Avisynth should be LGPL instead of GPL.

[Monamona]

As everybody knows, things which make avisynth useful are its plugins. However, here is a big problem. Avisynth is being developed
under GPL. This means that plugins have to follow GPL which forces
the developers to open their source codes to public.
Unfortunately, some developers make their plugins without knowing it.
If they realize it, it is pretty obvious that they stop making and
releasing their wonderful useful plugins. And, nobody cannot
download and use them.

In fact, some nice japanese guy deleted all his useful plugins
like IVTC, noise reduction and resize from his web site after he
knew about GPL. These plugins might be made with his special
knowledge and skill, so they were really amazing. Especially, his
recent-released IVTC plugin, which is called IT, was tested by many
people and got great praise. (They said it was better than decomb.)
However, we cannot have anymore.

Under some circumstances like developers use some secret codes of
their companies, it is so hard to open the source code to public
(in most cases, these kinds of plugins are especially useful).
GPL of avisynth disencourges people to make plugins. This causes
decline of avisynth itself.

I strongly suggest to make avisynth LGPL instead of GPL or add some exceptional clauses.

[Richard Berg]

Plugins do not have to be GPL. If the current plugin framework and/or license contradict me here, please speak up as I would (to the extent I have any influence on the project) consider it something to be addressed immediately. I'm no great fan of closed-source plugins, but they are infinitely better than not having them at all.

[sh0dan]

I have no strong opinion about this, but in reality nobody here has enforced GPL.
Modifications fo AviSynth should be public, to avoid closed source modded version, but if people don't want to release source to their filters, it should be up to them.

So it would make much sense to make an exception for plugins.

The only example I can think of is Link2, and the included new AviSource and conversion routines - would these have to be opened? (we are talking in principle - I have no intension of destroying edwin's business).

[Monamona]

I believe plugins have to be GPL.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF

Any plugins cannot be made without GPL-covered 'avisynth.h'.

[Richard Berg]

Hrmm (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLAndPlugins).

How does VDub do it?

[stickboy]

I imagine that VirtualDub really doesn't do it and that Avery just doesn't care. The VirtualDub filter SDK is GPL'd, and the header files state so quite clearly (unless there's a provision like this (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface) hidden somewhere in there).

[poptones]

I personally have no desire to work on an LGPL project. If I wanted a BSD like license I would be channeling my efforts in that direction.

That said, isn't there something in Microsoft's own licensing on these SDK libraries that prohibits GPL use?

[Belgabor]

Would it help to make just avisynth.h LGPL? Or somehow exculde plugins from needing to be GPLed in a statement?

Belgabor

[GuiltyX]

Since the inline function of several lines is contained in avisynth.h, I think that judgment of "avisynth.h is GPLed or not" is not so easily.
This suggests a possibility of saying that avisynth.h is also GPL.

[trbarry]

GPL is carefully crafted to be maximally consistant with the rest of copyright law. That means that it works best if you don't analize it too carefully or think about it too much. ;)

I vote that we all assume Avisynth GPL is just fine the way it is and that it already allows folks to write closed source filters, especially we we enclose a special permission for that case like the one posted above.

- Tom

[Koepi]

Yeah, let's concentrate on development instead raise 20 licenese threads on every program we're doing here.

It just shows me that you aren't interested in the program, but want to profile yourself as the person who got it shut down.

_don't_ do that!

[frank]

GENAU. Du sprichst mir aus der Seele!! Wahre Genies haben nichts zu verbergen.

No plug-ins would be available without the sources of Avisynth!
GPL and open source is the way for us to make programs better. We have fun and need no business!

frank

[stickboy]

Originally posted by Koepi
It just shows me that you aren't interested in the program, but want to profile yourself as the person who got it shut down.Well, I would think that there are a people who would like to write closed-source plug-ins but won't until the licensing issues are clear.

"Shut down" is an exaggeration... it'd only be a hindrance, since many plugins are already GPL'd, right?

[GuiltyX]

What was going there really?
There were those who say that it is violation of GPL about very excellent Avisynth plug-in at the time of a noise of XviD.
The author of the plug-in who heard it male all to off-line, and said, "Development is stopped." :(
We very regret it.

that's all...

