XviD on Playstation 2!!! yes, really!!!

[king_tuk]

This will play XviD movies on your Playstation 2 through your network...
http://www.broadq.com/product.shtml

[Bulletproof]

It's not actually decoding on the system.. its like a Playlist program.

[Yusaku]

it DOES decode it on system - just read the FAQs and count how much power would be needed at host computer to recompress XViD at realtime, not to mention that it'd be impossible to stream such beast over 802.11b (that they support and in real life it makes about 0.5MB/sec max). The program at host is just universal, slightly modified file sharing for serving files AND program code for PS2.

Now, the question that I raised already in mediaplayer forum is: did they really build MP4 decoder from scratch, or "borrowed" some GPL code? Their FAQ seems quite suspicious:

Q: What kind of digital media can I use with your software?

Both the Beta and Preview Editions of our software will support MP3 digital music files and MPEG 1, 2, and 4 out of the box. Additional codec/player support will be added over time--transparently and dynamically--to your software to enable support for new formats.

We plan to offer as broad of support as we can, with a development emphasis on open, industry-standard formats.

A good guideline would be this: if source exists or is made available for creating or playing a particular type of media on Linux, we will likely be able to add support for that format in the near future. An example would be support for Ogg-Vorbis audio and video compression

Edit: well, OGG is berkeley style licence, right? But is there some MP4 decoder source out there?

[primitive]

IIRC, this thing was pimped on the arstechnica and/or the SA forums about a month ago. Supposedly it works by bringing up enough of the system to get the ethernet adapter working, and then it connects to a media server you must install on a machine in the same subnet to download the rest of the application.

Also, IIRC, the server portion is written in Java and incorporates OSS. The client is really thin and is probably written in some kind of PS2 assembly language. It's been a while since I've heard of this software, so don't hold me to it.

-p

[Yusaku]

yeah, according to FAQ this is exactly how it works. The question I raised is whether the server+app parts (that are IMHO one SW package) are correctly "inflicted by GPL virus" ^_^. And although I'm no expert on US law, I think that according to the tone of GPL the PS2 boot disk should be inflicted too - in the end it is one big package to do something.
Similarly to the need to license MySQL if you NEED it to run your application (or comply to GPL), they should release all code - because the loader app is useless without GPL code on server.

Anyway, just my 2 cents. I'm not even from US, so it does not really concern me...

[primitive]

Originally posted by Yusaku
yeah, according to FAQ this is exactly how it works. The question I raised is whether the server+app parts (that are IMHO one SW package) are correctly "inflicted by GPL virus" ^_^. And although I'm no expert on US law, I think that according to the tone of GPL the PS2 boot disk should be inflicted too - in the end it is one big package to do something.
Similarly to the need to license MySQL if you NEED it to run your application (or comply to GPL), they should release all code - because the loader app is useless without GPL code on server.

Anyway, just my 2 cents. I'm not even from US, so it does not really concern me...

Umm, no.

Read the GPL, it's not as strict as you think. If I were to write a commercial application that uses MySQL as a database server, I don't have to make my code GPL because my commercial program could just as easily use Oracle or Postgres; MySQL isn't an integral component (one that can't be separated) of my application.

So non-GPL code is used to bootstrap GPL code, so what? Does using BootMagic to boot my Linux box make BootMagic be GPL? (This is stated a rhetorical question, because even a mentally-handicapped penguin could tell that the answer is NO.)

IANAL, but let's look at a logical way this program could be divided into modules.

1. Bootstrap code. (the part that starts the PS2)
2. Content server. (the part that listens for network requests and responds with appropriate data)
3. Player software. (the part that is the actual application)

Each of these three modules are more or less independent. The bootstrap code need not know what it's looking for, it could simply be like a baby bird going FEED ME. Likewise, the content server need not know what it's serving; it could serve anything from player software to video files to audio files to whatever. All it's doing is responding to the bootstrap's (and later to the player's) requests.

I hope it's perfectly clear now that these are three separate components.

-p

[Yusaku]

Exactly. This is exactly how it works.

BUT it is not the case how is it done in BroadQ program - they're distributing it in one package, it cannot work one without the other.

