XViD Development stopped

[Cryect]

Hmmm.... well isn't this interesting.
Definately looks like Sigma Designs stole the code.

http://www.xvid.org/ (http://www.xvid.org)

EDIT by Koepi: made the URL RFC conformant, trailing slash... ;)

[Koepi]

I hope you now understand why I closed those threads and asked you to keep conversation about that "codec" down.

Sorry,
Koepi

[cofferscuffs]

[ 19:40:27 ] _· · Topic : set by c_Cuffs : www.doom9.org | read www.xvid.org and and help then email Simga Designs for REALmagic sourcecode as it is ur right!

nuff said... email them, and that doesnt mean everyone send 1000 emails per second ;) oh and, spread the word!

[Cryect]

Hehe it was interesting when I was viewing the XVID forums over there and all the sudden I was getting 404's with the title saying something about development stopped that I kinda ignored. Eventually I realized hmm maybe I should reload the front page and definately was surprised. I hope everything works out.

[vlad59]

Whahooo what a shock !!!

It's a sad day for Xvid and all the free software addict.

I really hope it won't turn bad, finger cross....

Gonna ask for some source code ..........

[neo_sapien]

Here's what I emailed them:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please provide to me at your earliest convenience a copy of the source code for your derivative of the XviD codec, the Sigma Designs’ REALmagic® MPEG-4 Video Codec. I wish to exercise my right to change the free software, as stipulated in the GNU General Public License which Sigma Designs’ accepted by distributing and/or modifying the XviD Program or works based on it.

I thank you for your time and consideration,

and then my name.

[aharden]

I submitted a blurb about this to Slashdot (http://slashdot.org) and they accepted it. It should be published there soon. There are plenty of GPL-loving Slashdot readers that are sure to make noise about this.

[cofferscuffs]

http://slashdot.org/articles/02/08/22/193237.shtml?tid=117 :>

good work!

[MaTTeR]

grhh...

Just to make it easier for everyone to email, here's the web site with all email addresses of Sigma

http://www.sigmadesigns.com/contact.htm

[aharden]

Originally posted by cofferscuffs
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/08/22/193237.shtml?tid=117 :>

good work!
:D
I'm just glad it didn't get rejected!

[wotef]

w**kers! can they be sued? what is the legal implication of breaking the license agreement?

[-h]

I spoke to a manager at Sigma Designs over the phone a couple weeks ago, and he basically verified the accusation - a programmer "mistakenly" based their MPEG-4 codec around XviD, added a few patches, changed the interface (but not by much), then released it as their own. We were informed that they were replacing all GPL'ed code with their own, to avoid a licensing problem (even though copyright infringement had already occurred, of course).

After that, version 1.1 came out, which was a complete slap in the face. Supposedly "rewritten", it was nothing but a different checkout of XviD with a few registers changed and some code reordered.

Should be an interesting few days.

-h

[cofferscuffs]

if i ever get their source code im gonna release my own codec!... wait that would be a double violation of the gpl then!

[Swede]

Ouch... This really pisses me off... But, at least, it tells us something: The effort that is put in XVID development by non-profiting persons (I won't mention anyone since they are too many) is appreciated and obviously valuable since they're stealing the code!

I just wish that everyone contributing to XVID has the strength to go on and that the Sigma guys get what they deserve.!.

If nothing else, there is a lot of us that *knows* who wrote what!

[iago]

Originally posted by Swede
If nothing else, there is a lot of us that *knows* who wrote what! Absolutely! I believe, many people from all over the world know that...

[ZerzaDha]

Originally posted by MaTTeR
grhh...

Just to make it easier for everyone to email, here's the web site with all email addresses of Sigma

http://www.sigmadesigns.com/contact.htm

This one could also be good: RMP4@sdesigns.com

http://www.sigmadesigns.com/products/MPEG4_video_encoder.htm

[nikthebak]

Actually this is frustrating, enfuriating, depressing and expected.

I'm kind of afraid that Sigma will pull a Microsoft and sue the XviD development team for stealing their code :devil:

Under normal conditions in computer software world, only major corporations are able to sue minor ones for abstract "crimes" they didn't even commit ("You can't make a program that shows images understandable to humans! We have a patent on that! We also have patented Fourier transform! You can't use it!"). Never the vice versa.

I'm hoping at least FSF will take some actions or else the whole GPL license will be ridiculed. If Sigma can get away with this, any GPL'd code is basically a free breakfast for software corporations ever after.

Sigma will get some serious heat however, at least from me :angry:

[kilg0r3]

o.k.

go out and make NOISE. generate large amounts of data related to this issue where ever you go.






by the way does anyone have a good connection to the press, e.g. the german c't?


just mailed them to their general news submission address

i suggest you do similar things. lokk for informational multipliers, forum with possible costumers of sigma and inform sigma about your actions.

[temporance]

I hope the xvid guys are sure of what they are doing.

Now, if Sigma does release the sourcecode, then they are precluded by GPL from licensing patents for their own use. So they have only two undesireable choices if they wish to (alledgedly) continue using xvid code:
- continue violating GPL, or
- open-source their codec under GPL but infringe MPEG-4 patents.

Someone once told me that they have amazing lawyers who helped them avoid paying a penny of patent royalties for their MPEG-2 products. [if anyone knows more about this, please reply here or on /.]

Interesting stuff!

[-h]

Someone once told me that they have amazing lawyers who helped them avoid paying a penny of patent royalties for their MPEG-2 products. [if anyone knows more about this, please reply here or on /.]

I doubt they do for MPEG-4 either - I seem to recall someone noted that in their end-user-license-agreement, there are a few lines detailing:

"Note that blah implements a number of algorithms that have been patented. If you plan to use this software, you must contact the MPEG-LA and purchase a license to use said patented algorithms."

So I doubt they're paying a cent of royalties on their software, unless the EULA has changed.

