes
> to
the
> open source community for this inadvertent use of GPL code and for the
> several weeks it took to resolve the situation.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Ken Lowe
> Vice President of Business Development
>
>
>


Sounds like a victory?

Danny

[Schultz]

Yea the whole problem i see with that e-mail which i also recieved is that it said when the codec was first relelased they where contacted by XVID development team.. And they found out about it.. But after them still knowing the still released 1.1 that still contained the XVid parts just attempting to be hidden more. So they knew they where doing it all along..

[midiguy]

Originally posted by Danny

Sounds like a victory?

Danny

not quite.. they are making excuses. to say "some portions" of code was "accidently taken" and they were "unknowing" sounds like complete crap to me. First of all, "some portions" is a HUGE under statement. Second, since so much of the code is the same, I find it VERY hard to believe that it was just an "accident" and they were "unknowing". Third, the problem isn't only XviD anymore. Apperently (not verified by me, however), some of their code was also stolen from the Open DivX project. if you read divx.com on the main page, you will also see that they are continuing to use the DivX trademark on their decoder chip even though it is NOT compatible with the DivX Codec. and as I posted above, APPARENTLY there were plans of Sigma to release an encoder which would just be a rip off of vortualdub (again, not verified by me). and, last but not least, they are STILL not giving credot where credit is due. they still claim that it is "their" codec.

[avih]

yup, i got it as well.

Sigma is a supporter of the Linux operating system, appreciates the work
being done by the open source community, and continues to issue certain
other code under open source arrangements....

that part makes me puke. can u get more ass-licking than that???????

[vlad59]

Here is a copy of my answer :

Dear Sir,

> Several weeks after the CODEC was first released, Sigma was contacted by the
> XVID development team regarding the use of certain portions of their code.
> Upon examination, it was determined that one of our programmers, unbeknownst
> to management and contrary to Sigma's policy, had utilized some routines
> posted by XVID as open source. During the past four weeks, Sigma had
> communicated with XVID to resolve the situation. As a result, Sigma has
> decided to make the current version of the MPEG-4 CODEC available under the
> GPL license.

FALSE, the truth is after the Xvid developpers has revealed the truth (stolen code), Sigma design decided to make the current version of the MPEG4 CODEC GPL without even naming Xvid in any public annoucement.


> Sigma is a supporter of the Linux operating system, appreciates the work
> being done by the open source community, and continues to issue certain
> other code under open source arrangements. Though we believe that we have
> acted as expediently as possible, Sigma Designs sincerely apologizes to the
> open source community for this inadvertent use of GPL code and for the
> several weeks it took to resolve the situation.

Everything is not finished, I think public excuses to all Xvid developpers would be an happy end to this sad story.
Also removing the Sigma copyrigth on Xvid code (copy+paste is fast you should know that), and putting back the original headers on thoses files would be highly appreciated.


Sincerely,

[CruNcher]

Originally posted by MaTTeR


Being the first one out the door in implementing something isn't always a good thing, surely you have seen examples in real world applications. In fact, some might tell you they are flawed. Have you ever seen any advantage using Qpel or GMC with Divx5.x? Ever noticed the frames jumping around after you have used GMC? So in fact I could care less who brings dinner to the table first, I'll always eat whatever is going to taste/look better even if I have a short wait. If and when B-Frames are completed in XviD then I feel quite confident the implementation will be more effecient than that of Divx 5.x:D Uhg...just couldnt resist replying to this off topic post.

Offtopic Again: Yep your right implementation of GMC is a mess but H.26L goes far behind that i think you know for what H.26L is developed for ? In easy words its reducing the bandwith needed for a Mp4 Video File by 2x times remaining the same Quality, many experts working on it and it will be implemented in Mp4 V10 by the end of this year i think. Sure its DivX Networks Skill which will decide if their implementation will be the best but as code base they will use like everyone the JML Decoder/Encoder so again this Tweaks i mentioned before will decide which implementation will be the best and no one is denying that the B-Frame implementation by the Xvid Developers will be the most advanced one and one simple reason there for is Open Source :)

And if you want do discuss this Topic further please fell free to open a new thread like "The Future of Mpeg4" in the General Discussion thread

Sincerly
CruNcher

[Marc FD]

I don't understand.