The key moment from GPL point of view is that it is distributed as one package. Read FAQs about why to license on MySQL.com, it is almost identical situation.

If you yourselves install BootMagic and linux on your computer, there's nothing wrong with it. If BootMagic includes linux distribution on their CDs, there's nothing wrong with it.

BUT if BootMagic includes linux distribution on their CDs and write on the sticker on packaging "BootMagic will allow you to run linux (included in package) and windows on the same computer", it is direct violation of GPL. Not if it is some fineprint somewhere (like you can resize video using our filter or one of these three filters from virtualdub), BUT the application must be sensibly usable without the GPL code parts and you cannot promote the work done by GPL code (GPL code must not be the core reason why your application for $500 works, but it can do some minor tasks in your app).

You might think from normal POV that you can "shield" your app from GPL virus, but it is NOT true. Unless LGPL is used, no matter if it is encapsuled in DLL, run on other computer and synchronized over network etc., nothing will stop GPL virus.

If it would be as you're suggesting, why would mysql offer different licensing than GPL at all? The licenses they're selling for thousands of dollars do NOT give you any other rights than GPL taken from your perspective. Almost no licensees use the opportunity to change actual database core (it is good and fast enough), but they buy the right to setup the MySQL as a part of setup process of their closed-source program that needs database backbone.

From GPL point of view, they can easily sell a software that does 1. and 2., BUT they have to sell it as it is, e.g. "Code Loader for PS2. Allows you to run your own code on PS2 without the need of burning CDs and modding your system". But how many people would buy such thing?

[Mr. Smith]

BUT it is not the case how is it done in BroadQ program - they're distributing it in one package, it cannot work one without the other.

Distributing non-GPL software with GPL software as part of one package (physical or logical) does not taint the non-GPL software. For example, many commercial Linux distributions include non-GPL or even commercial and proprietary software in their distribution. The GPL has nothing to do with packaging.

Read FAQs about why to license on MySQL.com, it is almost identical situation.

The MySQL policy on licensing (http://www.mysql.com/support/arrangements.html ) says:

Basically, our licensing policy and interpretation of the GPL is as follows:

THEIR interpretation is that software that cannot work without MySQL (even if it is not linked with MySQL and communicates with MySQL over a network) requires the software to be GPL or you must get a commercial MySQL license. Not everybody interprets the GLP this way.

But, in the case of our (BroadQ's) software this doesn't even apply. We have an MP3 decoder based on GPL software. The BroadQ bootloader works perfectly fine without this decoder. It may not be able to do much without it or other decoders (which we have) but it runs and does what it's supposed to do (boot the PS2 and load an application). It DOES NOT rely on GPL software to do what it's supposed to do nor is it linked with (and that's really the key thing with the GPL) GPL software, therefore it is not tainted by the GPL.

You might think from normal POV that you can "shield" your app from GPL virus, but it is NOT true. Unless LGPL is used, no matter if it is encapsuled in DLL, run on other computer and synchronized over network etc., nothing will stop GPL virus.

That is completely false. Software only becomes tainted when it includes (either statically or dynamically linked) GPL software. You can have a proprietary application talk to a GPL database. You can have a GPL application talk to a proprietary server. You can even have a proprietary application talk to a propriatery server THROUGH a GPL'd proxy server. In none of those instances will the proprietary software ever be GPL tainted.

With regard to our software, we have a proprietary bootloader that loads other applications (GPL'd or not) as data and then executes them via something like a fork and exec (which is allowed under the GPL). Those applications talk to a proprietary server on the PC to download files and play them. Nothing is tainted because no GPL code is ever loaded AND executed in the same memory or process space as non-GPL code.

[Yusaku]

yeah, I totally agree with you, that the GPL term "software package" (or how is it...)is quite an unclear one. Some say it is that way, some the other - as to suit their current goals. I agree that I do not share your approach to GPL, because even though it might be legal, it does go against the spirit of license. But not being a lawyer, not being US citizen... I must admit I don't really care that much :)

I guess that only time will tell - your product is an interesting one, so probabilities of it being /.ted are quite high. Then we'll see...