-h

[uManiac]

@-h

Your right, paragraph 3 in thir EULA says

Infringement. You are hereby advised and you understand that your use of the Software may infringe existing patents. You understand that you are solely responsible for obtaining the necessary licenses from such patent owners and for paying all applicable fees and royalties. You agree that Sigma shall have no liability for use of this Software or any derivation thereof.

I wonder if those parner companies (www.ivast.com (http://www.ivast.com) and www.envivio.com (http://www.envivio.com) ) are using XviD as well.

I just hope this gets sorted out. I'd hate to see such a good thing come to and abrupt end.

[temporance]

I see SIGM share price is as yet unmoved. Is there still time to sell short?

[int 21h]

From Slashdot

Comment from the FSF (Score:2)
by prizog (`gro.silavon' `ta' `todhsals-silavon') on Thursday August 22, @04:37PM (#4121857)
(User #42097 Info | http://web.novalis.org/)
We at the FSF are saddened by this GPL violation. Because we do not hold copyright on Xvid, we can't act directly. We support the Xvid developers' effort to get full GPL compliance from Sigma. If you're interested in how we enforce the GPL when we hold copyright, please see our attorney Eben Moglen's essay, Enforcing the GPL http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html.

[GreatLord]

I have post to my concat person at Sigma Designs and have ask if hi can comment anything of these.

I know Sigma are working on a comnpete new version of RMP4.
it will be call RMP4 V2.0.

I really like Xvid and RMP4 codecc.

I hope this matter be solv sone.

Thanks for a great codecc.

[kempodragon]

It is a sad day indeed when something like this happens. I have been impressed with xvid's quality and for someone to use the developer's hard work and claim it as their own is a slap in the teeth. I truly hope that situation is resolved, because if Sigma gets away with this then other companies will think they too can use the GPL for their own playground. How much innovation and creativity will be stifled when developers see their work stolen and their protests ignored or worse. Avery Lee, the creator of VirtualDub, had a similar problem IIRC, but I'm not sure if this was a commercial outfit that tried to claim his work. :angry:
My prayers are with you guys and kudos for such great work.

[trbarry]

These things are usually settled in the court of public opinion, not of law.

If everyone mentions this whenever Sigma or th Xcard comes up it will serve to keep the pressure on. And I'll state that I personnaly will not do business with Sigma Designs or their licensees until this is resolved.

- Tom

[int 21h]

http://forums.divx.com/viewtopic.php?topic=40040&forum=5

And, Slashdot comment that contributes alot to this entire 'sue' them argument.


Did the authors register their copyright? They need to do that to get statutory damages. If they did, the statutory damages could be extremely high, and so you would have a case for Sigma to fear.

If not, they should register it right away, while Sigma is still distributing the alleged infringement.

If not registered, you can only get actual damages. And it's easy to see a court saying that actual damages -- which are financial, not personal -- are zero in a case like this. How much money did the team lose? You might do better arguing how much Sigma made from the infringing code but they would of course make the argument that the money came from their proprietary additions, not the GPLd code which of course anybody can get for free.

To compel them to comply with GPL, you will have to get the court to agree with the implied licence. That's harder, though if they really have documents from Sigma admitting that they were aware of the GPL terms you might have a shot.

Otherwise, I don't think anybody has had a court rule that you would be bound by the GPL contract if you used GPLd code. They would rule you violated copyright, but will they rule more?

Think about it. If I put a licence in my code saying "Use this code without my permission and you must give me your whole corporation" no court would consider that enforceable.

Will they consider it enforceable if the licence says "use this code without my permission and you must give away all the source code to everything you bundled with it"? Also in doubt.

Could be. Could not be.

[SirDavidGuy]

/me is busy typing up a story about it to send to the local newspaper...

[int 21h]

This is funny really because after it hit Slashdot, every zealot on there is emailing every public outlet to get everyone to hear about it.

[GreatLord]

I am in Sigmas News Group.
We just start speak about this.

One msg every min, I hope SD will wake up and dare answer all our question there.

When we get a answers from SD I will report it here.
Hoply from one of the manger.

[Teegedeck]

At the moment, I think it's best to spread the news around as much as possible (just mailed it to c't, too). Give'm a REAL bad press.

[avih]

i've informed 'the register' and 'newsforge'

[twistee]

this is really bad news. dont worry, i will be telling every man and his dog about this....


its all kinda cool looking at the asm output in the comparisons (as i have just started to learn assembler...and i kinda understand what its on about)...

[wotef]

i posted to the wall street journal and the financial times

[pt7]

First post after a couple weeks of reading. XVID is great and I appreciate the efforts of its developers and those developing related programs and sharing information here.

The Inquirer has an article up here (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5089).

The article is a little guarded but I already thanked the editor by e-mail. Hopefully the story will reach the mainstream press wires and though unlikely it would be nice for the question to be posed at Sigma's qrtly CC.

-PT

[sillKotscha]

Originally posted by Teegedeck
At the moment, I think it's best to spread the news around as much as possible (just mailed it to c't, too). Give'm a REAL bad press.


me too, just dropped a line to Christian Persson (Chefredakteur und verantwortlich für den Textteil (editor-in-chief and responsible for the press))

lets hope every mail is helping to succeed against Sigma's impudence

[Hiro2k]

Sorry Avih for posting again in the New AV Format Forum. I didn't see all this going on over here. But my original statement was correct. Everyone here that cares is doing something about this crime.
Now time for me to hide.

[avih]

@Hiro2k
no damage done. u can stop hiding ;)

[cofferscuffs]

i just submitted the news to warp2search... frenchzed (from #doom9 chan) said he will submit to french sites... spread the word! i feel a major shitstorm coming someones way... hehehe :devil:

[ACClarke]

I will post on the french video forums to.

This story is disgusting....:angry:

[gldblade]

Wow.

Jeesh, I never realized the extent of the problem until now. Sure, I thought it was taking a while to get this problem resolved and we had a total news blackout for so long (not that I blame you though).