I just taken a look at RMP4 sources, and i see a

/*************************************************
[...]
* XVID MPEG-4 VIDEO CODEC
[...]
*************************************************/

under 90% of the GPL legal headers.
And the code under is very very close from XviD,
but all the func names are renamed, and they made
small modifications like width >>= 2 vs width /= 4 ....

If i were a M$ coder, would i be allowed to ripp the code of Linux
to include it in my next OS by adding a very little

/* Linux */

somewhere ?? :confused:

please enlighten me ;)

[mikemikez]

Did it maybe accut to any of you that Sigma Designs just doesn't give a damn? I mean all will settle wehn they add a few words to some stupid text file that comes with their codec.

Sigma designs does wholesale of IC's, there is no way that any form of "negative" publicity will harm them, they can only benefit from it!

Regards,

Mike

[Nic]

@Mike:
You've already posted something similar to this, this is pointless & nonsense posting, because Sigma have already reacted & they obviously do care about there public appearance.

If you continue to post like this we may have to strike you, you will not get away with "trolling" etc in here as you do in the DivX forums
(you are not much liked at divx.com forums, so try not to make more enemies here)

-Nic

ps
Your three threads started one after another in the General Discussion forum is another example....

[JohnV]

Nic, Menno said he contacted you. Can you tell anything yet about Sigma/FAAD publicly or privately.

[Nic]

Hi JohnV, good to hear from you :)

I saw your post at everwicked.com so I guess its more public than I was aware. Unfortunatly I only got the email today & now both me & menno are away until monday/tuesday.

I have contacted Isibaar & the xvid team and they are big fans of Menno's work & are very willing to help in any which way (including disassembly for evidence). I will also help as soon as I get back :)
(ive passed this on to Menno)

Ill keep you posted :)

Take Care,
-Nic

[Nightweaver]

Just making sure everyone knows ... that long troll of a message GreatLord posted was copied from the SD newsgroup, not his opinion ... that's what I gathered, anyway. He was just showing us the kind of discussion happening there.

[Shayne]

can you damn well believe that you guys rip off xvid and call it ur own and yes even put copyright on it........ thats big BS.

now you damn assholes want to blame one programmer and say management is not responsible for the ethical behavior of the corporation ....... this too is BIGGER BS

Better do better than that or i for one will not buy bs from a unethic company that r mice not men and can not own up for there own mistakes.

All employeese are the corporation so dont point fingers and fix the damn problem

[mikemikez]

@Nic

I'm just back from being suspended for a whole month which is why I had some urgent questions. Sorry if my opinion sounds a bit hard sometimes but that's what forums are for, to freely discuss opinions. I never intend to insult people(or they have to insult me first).
Ok, I will try harder not to repeat myself...


BTW This is why I got suspended for over a MONTH:

NeoNeko:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mikemikez
What bothers me a bit is that this very nice XviD project is however sucking up real great talent to produce something that is not freely distributable, probably not even the media files created with it. Don't you see this is exactly what the above mentioned companies want? Don't you see how good it would be for the internet community if a solid codec like this one would be free to all, companies as well!?
(Only big companies are being favored by the licensing structure of MPEG4 for instance)Can you imagine the amount of irritating banners, popups, spyware and other commercials that woould save the world?
It's very important that also companies can use it freely, that's where there's most to win!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Their tallent, their time, their choice where to use them. Don't go condescending them. Groups like Xiphophorus have what you speak of covered. Once they get rolling I think you will find that some of them will lend time to it if they are not already. Nothing says the future of Xvid will be limited either. There are still unresolved issues upon which we are awaiting comment.

There is nothing to be gained from badgering the developers. What happened with Nando and Nandub should be a good example. Give them time. After all it is their time.

--------------------------------------------------


I Replied:

Neo Neko,

I don't know how many times I have to say this to you.

STOP IRRITATING AND INSULTING ME!!!

"Don't go condescending them."

"There is nothing to be gained from badgering the developers."


Yet another topic you messup with your false claims, lies and insults.