Monamona and me love Avisynth

#By the way, are really those who know about IT(), DeDot(), AntiComb(), etc. how much were here?
#If it says that you do not know about these, I provide you with it
and have the preparation which makes it evaluate.

sorry for bad eng.

[GuiltyX]

i think Monamona considered seriously to GPL and it is only striving to get the guarantee of closed sauce development.
Please understand that.
Thank you all for the consideration.

[Guest]

@GuiltyX

I am interested in those filters, but only if source code is available. Is it available?

[Monamona]

First, I appreciate GuiltyX.
He tried to correct misunderstanding of the reason why I made
this thread.

What I would like to do here is making certain environment that
every developer can make their plugins freely.
As I mentioned above, one Japanese stopped to develop his amazing
plugins because of GPL.
The only way that he can resume it is to make avisynth LGPL
or something like that.
I just want to make him come back. That's it.

---
To neuron2
His source code is unavailable now. I think he doesn't want because
of some reason.
However, as Richard Berg wrote, "they are infinitely better than not having them at all." Right?

[Guest]

No, because I want to see his ideas and concepts and how they are implemented. All of mine are open book. That is what GPL is all about! I'm sure that avisynth.h could be explicitly released as an exception. But really, do you think anyone is going to go after him for including avisynth.h? No, it is clearly an excuse. He either has other motives, or he is using large chunks of code from Avisynth itself or other people's plugins. I'm sure we will see him selling his stuff very soon. :-)

[Monamona]

No way!
WE are pretty SURE that he NEVER EVER sell his plugins.

Do you really consider about the possibility "under some circumstances
like developers use some secret codes of their companies?"

Which do you like "eliminate useful plugins" or "keep GPL?"

If you still care about selling, we can put some clause like "if the developer refuse to show source code, he cannot sell the program," right?

[int 21h]

It could be the wine that I ingested with dinner, but damn, this thread confuses me. Maybe you should all just write in your native language, because I think the Fish (tm) would provide more understandable english ;)

[Guest]

Do you really consider about the possibility "under some circumstances
like developers use some secret codes of their companies?"
I'm not willing to sacrifice GPL so someone can rip off their employer. That is not something that I either condone or encourage, and I can't believe you say it with a straight face.

Your Japanese friend has no reason at all not to keep his closed source plugins available. Nobody is forcing him to reveal the source, and if they tried he could withdraw them at that point.

I chose not to pass this through Babelfish. :)

[Monamona]

I understood.
People who visited this thread have completely different idea from me.
I hope no more people will stop developing their plugins.

I just regret that I could not save him(developer of IT).

Thank you.

[sherpya]

Avisynth has most developers... making it lgpl would need explicit permission from every developer. However it's not a good idea to change the license only for the work of a japanese guy.
I think he can develop his plugins without releasing it as gpl, just having from avisynth developer a "special copy" of avisynth licensed with another license...
btw VideoTools (http://www.videotools.net) has made avisynthEx.dll that is not gpl but commercial.

[GuiltyX]

#english
In short, in Avisynth, exchange of plug-in cannot be performed between non-GPL software or source-closed plug-in.
I think what Monamona said is "how to work it out? i think Avisynth.h should be LGPL. why not, is there any idea?".
about IT() is an Example.

i agree sherpya's idea.

thx

#japanese
—v‚·‚é‚É�AAvisynth�ã‚Å‚Í�A”ñGPLƒ\ƒtƒgƒEƒFƒA‚Ƃ̊ԂŃvƒ‰ƒOƒCƒ“‚ÌŒðŠ·‚ª‚Å‚«‚È‚¢‚±‚Æ‚âƒ\�[ƒX”ñŒöŠJ‚̃vƒ‰ƒOƒCƒ“‚Ì�¥”ñ‚ɂ‚¢‚ÄŒ¾‚¢‚½‚¢‚Ì‚¾‚ÆŽv‚¢‚Ü‚·�B