Full power to you guys. Go XviD. Go give them hell.

Of course, the online news press has been doing a great job of that so far. :) I wonder how many e-mails Sigma Designs have so far received.

And if this ever does go to court, I'm sure there will be many of us who would back you up all the way and would be willing to contribute to the cause.

Wow. I just couldn't believe the thread title when I first saw it.

*Edit*
Heh, when I started calling the codec XviD so long ago, I never realized how far the name would spread...

[jhboricua]

MILPITAS, CA, (August 12, 2002) - Sigma Designs (NASDAQ: SIGM), a leader in digital decoder solutions, announced today that the Company will be discussing second quarter results during a conference call on Tuesday, August 27, 2002, at 4:45 p.m. Eastern time. The dial-in number is (612) 332-0226. A question and answer period will take place at the end of the discussion.

So how about we send this info to the financial houses and heck, maybe even join the call and ask directly. I'm sure it will be interesting to see what they have to say.

[ACClarke]

I think SD has to dismiss the "developpers" of their mpeg-4 codec.
I don't know any company which pays people just to copy and paste.....

[MfA]

Originally posted by temporance
Now, if Sigma does release the sourcecode, then they are precluded by GPL from licensing patents for their own use. So they have only two undesireable choices if they wish to (alledgedly) continue using xvid code:
- continue violating GPL, or
- open-source their codec under GPL but infringe MPEG-4 patents.

Its more like
- continue violating GPL, or
- continue violating GPL

They, and everyone else for that matter, are not allowed to distribute XviD under the GPL PERIOD either in source or binary form ... wether they license the patents or not would be inconsequential. The GPL is a particularely poor license for patent encumbered code, especially if there is no single copyright owner who can amend the license with country restrictions.

I better back that up a little, clause 7 from the GPL :

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, 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.

That goes for everyone, at the moment noone is distributing XviD legally under the GPL assuming the MPEG-4 patents are valid (that does not mean they are distributing it illegally, but they are distributing it partly as copyright owners and partly under an implicit agreement ... we all know what the XviD authors intend with their licensing, but it is kind of unfortunate that is not what the license they put on the project actually says). Clause 8 gives a way to avoid making a project undistributable under the GPL in this way by allowing the programs distribution being restricted to countries where the patents dont apply though.

Sigma might be more inclined to contribute their source if they were given a license to XviD they could do something with legally (which is to say an alternate license, the GPL is useless even with clause 8 since they want to distribute it in the US where the MPEG-4 patents are almost certainly valid). Not to say I find that at all likely ...

[SirDavidGuy]

Since I didn't work on this project, I can't claim damages, but I will ask a lawyer-friend of mine about the possible legal implications.

But looking through the GNU liscense myself, I see at least one loophole to, at the very least, keep Sigma from getting in any serious legal trouble (Good Faith, if they say they didn't know at the time they were violating the law. But, Good Faith only applies to Fraud cases, and I don't know if this could be considered one),also, anyone who submitted any code to the XviD CVS at any time could arguably be an "author", with full permission to give Sigma the right to release XviD under their own liscensing terms.

However, the thought of going to court may scare Sigma (Investors don't like lawsuits) into giving in.

[JohnV]

Check out this message by FAAD2 (Free AAC Decoder) developer, menno.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=30465#post30465
OMG!
A few months ago I got the request from some persons at Sigma Designs if they could use FAAD2. I said that that was only possible if they paid me, so that I could offer them a different license than GPL.
They said that that was not an option for them because they just wanted to offer the source code to their customers as an AAC decoding example.

Now I start to wonder how trustworthy these people are.
How did the people from XViD discover that their code was used? Is it in that public available MPEG-4 Video decoder software? I haven't seen any AAC software from them yet. But I'm not sure if their hardware based cards use hardware audio decoding or software, I would almost assume software decoding since it supports so many formats. Does anyone here have a Sigmadesigns card that supports AAC, I'd like to have some more info on this.

This really sucks!

Menno

[int 21h]

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/020822/220286_1.html

From Yahoo News
Thursday August 22, 9:33 pm Eastern Time
Press Release
SOURCE: Sigma Designs, Inc.
Sigma Makes Source Code Available for Its MPEG-4 Video CODEC
MILPITAS, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 22, 2002--Sigma Designs, Inc. (Nasdaq:SIGM - News), a leader in IP video streaming solutions, today announced the release of the source code behind its free MPEG-4 video CODEC that works as a plug-in under Windows® and encodes digitized video content into fully compatible ISO MPEG-4 video files. The complete source code will be available for download starting August 23, free of charge, through Sigma's website (www.sigmadesigns.com), to support developers wishing to enhance the MPEG-4 encoding.

"We are pleased to provide the development community with an open source MPEG-4 CODEC, and anticipate that this will accelerate technical improvements and enhance the proliferation of MPEG-4 content," stated Ken Lowe, Sigma Designs' vice president of business development.

[Neo Neko]

Sounds like a partial victory. Still I don't think it is time to let up just yet. It is a concession. But they still refuse to give credit where credit is due. They are still claming it in it's entirety as their own right? And that is the real crux of the situation. I for one will do my damnedest to keep this in the forefront. Lets not settle for table scraps from a meal stolen from us.

The response from the Divx.com forums has been encouraging. The C.E.O. and several of the project members have expressed their support for Xvid and distain for Sigma Designs. Even if their support ammounts to little more than lip service it is still something.

[avih]

as u said neo, partially good news in:

1. ppl can benefot from the sources
2. it demonstrates the POWER we ppl have over such corporations (damn it WAS fast, less than 12 hours after the initial xvid.org announcement).

again, as u said, we should NOT be satisfied, untill xvid devs get the credit.

avi

[ookzDVD]

@Forum,

It's a bad news, it really shame SIGMA stole the XviD code :(

but_
there is a good news, as the news will spread, the XviD will be more
famous ;) Some people will be realize that there is a good free code
...which lead SIGMA to stole it, if XviD is not good, I'll bet SIGMA
will not stole it ;)

SIGMA.... you are son of a bit*h! fu*king sh*t!!