STOP STALKING ME!!!


This is getting like a freakin' horrormovie, everywhere I go this insane 500line minimum reply-length forum-psychopath jumps in front of me and the worst part, he's always a moderator, no matter where I am.


Mike

--------------------------------------


Yes! That's what I said!
Because Neo insulted me by saying I'm insulting other people:
(which was not the first time he did so)

Don't go condescending them. (Where did I do that?)
badgering the developers (Where did I do that?)


I give positive critics and I get INSULTED for it!!!

Now that is good for devellopment!!!

BTW What you mean with "we have to stike you"?

Mike

[-h]

What bothers me a bit is that this very nice XviD project is however sucking up real great talent to produce something that is not freely distributable, probably not even the media files created with it. Don't you see this is exactly what the above mentioned companies want? Don't you see how good it would be for the internet community if a solid codec like this one would be free to all, companies as well!?

Whilst I have the greatest respect for the XviD/ffmpeg/Xiph/etc. developers, I think you are underestimating how hard a task it would be to create a video format anywhere near as good as MPEG-4 without infringing on patents - even the most basic concepts are the property of others, and they're much harder to code around than the way Monty did with the Vorbis codec.

Sure it would be a wonderful achievement, but then so would a car that got 100 miles to the pound of crushed AOL CDs - it's possible I suppose, but not without some incredible inspiration, support and many, many more man hours than we could possibly devote to it (Vorbis started back in 1995 remember!).

On the other hand, MPEG-4 is a very compact video format, a spec is available that we can code to, and the industry has already started creating hardware that will play it for years to come, and that's completely ignoring whether the free software community gets behind it or not. I do support free formats, but only when said formats are anywhere near as good as those they're up against. Given the choice between a buggy, free format that requires 2000 kb/s for DVD quality, and an open-standard but patented one that requires a third of that (and will play through the box sitting on top of my TV), there is just no contest in my mind.

-h

[mikemikez]

@-h

Thanks for the reply! You are the first to say something about these thoughts of mine without accusing me of insulting people or trying to ruin discussions.

Indeed, I do not have much knowledge about the actual efforts involved in creating a codec like XviD although I never underestimated the enormous amount of talent that's needed to work on complex matters like this.

However I do not agree with you on your reasons to support MPEG4. I think it's worth a lot to make sure content can be delivered to and by the masses without any restrictions. I could go on for hours about this but can't you see what's happening in world? The amount of controll companies have over individuals is increasing daily and they do so in pure mafia like style. MPEG4 is a means to controll and increase the money flow of multinationals and many have allready fallen into it's trap. Standards certainly are a necessity but this is not a standard like a RFC for instance, this is a pure commercial and unneccesary scam which in the end will make people pay for thin air and allow large companies to gain ever more controll over our lives.

About the legal issues. If someone would ask me, I would without a doubt take full legal resposibility for a project of transforming XviD into a totally free codec.

Mike

[int 21h]

Originally posted by mikemikez
Indeed, I do not have much knowledge about the actual efforts involved in creating a codec like XviD although I never underestimated the enormous amount of talent that's needed to work on complex matters like this.


Truthfully, that is a large problem, and that lack of technical knowledge contributes to some of your misunderstanding regarding this.


However I do not agree with you on your reasons to support MPEG4. I think it's worth a lot to make sure content can be delivered to and by the masses without any restrictions. I could go on for hours about this but can't you see what's happening in world? The amount of controll companies have over individuals is increasing daily and they do so in pure mafia like style. MPEG4 is a means to controll and increase the money flow of multinationals and many have allready fallen into it's trap. Standards certainly are a necessity but this is not a standard like a RFC for instance, this is a pure commercial and unneccesary scam which in the end will make people pay for thin air and allow large companies to gain ever more controll over our lives.


Even if a company wants to forsake the compression ideals of MPEG, and try to make something him/herself, chances are very good, someone has already thought of it and patented it. There are patents on every part of Motion Compensation, InDiscreteCoseineTransformation, Compression ideas, andFormats, than you can possibly fathom :( Such a development effort would spend much of its time just trying to figure out what the exact patents are and what they cover.