[Mr. Smith]

yeah, I totally agree with you, that the GPL term "software package" (or how is it...)is quite an unclear one.

I disagree. In your interpretation, distros that included any non-GPL software would be in violation of GPL.

Red Hat, et. al.'s inclusion of both proprietary, LGPL, and GPL code is no longer a controversial issue.

because even though it might be legal, it does go against the spirit of license.

We will be following the spirit and the "letter" of the GPL/LGPL when we've released our software, and we will be very much up-front about what elements of QCast are covered by which license(s), providing our changes back to the community, required by license, or where possible, even if the license doesn't require it (such as BSD).

(from a previous post..)

Now, the question that I raised already in mediaplayer forum is: did they really build MP4 decoder from scratch, or "borrowed" some GPL code? Their FAQ seems quite suspicious

One of the media players we use (the player that currently handles video functions) is based on ffmpeg, which is LGPL. See http://ffmpeg.sourceforge.net/#license

Another of the media players is based on Madplay, which is GPL. See http://www.mars.org/home/rob/proj/mpeg/

Our TCP/IP stack is based on LWIP, which is freely available under BSD-style license. http://www.sics.se/~adam/lwip/

The rest of our software is proprietary, and as discussed earlier, does not dynamically or statically link to Madplay (the only GPL software we work with currently), and as you should be able to tell by now, is certainly "divisible" without loss of function-- ie, can still boot, update itself, browse content, and play media.

We look forward in publishing our source modifications for both ffmpeg and for Madplay.

...

This is definitely not an Xvid/Sigma situation, nor is it a Morpheus/Gnucleus situation... Our ffmpeg/madplay source will help the indie PS2 community a great deal. Our modifications to get these players working on PS2 are substantial.

[Yusaku]

in case of redhat it is different issue - they distribute different-style license programs to run under their GPL platform. Platform is GPL and they sell some programs for it, whereas you have proprietary platform and GPL program. So you're basically in the same position as, say, Microsoft, that would LIKE to include GPL software in windows, but cannot.

But as I said - it is all matter of where does "software package" end and "programs run on platform" begin, and from my point of view it is kinda loophole in GPL.
But it is an unclosable one - closing it (in newer GPL version) would make absolutely no sense. Of course you should be allowed to run GPL program on closed-source OS like windows, but it should be illegal to distribute GPL programs with windows. That is what IMHO gpl is trying to phrase, but as your program and some more show, it is probably impossible to manage.

Anyway, since almost all functionality is provided by LGPL program it is definitelly OK - as long as you pay MPEG4 licensing fees to MPEGLA, of course ;)

On the silly (but unfortunatelly true) note: did you know you can not distribute MPEG4 (or any other SW patent encumbered) binaries under xGPL in US? Only source code...

[Mr. Smith]

Platform is GPL and they sell some programs for it, whereas you have proprietary platform and GPL program. So you're basically in the same position as, say, Microsoft, that would LIKE to include GPL software in windows, but cannot.

Or, say, Solaris? There is GPL'ed code shipped with Solaris.

Anyway, since almost all functionality is provided by LGPL program it is definitelly OK - as long as you pay MPEG4 licensing fees to MPEGLA, of course

Tell me about it. We also support MPEG2... The MPEG4 cost is nothing compared to MPEG2...

On the silly (but unfortunatelly true) note: did you know you can not distribute MPEG4 (or any other SW patent encumbered) binaries under xGPL in US? Only source code...

This is silly... because it's just not true.

For just one example, Mplayer is available as a binary download. It can handle "sw patent encumbered" file formats without requiring any additional manipulation (Xvid).

http://mirrors.sctpc.com/dominik/linux/pkgs/mplayer/

There's also XMMS, which plays "sw patent encumbered" MP3's, and is available for download in binary form...

http://www.xmms.org/download.html

[-h]

For just one example, Mplayer is available as a binary download. It can handle "sw patent encumbered" file formats without requiring any additional manipulation (Xvid).

There's also XMMS, which plays "sw patent encumbered" MP3's, and is available for download in binary form...