PS. Ookz is preparing mailbomber... ready to launch! ;)

[Boardlord]

I have just posted this issue on AVS Forum! / http://www.avsforum.com , http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=164359 I hope we XviD users will get a positive response from those guys too!

[-h]

They, and everyone else for that matter, are not allowed to distribute XviD under the GPL PERIOD either in source or binary form ... wether they license the patents or not would be inconsequential. The GPL is a particularely poor license for patent encumbered code, especially if there is no single copyright owner who can amend the license with country restrictions.

Here's a note from RMS about just this point (it was concerning LAME and MP3 patents, iirc) - http://www.xiph.org/archives/vorbis/200110/0278.html

So yes, no one in a country which respects the patents held on MPEG-4 technologies can distribute XviD, in binary or source form. Kind of makes my current location of the USA a bit uncomfortable..

Sigma might be more inclined to contribute their source if they were given a license to XviD they could do something with legally (which is to say an alternate license, the GPL is useless even with clause 8 since they want to distribute it in the US where the MPEG-4 patents are almost certainly valid). Not to say I find that at all likely ...

If someone sought to license code from XviD, whatever they receive would no longer be GPL'ed. Well that's up to whomever requests the license - I don't see why they'd request what they're given to be GPL'ed though. Can't say I see Sigma as a potential licensee either of course.. :)

-h

[midiguy]

I am not going to let up until those sigma pricks give credit to all the XviD developers and to anyone who contributed to XviD. I don't think anyone else should either.

[MfA]

Originally posted by -h So yes, no one in a country which respects the patents held on MPEG-4 technologies can distribute XviD, in binary or source form. Kind of makes my current location of the USA a bit uncomfortable..Its worse than that ... while Stallman says that we cannot consider the software free in countries where the patents exist that is not to say the software is necessarily free in countries where they dont. To make it so the copyright owners have to use their right under clause 8 to exclude countries where the patents exist.

Without exclusions anyone who distributes under the GPL obligates himself to extend all the GPL freedoms to any recipient ... and that includes recipients in the USA. As we have established we cannot guarantuee this, and so we cannot distribute XviD under the GPL.

The only people who are allowed to distribute XviD under the GPL are ignorant people ;)

[Darrius "Junto" Thompson]

The next question to ask is, "Where did they get the code for
their video decoder chip?" How does the GPL license apply if code is embedded into a processor and then sold to device manufacturers?

http://www.sigmadesigns.com/products/em8470series.htm

Darrius

[TheXung]

You're right, that Sigma reply sounds too belittling. They are claiming it is their code and making it sound like the release of the source is an act of generousity on their part. While the action may right a wrong and is all that is legally required of them, I am getting the impression that it may be too little too late. This was a project that was bourn from the fire of what had happened with project mayo. Another incident where corporate interests squish all that is attractive about GPL. What is needed here is a public apology of some sort. I am hoping the core developers aren't thinking, "burn me once, shame on you, burn me twice, shame on me."

The fate of this project lies in how Micheal, Christopher, and Peter feel about Sigma's reply. (While there are others who helped out, I don't think too many can replace the roles that they have played in development) This is a project that has seen TWO fires in its history! The fate of future complex/well executed GPL projects lies in how this legally and publically pans out. I am definitely gonna miss XviD.

[Emp3r0r]

do you think they could have used xvid decoder ip to create their hardware chips? this really is all out crazy. i mean i expected something like this but i always thought it would be divx networks continuing their evil ways ( ;) heh ). anyway, the following statement makes me feel outraged"We are pleased to provide the development community with an open source MPEG-4 CODEC..." the nerve, as if they did all the providing

lets hope everyone at least learns a valuable lesson from it all

[tanksimpson]

Sigma has just announced that they are releasing the source code for the RMP4 MPEG-4 codec tomorrow. Check out the press release at http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/020822/220286_1.html

As I predicted on this forum *weeks* ago, posting on Slashdot would produce exactly this result, just as it did when Vidomi ripped off VirtualDub. Had this issue been addressed in an open forum, instead of behind closed doors, much time could have been saved and much bickering could have been avoided. Although I support the efforts of the XviD team, I still think it was a mistake for moderators on *this* forum to squash discussion of this and related topics because of their own agenda. The value of a forum like doom9's lies chiefly in its capacity for users to exchange information freely. How many of you experts first came to the doom9 community as newbies? I would suggest that much of your knowledge and expertise has been gained by being able to learn from other people's questions and answers. I know that doom9's forum has been a great help to me - that is why it makes me sad to see that a few moderators have been allowed/encouraged to introduce their own bias into the moderating process, no matter how well-intentioned it may have been. Given the outcome that we have witnessed today regarding XviD vs. Sigma, was it really worthwhile to subvert the forum process and inhibit free discussion?

[balbrain]

I have a lot of friends in the Silicon Valeey area and thru a couple degrees of separation one of them was able to get some inside dope on Sigma from one of the developers [Yeah! Right =P] who works there.

Gues what, in a few days sigma was also planning to release an MPEG4 Encoding utility - which was gonna be a new GUI on VirtualDub. He said they have shelved those plans for now since this issue is heating up.

How LOW can one get

--balbrain:angry:

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by ookzDVD
PS. Ookz is preparing mailbomber... ready to launch! ;)

WHATEVER YOU DO DON'T DO THAT! If their inbox gets flooded how will they read all the actual emails we are flooding them with. If they get an inbox full of spam likely they will delete first and ask questions later. Lets keep some tact here and keep this to a civil uprising/revolution. If we act the part of a child they will ignore us. Lets make sure they know we are adults. ;)

One well written email will suffice ookzDVD. ;)

[MfA]

I assume iDCT and MC would be done by dedicated hardware, and on the bitstream side they support RVLC so that also has to be substantially different ... if they used any XviD code it wouldnt be much, and since it would be in their firmware and for some unknown embedded RISC core it would also be almost impossible to proof anyway.