Of course MPEG-4 is a means of control. But so are lots of things. In any event, I hardly think this thread is the place to discuss these issues, and perhaps its best to keep it on track. (i.e. EViL SIGMA!) Commercials are a form of control, in fact, television programming is a form of control, laws are a form of control. Control exists everywhere, you'll never escape it... even if you do take the right color pill.

[-h]

One day if I have the time / am bored enough, I'll go through the patents listed at http://www.mpegla.com/mpeg4/m4patentlist.html and see what it'd take to get around them. The first couple don't seem too bad (you can't infringe on a patent regarding DC prediction if your transform doesn't strictly create a "DC"..).

But then we hit US patent 4,796,087, which basically covers "splitting an image into blocks, and seeing how each one has moved compared to the reference frame". The concept of block-based motion compensation is pretty pivotal to anything that wishes to compress well. I've seen it coded around before a few times on the Tarkin dev list, but they haven't been nearly as efficient. Another I just noticed covers the concept of RLE for the coefficients themselves. Then of course there are the stupid, obvious and totally invalid ones like deciding whether to code a block as intra or inter based on which one would use less space.

There could be other ways around it, like a tiny change in the order of steps or replacement of another, but you would need a *serious* legal team to sift through those patents and decide what could be changed to avoid each of them. Heck I can't even discern what some of those patents actually refer to.

-h

[mikemikez]

"Of course MPEG-4 is a means of control. But so are lots of things. In any event, I hardly think this thread is the place to discuss these issues, and perhaps its best to keep it on track. (i.e. EViL SIGMA!) Commercials are a form of control, in fact, television programming is a form of control, laws are a form of control. Control exists everywhere, you'll never escape it... even if you do take the right color pill."

What you basically say here is this: "We are screwed allready, so who cares" Besides that, there is a major difference between control that has some democratic or social purpose and control that's purely focussed on controll nomatter what and ripping people of. I hear arguments like yours more and more often and especially from young people, to me it's a very clear sign that our beloved "free market" is rapidly moving towards a state of distributed and total dictatorship.

I agree that this might not be the correct thread to discuss this but then again, nomatter where I post my ideas about this matter it seems as if my idealistic view on things is not much apreciated anywhere.


@-h

I'd go great lengths to support you and others willing to work on this matter. What I think will certainbly help in legal issues is that the MPEGLA isn't producing or manufacturing anything based upon their own wood of patents which very clearly shows what the sole purpose of this net they created is.

How are thoughts within the group of people develloping XviD on a move like this?

Mike

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by mikemikez
BTW This is why I got suspended for over a MONTH:

NeoNeko:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mikemikez
What bothers me a bit is that this very nice XviD project is however sucking up real great talent to produce something that is not freely distributable, probably not even the media files created with it. Don't you see this is exactly what the above mentioned companies want? Don't you see how good it would be for the internet community if a solid codec like this one would be free to all, companies as well!?
(Only big companies are being favored by the licensing structure of MPEG4 for instance)Can you imagine the amount of irritating banners, popups, spyware and other commercials that woould save the world?
It's very important that also companies can use it freely, that's where there's most to win!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Their tallent, their time, their choice where to use them. Don't go condescending them. Groups like Xiphophorus have what you speak of covered. Once they get rolling I think you will find that some of them will lend time to it if they are not already. Nothing says the future of Xvid will be limited either. There are still unresolved issues upon which we are awaiting comment.

There is nothing to be gained from badgering the developers. What happened with Nando and Nandub should be a good example. Give them time. After all it is their time.

--------------------------------------------------


I Replied:

Neo Neko,

I don't know how many times I have to say this to you.

STOP IRRITATING AND INSULTING ME!!!

"Don't go condescending them."

"There is nothing to be gained from badgering the developers."


Yet another topic you messup with your false claims, lies and insults.

STOP STALKING ME!!!


This is getting like a freakin' horrormovie, everywhere I go this insane 500line minimum reply-length forum-psychopath jumps in front of me and the worst part, he's always a moderator, no matter where I am.


Mike

--------------------------------------


Yes! That's what I said!