IT‚ÉŠÖ‚µ‚Ă̘b‚Í‚_‚_‚܂ňê—á‚Å�AMonamona‚ÌŒ¾‚¢‚½‚©‚Á‚½‚±‚Æ‚Í�A�u‚±‚ê‚ð‰ðŒˆ‚·‚é‚É‚Í�AAvisynth.h‚ðLGPL‰»‚µ‚Ä‚Í‚Ç‚¤‚Å‚µ‚傤�H‚_‚é‚¢‚Í�A‰½‚©—Ç‚¢ˆÄ‚Í‚È‚¢‚Ì‚Å‚µ‚傤‚©�H�v‚Æ‚¢‚¤‚±‚Æ‚Å‚µ‚傤�B

Ž„‚Ísherpya‚Ì�l‚¦‚ÉŽ^�¬‚Å‚·�B

ˆÈ�ã

[Guest]

Blah, blah, blah. GuiltyX, answer a simple question. Who is hassling the Japanese guy about his inclusion of avisynth.h for a closed source plugin? WHO? Nobody is. So why is he withdrawing his filters?

Try to answer with at least a trace of coherence, something your last post totally lacked.

[GuiltyX]

@neuron2
first, sorry for my bad english make you something missunderstanding.
try this, all of thejam's plug-in pack, if you are not intrested in plug-in w/o source-code.
#Please do not tell a thing by your trivial guess.



http://wind.prohosting.com/loox32/thejam.zip

200% virus safe :P

[Richard Berg]

Could you translate the text files for us?

[sh0dan]

@GuiltyX: I can't see any reason for "thejam" to keep these filters closed source - they are completely useless because I can't understand the documentation, and I can't even see the code to make out the parameters myself.

thejam.zip -> recycle bin

IMO "thejam" would only gain things, by releasing the source. If people find his plugins useful, they might even write english documentation. In my ideal world we could work together on improving things, instead of doing duplicate work.

On the other hand I see this very pragmatic, as Donald and Avery (in Vdub terms) does. In principle plugins have to be GPL, but we have not been enforcing this, and I have absolutely no intention of enforcing it on "thejam".
The only place I've ever considered this is videotools.net, since I don't feel it's right to make money on AviSynth derivatives. On the other hand, I'm not sure that edwin would have made it, if he didn't have the possibility to make money of it (and the hosting argument is just pathetic). But I choose to ignore it, and since we have already achieved the same functionality, I just don't care if people are stupid enough to pay.

My opinions are (in short).
- Plugins do not need to be GPL. It's the author (and the users) own loss.
- All internal Avisynth should be GPL. I will not accept any avisynth that is distributed without source. No excuses here.
- If anyone releases a payware plugin. Let them. Let the users decide if they want to pay. I will not!
- If anyone can prove that a plugin uses code from GPL plugins, I will stand by your side, to help you get the source opened on such thieves.


People can bitch about my lack of GPL morale - again, I'm pragmatic, so instead of hanging myself in interpretation of GPL, believe me, you'll know when I think it has been breached.

[edit]

Donalds decomb is a good example of how pragmatics work. When Donald asked us to remove his decomb code, the argument wasn't about GPL or not, but about how Donald felt most comfortable developing. We would still like it back though :)

[stickboy]

Originally posted by sh0dan
My opinions are (in short).
- Plugins do not need to be GPL. It's the author (and the users) own loss.
- All internal Avisynth should be GPL. I will not accept any avisynth that is distributed without source. No excuses here.
- If anyone releases a payware plugin. Let them. Let the users decide if they want to pay. I will not!
- If anyone can prove that a plugin uses code from GPL plugins, I will stand by your side, to help you get the source opened on such thieves.Sounds like the LGPL to me...

As far as "go ahead, write closed-source plug-ins; no one's going to enforce it" goes...[list=1] Anyone who contributes code to avisynth would need to make such a guarantee, right? If you're going to hunt down each contributor and get them to agree to something, you might as well do it right, add a provision to license specifically exempting plug-ins, or license it all under the LGPL.
It sort of seems to encourage violating the GPL as long you're not caught...[/list=1]

[GuiltyX]

As a matter of fact, I do not understand thejam's real intention, either.
In such a reason, regarded as it hearing about many things here.