[int 21h]

In some way shape form or another, it would have to be rewritten for that platform anyways.

[Wimpy]

Since the Sigma announcement stating their intent to make the RMP4 source available, the following questions come to mind...

1. Will the XviD project re-start once the source is available or will it remain suspended until the appropriate credit(s) is made by Sigma?

2. Is their much (if anything) added or improved in the RMP4 codec which will help the XviD codec develop? The two-pass stuff is gone, their claimed B-frame support is dubious.

Maybe some of the XviD team would care to comment?

In any case, there is a growing trend with regards to GPL violation. VirtualDub, CDex and now XviD are all recent victims :-( I hope this sorry mess is sorted soon as XviD is a excellent project and I would hate to see it lost.

[R3g]

whaoo ! That's what I call a rude awakening. Just arrived at work, and what do I discover when going to wach my daily news on doom9's ??
I think I've got nothing more to say, else that I am with you all, and give all my support to XviD developpers and contributors. I am going towrite an email to SD, to tell them about my surprise their press release doesn't have a word about the real creators of the codec, but unfortunately I don't think I can do anything much.

Keep up the fight, xviD developpemnt can't stop like that, SD has to make public apologies.

[Wimpy]

RMP4 source is out. Get it directly from here...

ftp://ftp.sigmadesigns.com/bbs/misc/RMP4V1_1.zip

...or fill out an SLA form (cheeky buggers) to grab it here...

http://www.sigmadesigns.com/products/RMP4_SLA.htm

[Doom9]

has anyone taken a look at the source? I found a GPL notice in the first file I opened. But no credit to XviD whatsoever, in fact Sigma added their own copyright notices. What's even more interesting is that their SLA collides with the license of the source.. the source says GPL.. neither SLA nor the press release says anything similar.

in older news the following may be interesting: http://www1.internetwire.com/iwire/release_html_b1?release_id=45761 and http://forums.divx.com/viewtopic.php?topic=40040&forum=5. Seems even DXn is supporting XviD (or just taking the chance to turn some of the heat - the adware issue - away).

[Swede]

Comparing RM4-source with Xivd: (from the file quant_h263.c, yes the same filename)

Xvid:
/* quantize intra-block
*/


void
quant_intra_c(int16_t * coeff,
const int16_t * data,
const uint32_t quant,
const uint32_t dcscalar)

RM4:
/************************************************************************
Purpose: quantize intra-block by H263 method
Author: David Zheng
Sigma Designs, Inc
Date: Jul.26, 2002
*************************************************************************/

void quant_h263_intra_c(int16_t * const coeff,
const int16_t * data,
const uint32_t quant,
const int32_t dcscalar)


Author?????

[Swede]

There are a few of these lines here and there:

"This code inspired by the XVID MPEG-4 VIDEO CODEC"

[R3g]

Yes, author, this guy wrote "_h263_". He did a good work.

[nikthebak]

He has to earn his $5000/month salary somehow, doesn't he?

Now this is beyond license issues. This is severe and rude copyright infringement.

[mat]

also you can look in vfw in codec.c (for xvid) and mp4v_codec.c
and you can see they just remane the proc and change a little (just a littke the code).

For example

/* decompressor */

LRESULT QueryDecompressor(CODEC * codec, BITMAPINFO *lpbiInput, BITMAPINFO *lpbiOutput)
{
int colorspace;
BITMAPINFOHEADER * inhdr = (BITMAPINFOHEADER*)&lpbiInput->bmiHeader;
BITMAPINFOHEADER * outhdr = (BITMAPINFOHEADER*)&lpbiOutput->bmiHeader;

if (lpbiInput == NULL)
{
return ICERR_ERROR;
}

if (inhdr->biCompression != FOURCC_DIVX
&& inhdr->biCompression != FOURCC_DX50
&& inhdr->biCompression != FOURCC_RMP4)
{
return ICERR_BADFORMAT;
}

if (lpbiOutput == NULL)
return ICERR_OK;

if (inhdr->biWidth != outhdr->biWidth ||
inhdr->biHeight != outhdr->biHeight ||
(colorspace = D_translate_colorspace(outhdr)) == MP4V_CSP_NULL)
{
return ICERR_BADFORMAT;
}

codec->colorspace = colorspace;

return ICERR_OK;
} for sigma and for xvid
/* decompressor */

LRESULT decompress_query(CODEC * codec, BITMAPINFO *lpbiInput, BITMAPINFO *lpbiOutput)
{
BITMAPINFOHEADER * inhdr = &lpbiInput->bmiHeader;
BITMAPINFOHEADER * outhdr = &lpbiOutput->bmiHeader;

if (lpbiInput == NULL)
{
return ICERR_ERROR;
}

if (inhdr->biCompression != FOURCC_XVID && inhdr->biCompression != FOURCC_DIVX)
{
return ICERR_BADFORMAT;
}

if (lpbiOutput == NULL)
{
return ICERR_OK;
}

if (inhdr->biWidth != outhdr->biWidth ||
inhdr->biHeight != outhdr->biHeight ||
get_colorspace(outhdr) == XVID_CSP_NULL)
{
return ICERR_BADFORMAT;
}

return ICERR_OK;
}

[Doom9]

@mat: damn, even I would've motified more if I were copying. I guess every student programmer once faced a situation where time was running out and he had a working copy of a colleague and had to modify it for his/her own needs, and you'd certainly not get away with changing just a few variables..