Yes that is what you said. But no that is not why you were suspended. And Mike just to let you know. Of the three strikes you got, none of them were from me. I have never given you a single strike.

Originally posted by mikemikez
Because Neo insulted me by saying I'm insulting other people:
(which was not the first time he did so)

We often disagree. And I do mean often. But I have never gone out of my way. There have even been times we have agreed. What I said was not an insult. More words of caution. You still misunderstand me.

Originally posted by mikemikez
Don't go condescending them. (Where did I do that?)
badgering the developers (Where did I do that?)

I thought it was a bit here.

Originally posted by mikemikez
What bothers me a bit is that this very nice XviD project is however sucking up real great talent to produce something that is not freely distributable, probably not even the media files created with it.

It turns out that Xvid may very well be distributable within limits. And that goes for the media as well so long as it is not for commercial purposes. My point was that these people contributing to this project have thought over these things at length. They are aware of other alternatives. Neither you nor I can match their tallents for coding. And good projects have been ended because users have tried to tell the coders what they should do.

Originally posted by mikemikez
BTW What you mean with "we have to stike you"?
Mike

When a forum rule is broken you get a strike. 3 strikes and you get some cool off time. If it still continues after then things like banning are looked at. But to date I am only aware of possibly one person who has gone that far.


Originally posted by Nic
Hi JohnV, good to hear from you

I saw your post at everwicked.com so I guess its more public than I was aware. Unfortunatly I only got the email today & now both me & menno are away until monday/tuesday.

I have contacted Isibaar & the xvid team and they are big fans of Menno's work & are very willing to help in any which way (including disassembly for evidence). I will also help as soon as I get back
(ive passed this on to Menno)

Ill keep you posted

Take Care,
-Nic

Nic if you can, keep us all informed. I saw Menno's post over at HA and would very much like to know the outcome.

[temporance]

Originally posted by mikemikez
MPEG4 is a means to controll and increase the money flow of multinationals and many have allready fallen into it's trap. Standards certainly are a necessity but this is not a standard like a RFC for instance, this is a pure commercial and unneccesary scam which in the end will make people pay for thin air and allow large companies to gain ever more controll over our lives.

The multinationals have spent millions researching digital video. So, on a moral level at least, these corporations deserve some return on their investment and not to be ripped off by fly-by-night businessmen. Patents are how they attempt to protect their investment, and MPEGLA is the shopkeeper.

Anyway, back on topic: Any news from the trenches?

[CruNcher]

Quote from C't 18

Original

Ende Juni hat Sigma Designs den Real Magic Mpeg-4-Codec (RMP4) herausgebracht, der einige erstaunliche Übereinstimmungen mit XviD aufweist. Er bietet keinen 2-Pass-Modus, unterstützt aber B-Frames.

Translated (something like this :P)

At the end of June Sigma Designs released their Real Magic Mpeg-4-Codec (RMP4), which shows some amazing similarities to the XviD Codec. He doesn't offer a 2-Pass-Mode, but supports B-Frames.

So no inside talk its a Article about Encoding (Ripping) to DivX and what programs are on the "market" for that. Nandub is in the small explained and also programs like Vidomi, Gspot , transcode , Gknot, Synchronizer , Avisynth , DVDx (no talk about Mister Van Opstall here look in the General Discussion for that).Also explained are Aspect Ratios, Riff header, Freeze Frames, Xcd, Synchronisation Problems, Postprocessing. How Microsoft Mpeg 4 became DivX and when DivX got a Commercial Project and what the DivX 4,5 code base is "MoMusys" no talk about future additions like H.26L here ;) and its also explained that Commercial programs are not as good as Open Source ones becaouse of missing 2-Pass Options which are also explained (in the small). And many many more its a read not for "Freaks" which riping since the beginning but for Beginners and Advanced.