Of course, and they're illegal distributions. Illegal in the sense that a court could send them a cease-and-desist letter in any country that respects said patents, should the patent holder decide to do so. It's very clear-cut.

On the XviD distribution note, you are violating the GPL if you distribute either the source or binaries to anyone inside a country which respects the patents used therein (i.e. the USA). Straight from RMS, that one.

-h

[Yusaku]

MP3 licensing from Thompson DOES allow for (* hmm.. nonprofit... errr... free-for-download, well GPL fits in, as well as winamp *) code, but MPEG4 licensing does not.

As for source distribution: that should be protected under free speech, and since I don't think any developer signed any NDA it is just unenforceable to stop distribution of it.

BUT it is protected as a speech, building an actual program from the sources is illegal (legal for personal compiling, but you cannot distribute the binary and you cannot use it). Ask any XViD developper on this board and they'll agree with that (maybe not with exactly what I said here, but that it is illegal), read /. and you'll see it too, ask FSF... it is just too obvious :(

[Koepi]

It sounds to me that you're just trying to make your point, yasuku. You should see that the people have the right idea, and instead slowing down development by stealing them valuable time, you could just see that your point is noted, but not agreed on.

That's usual how discussions go. If you can't agree on a point, then you just step back from it.

Civilised behaviour.

Don't know how to explain it better...

Please accept that these people don't share your point of view here.

Please don't troll around.

Thanks,

best regards,
Koepi

[sherpya]

I think xvid is done as "experimental & educational" pourpose, this way xvid could be distribuited without problems with patents since you use it for "testing", like backup your videos (correct me if I 'm wrong).
However selling something with inside xvid would be not legal, but this is a media decoder not an encoder and the decoding part uses ffmpeg (maybe could have same problems?), So I don't think xvid is really in topic here (apart for the thread subject :D - the first post would be this would play mpeg4 movies )

[Yusaku]

well, GPL aside. I'll just paste the paragraph I was trying to talk around and let the legalese speakThese requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.

@Koepi: that was exactly my intention and as you can see I steered away from it - before being provoked by you :devil:

and the decoding part uses ffmpeg (maybe could have same problems?) Yeah, it is the same MPEG4... unless you release it as educational (and even that is on the edge) binary, it cannot be released (under GPL). It is actually pretty smart from MPEGLA, because first they let you do all the work and after MP4 becomes widely accepted, they can just stop distribution of all free source projects based on it :(

[Koepi]

That post isn't meant provocative, I just want to settle this NON-XVID-related stuff down, this threads leads to nowhere.

So _please_.

Thanks again,
Koepi

[Mr. Smith]

...

We will be paying our pound(s) of flesh to the patent holders for the right to distribute our product commercially.

We will be republishing our code/modifications under [L]GPL, as we feel that it's a) the right thing to do, and, b) our obligation to do having used some source from MAD, FFMpeg, etc.

As to the intricacies of the "legality" of GPL'ed patent-encumbered code...

This issue is horribly complex, and I don't think there's a good answer to this. See previous comments re: inclusion of GPL software into Linux that turns out to be patent encumbered (see submarine patents, etc.)

Our approach is to make our modified code available back to the community, and appease the patent holders by simply paying their required royalties for our product. In this case, we feel that this a standard and reasonable approach.

-- Mr. Smith

[-h]

As to the intricacies of the "legality" of GPL'ed patent-encumbered code...

RMS posted a note about this on the Xiph mailing list: http://www.xiph.org/archives/vorbis/200110/0278.html .

Basically, unless you can ensure that whomever receives the source/binary has the full freedoms of the GPL to further modify/distribute it (this entails that there is a free-for-all license on the patent/s for *everyone* who could possibly receive the distribution, not just that you yourself have a patent license), you are violating the GPL.

You could get away with an "ignorance" clause whereby you don't really realise that you're distributing a patented algorithm, or restrict distribution to those countries which don't respect the patents. But as RMS has said, the patent clause in the GPL is a "liberty or death" clause, in that he prefers distributions to be totally free, not bound by patents in any way. The only exception is when the patent is freely usable by anyone who receives the package.

-h