I still think it was a mistake for moderators on *this* forum to squash discussion of this and related topics because of their own agenda. The value of a forum like doom9's lies chiefly in its capacity for users to exchange information freely. How many of you experts first came to the doom9 community as newbies? I would suggest that much of your knowledge and expertise has been gained by being able to learn from other people's questions and answers. I know that doom9's forum has been a great help to me - that is why it makes me sad to see that a few moderators have been allowed/encouraged to introduce their own bias into the moderating process, no matter how well-intentioned it may have been. Given the outcome that we have witnessed today regarding XviD vs. Sigma, was it really worthwhile to subvert the forum process and inhibit free discussion?

It was the decision of the XviD developers to keep a low profile on this issue and it has nothing to do with moderators having their own agenda. All our actions (locking threads) result out of the wish of the lead developers to not create a big fuss about it before Sigma has been given the chance to react. Imagine the other way, if Sigma decided to financially support XviD, or pay the MPEG LA licensing fees allowing fully licensed XviD distributions of XviD. Going public would most certainly have ruined any chance of that happening. If I didn't knew the developers wishes I would not have authorized the closing of all threads on the issue, but since I was sworn to secrecy I couldn't even tell the public why this decision was made. I certainly didn't felt comfortable about all this and I'm glad we don't have to hold anything back now.

[JohnV]

The situation is very interesting. Since Envivio licences the Sigma MPEG-4 codec which is infringing the GPL licence (at least until Sigma gives proper credit to XviD), Envivio is in this mess too.
And since it's unlikely that Envivio would agree to make their software GPLed, it's quite likely that Sigma really can't do it either..

Sigma and Envivio should be showing their MPEG-4 solutions at IBC2002 which is held 13-17 September in Amsterdam.

Also, the information I have is that at IBC there will be presented somekind of "mpeg-4 floor"-solution with showcase of the mpeg-4 technology by many companies, including Sigma.

I wonder if Sigma's use of XviD code without proper permission is going to complicate things. This could mean even bigger mess than previously thought.

[temporance]

Originally posted by JohnV
The situation is very interesting. Since Envivio licences the Sigma MPEG-4 codec which is infringing the GPL licence (at least until Sigma gives proper credit to XviD), Envivio is in this mess too.
And since it's unlikely that Envivio would agree to make their software GPLed, it's quite likely that Sigma really can't do it either..

Don't forget about patents - under GPL you can either license patents for all users of the GPL'd code, or for no-one at all.

MPEGLA would never agree to an unlimited patent license for xvid-derived code (everyone would use xvid and no-one would pay MPEGLA). So anyone using xvid, or derived code, for anything other than personal experimentation or academic studies, is forced to violate a multitude of patents. Patents apply worldwide too, thanks to the World Trade agreements.


Originally posted by JohnV
Sigma and Envivio should be showing their MPEG-4 solutions at IBC2002 which is held 13-17 September in Amsterdam.

Also, the information I have is that at IBC there will be presented somekind of "mpeg-4 floor"-solution with showcase of the mpeg-4 technology by many companies, including Sigma.


Anyone live near the RAI in Amsterdam want to sneak in with a wad of "Xivd inside" stickers for the Sigma exhibit?

[MfA]

Originally posted by temporance
Don't forget about patents - under GPL you can either license patents for all users of the GPL'd code

True.

or for no-one at all.

Nope, says no such thing ... if the program is patent encumbered and there is no royaltee free no strings attached patent license for use under the GPL for everyone (with a possible geographic restriction) then the GPL grants you no rights at all. It doesnt matter if the patents are selectively licensed to a couple of people, or to "no-one at all" ... the GPL doesnt care, no rights for everyone.

Of course Sigma claims copyright to most of the source code (which it blatantly plagiarized, but I dont know if that necessarily qualifies as copyright infringement). A copyright owner is not bound by the license he places on a program ... which is one of the problems of GPL.

It wouldnt be the first time a copyright owner supposedly releases patent encumbered code under the GPL without the appropriate patent license ... they are perfectly free to do so, they dont need a license to distribute. Its just that the people who receive it can do very little with it because the GPL grants them no rights (FSF should really make the GPL a certified trademark to prevent these kind of shananigans). Lizardtech does this for instance.

[Doom9]

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/vza-23.08.02-000/
For those who don't speak German.. there will be an article that explains the relationship between the various codecs in the next issue (whatever that means). German readers may already have that issue by today so they might be able to tell us more.

[X-Ray]

I didn't get the latest c't yet, but I'll tell what they write as soon as I get it.
They had a quite interesting codec comparsion (with OpenDivX and 3ivX...) a long time ago and promised OpenDivX a great future...

dev0

[fileman]

The c't is distributed every second saturday - so I'm looking forward to tomorrow's issue...

Regards, fileman.

[robUx4]

Is there any plan on legal actions against Sigma violation of the copyright ?

At least you could force Sigma to just say that it's the XVID source and nothing else. Also I guess that Sigma will have a hard time recovering from this bad press...

[Shayne]

Originally posted by trbarry
These things are usually settled in the court of public opinion, not of law.

- Tom

I do believe this to be true it is us the public that buy their wages.

Does anyone have any other addresses to sdesigns?

kal@sdesigns.com

Could you please tell me if your new Mpeg4 Codec Is pirated from the free version of XviD?

If i do not get a satisfactory response to this issue i will be slamming sdesigns whenever i get the chance.

I feel this will not increase sales for your company and i know as for me i will not buy anything from a corporation that can not carry themselves in an ethical manner.

[JohnV]

Does anybody know a person who has a Sigma Designs XCard.
The reason is that Menno (FAAD/FAAD2 developer) would like to check the software which comes with it. Menno is looking for it:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=30565#post30565

menno wrote:
http://www.sigmadesigns.com/pdf_docs/em847Xpb.pdf
That's the chip that supposedly does the decoding on Xcard. Then somewhere in that document I found this line:
"Low Complexity AAC (decoded using software on x86 host CPU)"

Does anyone have the software that comes with this card? I would like to have a look at it.