[Koepi]

Still, they link to me in the SoftLink section, and "my" XOE at Nic's place in the magazine - and I think some excerpt of NOE at purpleman's site (have to take a look at that first though) ;)

Maybe they don't like my nickname? *sniff* ;)

Regards,
Koepi

[Nic]

For anyone that has not yet seen it:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=38615&cid=4134052

sorry if this has already been posted, but ive only just got back & it put a smile on my face :)

Cheers,
-Nic

ps
@Neo:
From an inital look it is not nearly as an obvious "theft" with FAAC as it was with XviD, so Sigma "might" be in the clear with FAAC...but the investigation continues

[Acaila]

Hehe, funny stuff indeed Nic. Thanks for posting that :)

[trbarry]

I am happy now. :)

That was my absolute favorite thing all day.

- Tom

[mac1929]

I am wondering if the situation reached with Sigma's copyright violation could be possitive for Xvid.

Sigma has miserably stolen almost all the code of their codec as we all know.

Then, they have distributed it's binaries in their webpage. For that purpose I suppose that they are paying due royalties to MPEGLA. And also suppose they already had a license to distribute MPEG based products so they were able to distribute their codec for free (or nearly).

Having their own GPL codec directly copied from XVID does not make any sense. How are they supposed to upgrade it? Are they willing to periodically copy more pieces of Xvid to keep their codec actualized (bframes, qpel..), or the pretend to upgrade it by themselves?

So I wonder, why does not sigma simply release a binary of Xvid. As far as I understand, they can if they pay MPEGLA and if they accomplish GPL distributing sources "as is". There will be a legal Xvid based binary while Xvid continues growing as a GPL project.

I don´t know MPEG licenses so maybe I'm stating stupidities.

[temporance]

Originally posted by mac1929
I don´t know MPEG licenses so maybe I'm stating stupidities.
GPL and MPEG licensing are incompatible. GPL is conditional on the code and derivatives being free to all users while MPEGLA wants to charge royalties in some circumstances.
From the GPL:
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations [MPEGLA], then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Put simply, Sigma (or any other company) cannot use code they have licensed under GPL (and they implicitly accepted the terms of the GPL when they first pressed Ctrl-V) in a product which will be subject to patent license (e.g. MPEG licensing). This is why xvid is not available as a binary at xvid.org - source code is generally considered to be a description of a patent invention, not an infringement.

Sigma paying MPEGLA so that we can have a legal xvid binary? Impossible. The GPL would require Sigma to buy a license for all users of xvid. Now, if this happened then any person or company could use the xvid code under GPL for free! This is like suicide for MPEGLA.

IANAL

[MfA]

Well it seems they are restoring most of the real history on the files so its moot.

With the latest MPEGLA licenses distributing binaries doesnt seem to be much of a problem anymore, although anyone wishing to distribute them will probably have to sign the MPEGLA patent license (or rather anyone wishing to distribute 50000 pieces of the binary, but since any legal entity can distribute 50K that just means you have to change the owner of the download page to someone with a new license of his own every so often :). After that it becomes impossible to claim no knowledge of the fact that the XviD code is patent encumbered though, and as such not distributable under the GPL (the only legal way of distributing XviD at all, source or binary, at the moment is to claim ignorance of the patents).

BTW Temporance, could you point out to me the clause in the GPL which allows me to distribute source code (which is copyrighted in and of itself, so I need a license to distribute) under the GPL if the code is patent encumbered? :)

[Koepi]

Originally posted by temporance
Put simply, Sigma (or any other company) cannot use code they have licensed under GPL (and they implicitly accepted the terms of the GPL when they first pressed Ctrl-V) in a product which will be subject to patent license (e.g. MPEG licensing). This is why xvid is not available as a binary at xvid.org - source code is generally considered to be a description of a patent invention, not an infringement.


You should emphase that xvid is perfectly legal as long as it is sourcecode, in every country.

Maybe the binaries aren't necessarily - that's why I state they still are only for educational purposes and for you having the possibility to help the development by finding some errors.

Regards,
Koepi

[MfA]

Koepi, only patent wise. You have no formal license as far as copyrights are concerned to distribute XviD, either in source or binary form (unless you claim ignorance of MPEG-4 patents, in which case it doesnt matter if you distribute binaries or source). We all rely on tacit agreements, not the GPL, for that. Which works, but is rather silly.

[mac1929]

Originally posted by temporance

GPL and MPEG licensing are incompatible. GPL is conditional on the code and derivatives being free to all users while MPEGLA wants to charge royalties in some circumstances.