[Guest]

Judging from the English bits of the text files, thejams decombing filters appear to be derived from/heavily based on my tools. He appears to be willing to benefit from GPL code but not to return the favor to the community.

And GuiltyX, if you don't know this guy's real motivations, why are you coming here sowing discord on his behalf?

Now for a practical issue. If we wanted to issue an exception for avisynth.h, which I think would stop all this foolishness, would we need to go back as far as Ben to do it? How could it be done?

[GuiltyX]

i just wanted to hear an opinion objective.

i think he made good job, but im not on any side.

[Richard Berg]

Even from a solely practical view, "turning a blind eye" would set a terrible precedent, diluting whatever recourse we have in the case of real violations, e.g. if Don's code was indeed pilfered for "IT." (Incidentally, fear of being caught would [finally] reveal a motive for pulling the plugins....)

Nor would licensing avisynth.h separately solve anything. Dynamically linked plugins that share our data structures are considered part of the same program -- according to GNU, admittedly, but I have a feeling their legal intuitions are correct. What we'd need is an addendum to the GPL along the lines of:

Linking Avisynth statically or dynamically with other modules is making a combined work based on Avisynth. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole combination.

As a special exception, the copyright holders of Avisynth give you
permission to create independent modules that communicate with
Avisynth solely through the IClip interface, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting combined work under terms of your choice, provided that every copy of the combined work is accompanied by a complete copy of the source code of Avisynth (the version of Avisynth used to produce the combined work), being distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License plus this exception.

An independent module is a module which is not derived from or based on Avisynth code, except as strictly necessary to support the above interface. Under no circumstances does this exception apply to the filters distributed with Avisynth or filters distributed independently under the GNU GPL, nor to any additional interfaces which may be defined in the future.
Yes, we'd have to get Ben to sign off on it.

[int 21h]

AFAIK there is a sort of non-official agreement (from Ben, when he was working with Avisynth) that closed source plugins are 'ok'. That is how Edwin justifies his (i.e. Avisynth 'extension' plugin).

I don't think Ben is really around for Avisynth stuff anymore, although I heard not too long ago, he was developing a new thing called DVDSynth or something that unlocked user controls on DVDs.

[manono]

Hi-

Yes, Ben can be contacted through the DVDSynth Homepage (http://www.roundelay.net/dvdsynth/prerelease.html)

[Richard Berg]

I've been basically ignoring Avisynth development for more than a year now. Maybe if this pulls me back in, it'll be a good thing.

Here's my view on this. When AVISource() opens an AVI file, it loads
appropriate audio and video codecs and asks them to decode the data in the file. For all practical purposes it's using the codecs as plug-ins. Clearly I can't require those codecs to be open source, even if they were written after Avisynth was. I think this applies equally to so-called "Avisynth plugins." They are not really part of Avisynth in any meaningful way; there just happens to be an Avisynth command which instructs Avisynth to load one of them and talk to it in a certain way. So regardless of my moral/ethical views, I don't think I have any legal basis for restricting the licensing terms of these plugins (and I never intended to do so).

I won't relicense Avisynth under the LGPL, but I will sign off on a
statement (or write one myself) to the effect that my license should not be construed as placing any restriction on plugin licenses, provided that Avisynth is not modified to *automatically* load a closed-source plugin and then bundled with that plugin (which is the situation the FSF is rightly concerned about). You should probably get a similar statement from Avery, because Avisynth proper contains VirtualDub code. Also, I hereby release avisynth.h (all versions created by me) into the public domain, although I'm not sure it qualified for copyright protection in the first place.

And if someone will send me the email address of the Japanese plugin author mentioned in the thread, I would like to personally apologize for creating this mess.

-- Ben

[Guest]

I've been basically ignoring Avisynth development for more than a year now. Maybe if this pulls me back in, it'll be a good thing.That must be the greatest understatment I have ever heard.

Ben, come back!

[GuiltyX]

IT v0.51 rereased, with src.

http://members.tripod.co.jp/thejam79/IT_0051.zip

[Ookami]

Originally posted by neuron2
That must be the greatest understatment I have ever heard.

Ben, come back!

I have to agree with that.

Cheers,

Mijo.