Menno

Sigma was asking previously if they could use FAAD2 "for free". Now after this XviD episode, it's not hard to guess what may have happened also in this case...

[mwillberg]

Anyone live near the RAI in Amsterdam want to sneak in with a wad of "Xivd inside" stickers for the Sigma exhibit?

I will actually be present as an exhibitor and I really hope I find the time to go look for these guys... Would really like to see the looks on their faces when their explaining this.

[KAMiKAZOW]

Originally posted by JohnV
The situation is very interesting. Since Envivio licences the Sigma MPEG-4 codec which is infringing the GPL licence (at least until Sigma gives proper credit to XviD), Envivio is in this mess too.
At least the MP4 decoder is based on a numbre of open source components.
Quote from their credits.txt:
"This software is based in part on the work of the Independent JPEG
Group.

This software is based in part of the work of the FreeType Team.

This product includes software developed by the Apache Group for use in
the Apache HTTP server project (http://www.apache.org/).

This software is based in part on some code of the Darwin Streaming Server
(for which the source code is available under the
terms of the Apple Public Source License Version 1.2 at
http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/streaming/).

This software is based in part on some code of the RSA Data Security, Inc.
(includes software derived from the RSA Data
Security, Inc. MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm)."

If they used this codec also in commercial applications, they can license eg. the DivX codec.

[droolian01]

DAMNNNN!
Just started getting my captures looking good too!!!

I am really gutted, I'd hoped that the developers quiet dip;omacy would have borne fruit.

I am just a poor amateur. I can't program, i don't work with computers, but just using xvid with its numerous updates made captruring tv a fantastc thing to do. The thought that i may discover a bug or give a useful suggestion was something very special.

Ofcourse there is divx5 but xvid is better NOW. Anyway, xvid was more about feeling part of a research community, something an amateur like me finds precious.

I have very little idea about patent rights of GPL whatever, and have no idea what i can do to help other than boycot/badmouth SD at every opportunity. I would contribute financially if funds were needed for lawers, i think there are many people here who would too.

For Gods sake don't give up yet!

[MaTTeR]

Originally posted by droolian01
I would contribute financially if funds were needed for lawers, i think there are many people here who would too.


Indeed if it were to ever make it to a court case I would surely chip in some moolah also. Let's hope it doesn't make it that far and Sigma finally wakes up and does a reality check. It's amazing an American company would pull this kind of stunt, I could understand if a European company did this due to them not being bound by certain US laws. Then again...I think we've all seen what companies are capable of doing in the past few months when they really get greedy.

Would it be worth while to also contact Sigma's vendors to make them aware of this situation? Perhap's a few of them wouldn't be so eager to carry SD products if they knew of this unscrupulous behavior taking place. Just a thought.

[Ivion]

Originally posted by temporance
Anyone live near the RAI in Amsterdam want to sneak in with a wad of "Xivd inside" stickers for the Sigma exhibit?

[foolin' around]
Hey, I live in Amsterdam, if anyone would be so kind to make some nice stickers I could always try. :p ;)
[/foolin' around]
But I've send a e-mail to a major Dutch computer magazine's (Computer!Totaal, wich would be freely translated: Totally Computer! or Total Computer!) press apartment, hope they will include the news on their frontpage and in their next issue, I gave them links to Doom9.org, this forum (and this thread), XviD.org, SigmaDesigns.com, DivX.com, the thread on DivX.com started by Neo Neko, and some news articles. Thank goodness the biggest Dutch Science/Technology site (http://www.tweakers.net) already had the news on their frontpage.

Let us all pray in these hard times that XviD shall survive and be victorious. All the luck to all those wonderfull XviD team-members...hope ya all make it through.

Many Wishes from a Dutch XviD-lover.
-David

[temporance]

Now that Sigma has release the source code to their codec, they have opened a huge chink in their armour. Anyone who owns a patent in video encoding/decoding can now look at codec source code to see whether Sigma is infringing. Source code is pretty compelling evidence for a patent lawsuit.

There are literally 100's of patents that could be violated by this code. More than the patents that are "essential" for MPEG-4 and licensed by MPEGLA.

So, if we have volunteers with the knowledge, we could trawl patent databases to find patents that are infringed by this code. Then we contact the patent holder to inform them of Sigma's infringment.

Good luck xvid!

[EDIT: I forgot that Sigma's d/l license tries to put all the responsibiilty for patents onto the end user. However, for corporate licensees of the codec (if any) this line of attack would have serious consequences]

[MfA]

Get them sued for contributory infringement ... then after that they can go after Koepi for distributing XviD binaries (because if they are infringing XviD almost certainly is as well). With all those successes behind their belt they might feel brave enough to test the waters to see to what extent the courts are willing to extend contributory infringement to source code distribution.

Someone without preconceptions (like an a-technical judge) has a good chance of not going for this "somewhere between machine code and higher level representations this transforms from a contributory infringement into a free speech issue" schtick. The only reason noone has pushed this angle in court is because of public opinion, but I wouldnt count on that to stop them forever.

Dont rock the boat.

[GreatLord]

I do have compete driffemt e-mail adr to Sigma,
I have promies not give it out. I have sendt e-mail to SD, I amwating on answers. it normal take a week before I get any answers.

I have been in Sigmas News group in many year before I start to rip DVD.


Some idot did say GPL must be remove it is bad for all. b.l.a
here a complete copy of his msg in Sigma Designs news group.



From geno_cyber@tin.it
"http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5089


If what it's written on that article is true then it's simply silly
and quite dumb, isn't it ?
Now a communistic minded open-source group accuses a famous
multinational group that designs high-end hardware video codecs to
have illegally used their free open source project source code without
respecting their pathetic GPL "rules" thing .. ??!
Is the world dominated by these stupid punks or is any other interests
hidden behind that opensource movement, uh ?