I understand. As far as Sigma is distributing their codec for free and for everybody, they could accomplish with GPL, at least in that way. But they will never fully accomplish with it since the product they are distributing is patented and these patents are not royalty free. Well the only way would be paying a license for universal MPEG free use, but this is fairly impossible :)

So even if they fix file headers removing copyrights and replacing original histories they will still be infringing GPL.

Then, is there any solution to this issue other that Sigma stopping the distribution of their codec?

[MfA]

They would be breaking the GPL, but no moreso than Michael/Koepi/umaniac/etc themselves are doing (if Sigma restores all the original copyrights on all the files that is). So that is not really a problem, breaking the letter of the GPL never was the problem ... nearly noone uses it to the letter (XviD ignores what it actually says to the point of silliness though).

BTW A free license for the patent would not be enough to comply with the GPL, it has to be unrestricted too. The MPEGLA licenses only apply to use in compliant products, which even if the licenses were entirely royaltee free (or if the royaltees were payed by Sigma) would be incompatible with the GPL.

[int 21h]

Sigma avoids MPEGLA royalties by their EULA in their software. Its obvious they intend to do the same with Mpeg-4 via RealMagic, as soon as they solve these GPL annoyances.

However, this entire situation has been a significant road block for Sigma, and I would not be surprised if they rewrote the entire codec (or major portions) so that they could successfully un-GPL it.

Remember, it took the XviD team about a year to get rid of all the OpenDivX Licensed code. Sigma has paid programmers working 40 hours a week to do the same... How long will it take them?

[MfA]

They should have just done it like the rest of the industry and built from momusys, there even is an official optimized version cut down to simple profile available nowadays. Unlike XviD they dont have to worry about GPL compatibility, so they can reuse it as is.

[temporance]

Originally posted by MfA
BTW Temporance, could you point out to me the clause in the GPL which allows me to distribute source code (which is copyrighted in and of itself, so I need a license to distribute) under the GPL if the code is patent encumbered? :)
MfA,

GPL says, in general terms:
"you can use/distribute this code as much as you like subject to conditions x, y, z"
Non of x, y, z says you must respect patent law.

I doesn't say (or need to say):
"you can use/distribute this code as much as you like subject to conditions x, y, z, and I will indemnify you against any patent law suit that might arise from the use of this code"

Even "hello_world.c" might infringe patents. You can't expect its author to do a patent search before releasing under GPL.

GPL and patent laws are just two of many sets of rules that a person must obey in his daily life. GPL is of course optional - you agree to its terms when you use some code like xvid. If those two sets of rules are incompatible, you must choose to violate either one or both sets of rules, or agree not to use xvid under GPL.

[CruNcher]

int 21h

Remember, it took the XviD team about a year to get rid of all the OpenDivX Licensed code. Sigma has paid programmers working 40 hours a week to do the same... How long will it take them?

hmm obviously not that long but you have to know how smart these 40 coders are and if your looking into the history of the rm4 codec they are not that smart (skilled). Do you wan't to say they are more motivated because they get paid for doing it ? I don't think NNs attention was money as he did Nandub, what he did was the work of a beliver later from more belivers so you can't say only because they get paid they will get faster done with this task. And im sure you know that if someone realy belives in what he's doing he archives more as he only does it because of the money thats involved and also i think you are one of these who knows that for good ;)

[int 21h]

Originally posted by CruNcher
int 21h
hmm obviously not that long but you have to know how smart these 40 coders are and if your looking into the history of the rm4 codec they are not that smart (skilled). Do you wan't to say they are more motivated because they get paid for doing it ? I don't think NNs attention was money as he did Nandub, what he did was the work of a beliver later from more belivers so you can't say only because they get paid they will get faster done with this task. And im sure you know that if someone realy belives in what he's doing he archives more as he only does it because of the money thats involved and also i think you are one of these who knows that for good ;)

Yes, but the scale that nando worked on was much smaller, altering variables at runtime in an already completed codec is one thing. Constructing the codec is another ;)

Besides, at the time, nando had no wife.. or significant life to speak of, both of which have changed now :(