I don't know about you but I don't like open source communistic minded
mentality at all. It's thanks to opensource things like Linux that
Microsoft estabilished its full market monopoly, simply because the
illegally born Linux opensource thing just killed any possibility to
get any real commercial Unix OS and just a serie of poor coded Linux
versions that are used to avoid paying big bucks for professional
Unixes (like AIX) to set servers up. People should remember that Linux
started as a commercial Unix hack and reverse-engineering thing. So
all the opensource "rules" like GPL/GNU that is set are simply
pathetic.

I seriously think that opensource movements should be stopped. The
more they continue acting like this and more troubles they will give
to the market, customers and society.

Open source is bad because it allows some no-global guys to attack
democracy and the free market, as this case against SigmaDesigns
demonstrates.

I hope the judge won't be a communistic minded, socialistic one and
that open source movements get stopped ASAP."

[temporance]

Originally posted by MfA
Get them sued for contributory infringement ... then after that they can go after Koepi for distributing XviD binaries (because if they are infringing XviD almost certainly is as well). With all those successes behind their belt they might feel brave enough to test the waters to see to what extent the courts are willing to extend contributory infringement to source code distribution.

No chance. Unless Koepi is a millionaire, he is not worth chasing. Make an example of him? No - too much bad press. It should be obvious that xvid helps patent holders promote their wares - it is not making, or diverting $$$ away from the licensors. I'm not sure this is true of Sigma.

Will this be the new wave of corporate scandal and lawbreaking to hit America?

[temporance]

Originally posted by GreatLord
I seriously think that opensource movements should be stopped. The
more they continue acting like this and more troubles they will give
to the market, customers and society.
Ignore this attitude - he probably thinks that academic papers and research findings are bad for society and should also be kept under lock and key!

[GreatLord]

I like open src project. But some did not at Sigma Designs NewsGroup.
news://sigmadesigns.com.

I only whant to info all about what happen at Sigma Designs Newsgroups

[Wimpy]

I am ignoring, but what does 'troll' mean exactly? Never did understand it?

[Marc FD]

Originally posted by GreatLord
I do have compete driffemt e-mail adr to Sigma,
I have promies not give it out. I have sendt e-mail to SD, I amwating on answers. it normal take a week before I get any answers.

I have been in Sigmas News group in many year before I start to rip DVD.


Some idot did say GPL must be remove it is bad for all. b.l.a
here a complete copy of his msg in Sigma Designs news group.



From geno_cyber@tin.it

_CENSORED_



My GOD !! we got a seriously-brain-damaged here !!
Is it _possible_ to be so dumb?
or maybe he's lobotomized?
or it's a cyborg?

i'm voiceless....

[ACClarke]

Originally posted by Marc FD


My GOD !! we got a seriously-brain-damaged here !!
Is it _possible_ to be so dumb?
or maybe he's lobotomized?
or it's a cyborg?

i'm voiceless....

OR MAYBE ........... LE PEN :devil:

[MfA]

Originally posted by temporance
It should be obvious that xvid helps patent holders promote their wares - it is not making, or diverting $$$ away from the licensors.

This is only true for members of the patent pool, who have pretty much resigned themselves (finally) to getting no profits from use by consumers ... there is no guarantuee those other patent holders you suggest we look for will be so enlightened.

[avih]

guys, pls don't respond to trolls.
thx.

[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..

[CruNcher]

Hi @ all what i don't understand is why should Envivo license 2 Mpeg4 Engines ??. They licensed DICAS Mpegable and SigmaDesigns that makes no sense to me did XviD Developers checked DICAS Core yet ? I don't want to say that DICAS Core is useing XviD Sources too but its a posibility isn't it ?

Sure they use all the same Codebase and this is the MuMusys Code which Projectmayo is based on but those individual tweakings make a Codec superior against another. And i doubt that we will see any [major] improvements for now only those tweaks and that is what makes this here so important XviD Developers should get Credits for this Tweaks :). But who says that DivX Network isn't useing XviD tweaks they also learn from the Source they don't use the same Code but they also get an Advantage out of this and they don't release their Sources or give out Credits so that Xvid Devs could learn from them B-Frames as an example.

Offtopic: I think we don't hear anything from DivX Networks for the moment becaouse they preparing the integration of H.26L by now and we will see them implementing this great new technology first into the DivX Codec as it was with B-Frames before :)

[MaTTeR]

Originally posted by CruNcher
Offtopic: I think we don't hear anything from DivX Networks for the moment becaouse they preparing the integration of H.26L by now and we will see them implementing this great new technology first into the DivX Codec as it was with B-Frames before :)

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.

[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 :(

[MfA]

Originally posted by temporance

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]

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.

[temporance]

Originally posted by MfA

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.

This does not say that I must respect the patent licensor. It is just pointing out to me that I have a choice:

1. don't use the code at all
2. violate GPL by buying a patent license for my product
3. violate the patent by releasing my product under GPL
4. do both 2 and 3

and that the only way to be completely legal is option 1.

[kastro68]

Is this true?

Darn, i didn't download the latest build :(


I have exams, and don'thave time to read all the posts, but Patents expire in 17 years don't they? Maybe this piece of info could be of help.


I enjoyed the ride while it lasted,

ja.

[Nic]

What makes you think the ride has stopped? its just slowed to a standstill....all good rides keep you in suspense. ;)

[Nightweaver]

The XviD-land engineers discovered some bubblegum on the tracks and had to stop the ride temporarily to get rid of it ... or something.

[GreatLord]

Sigma have change some info, with more.
http://www.sigmadesigns.com/products/RMP4_video_codec.htm
and SIgma have done some change at the copyright.

plz check it out xvid team.

[athos]

For example I find this in encoder.c:
/**************************************************************************
*
* History:
* 01.06.2002 Sigma Designs Inc.
*
* imported from encoder.c from XVID MPEG-4 VIDEO CODEC
*
*************************************************************************/
and they stress that the GNU Public License should be included:
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License (http://www.sigmadesigns.com/products/gpl_license.txt) along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA