You really think that Nero is going to spend $100,000 going after a company that does not exist? that has sold nothing? they would only do this if something was seriously damaging Ahead, not some minor license infringement of GPL/LGPL/etc.

People have been watching too many court room dramas...it was also quite amusing to read PPs c&d letter, unless you are $,$$$,$$$ it has no teeth - that is society (only a court can award damages, and anything that is cross-international borders effectively rules the little guy out).

You mean something like dbPowerAmp? Clear competitor of Nero. Can be arranged...

Menno

Arrange it then, go after dbpoweramp which supplies free aac tools...a clear competitor 'laugh', here is a quote from audiocoding.com:

"AudioCoding.com's goal is to provide the community with free MPEG-4 audio codecs. "

Better change that title as it is miss-leading, I think Ahead & Nero would get bad publicity out of it (you are banding threats around, I am sure the top brass @ Nero would like to know), not to mention said free codecs would emigrate east to Russia where they would be written and released by someone unconnected with dbpoweramp (I cannot do that for mp3 as it is the core of the programs, but for acc no problems)...as far as patents are concerned - you can (Ahead) put a complaint into the aaclicencing group, only they can take action.

We publish the tools at audiocoding.com under the free GPL license, and anyone can use them *as long as they abide by the GPL*.

People are violating the GPL and now suddenly *we* are evil because we complain about that? Huh?

so how does dbpoweramp violate that GPL?

From your site:

Mp4 & AAC decoder (using FAAD2 v2.0), AAC-HE compatible decoding

installing this gives a DLL containing FAAD2, which is used by dbPoweramp.

You *cannot* distribute this unless you open up the *entire* dbPoweramp source (opening up the plugin only is *not* enough, since the main app still dynamically links to it), or, unless you got permission from someone at Ahead.

so where is the source for Foobar 2K or Winamp?

so Nero is going to selectively keep certain programs down? by refusing an agreement?

all seems very silly and childish.

Peter has a permission from Ahead. Do you? Have you even asked?

Winamp doesn't use FAAD2.

There is a plugin for it using FAAD2 but that one is distributed by us.

As has been pointed out before, Peter sent a polite request to Ahead to use FAAD2 and got it.

/rant mode

And we all wonder why we have problems getting acceptance across platforms, portables, etc for different technologies? There's so much in-fighting and confusion. I just want what's best for the community.


/end rant

Here is my understanding of GPL - it says any derivative work needs all source code publishing, dbpoweramp is not a derivative work (it is not even supplied with faad2), the dbpoweramp aac codec is and its source code is freely available, so dbpoweramp does not violate the GPL of faad2.

I base my findings upon:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/GNU_General_Public_License

Since you're linking the aac plugin with some code of dbpoweramp (this is necessary to use the plugin), you're mixing GPLed code (AAC plugin) with non-GPLed code (use of plugin interface definitions in dbpoweramp).

Your understanding of the GPL describes the LGPL (Lesser or Library GPL).

If you had read down *just* a bit farther on the same webpage, you'd have arrived at this paragraph:

GPL-related disputes

Read it, it pretty much clear up the issue. (dbPoweramp seems to dynamically links to the FAAD2 DLL).

That is just your interpretation of the law, which is wrong. You will not find one byte of code in dbpoweramp (the main program) that is specific to faad2 - the dll, or library.

Usually, when someone is releasing code under GPL, there could be 2 justifications:
*idealistic reasons
*making money

Regarding FAAD2, I do not know how much a license would cost, but what I know is that it works, is available, and if there are any bugs they are quickly fixed.

Other solutions that would be free (price) are FAAD1 (but loosing HE) or reference software.

Only a court of law can decide that.

I find it interesting that you insist on this - it's a pretty well known issue with the GPL. If you are right it would almost mean the end of it and the Free Software community.

Offtopic posts moved here.

I have some questions:
1. Why does audiocoding.com write this software for free?
2. Why do you choose to allow others to use this software if they abide by the GPL, and not to use it if they don't.

My confusion is that doing things for free seems altruistic (there isn't even a potentially profitable company to advertise), whereas not allowing commercial companies to use the software in their offerings doesn't benifit computer users. Or perhaps you sell the software to commercial companies, using the use generated by free software to help you make a profit with them? That would make sense. On the other hand it could all just be for fun and technical challenge.

This isn't a complaint, just an economist trying to understand your motives!

You pretty much nailed it down. Whoever sells his software for profit generally doesn't want his sources opened and thus needs to get FAAD2 under an alternate license.

You can get such a license from us, but then you *do* have to pay for it.

Publishing the library under GPL allows free software to use it for free, gives us some publicity, and allows try-before-you-buy for potential customers.

Understood, thanks. The world makes more sense now.

I am not working for Ahead, but here is my guess:

Doing it for free as in Freedom is an idealistic thing, that does not really fit will in the reality of current world. Moreover, the fact that another license than GPL can be obtained is an indication that this is not a pure altruistic developement.

Providing this GPL decoding library has several purposes:
*offering a public reference for third party implementations. Ahead is selling mpeg4 products and is a member of the mpegif, so they have a big interest in the success of mpeg4 based solutions.
*offering ability to have this library used in GPL products, extending popularity of the library. Moreover, inclusion of this library in GPL products could mean a faster way to discover bugs.
*Offering a good trial of the library. If you are interested in an AAC decoding library, you have one that you could try before buying it, with full source code. No need to fill business forms before having access to the lib.

The fact that FAAD2 could be available under other licenses is a strong indicator that the goal is to earn money from it, directly of indirectly. (the same thing is probably true for MAD)


edit: Garf was faster

sorry guys, but obviously this isn't clear ... as far as *MY* way of thinking it is not a derivative work ... in this case, we are making work 2 things together, but none is derived from the other ... is just that dbpoweramp know how to use a library ...

>"the infringing work must incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work in some form,"

That is the key, there is not 1 byte of copyrighted (or uncopyrighted) FAAD2 code supplied with dbpoweramp music converter (not even headers, they are all in the codec). Only the codec can infringe, which is 100% seperate from dbpoweramp, the codec complies with GPL.

The problem is how it'll be interpreted if this will ever go into the court. IIRC the GPL requests source code disclosal as soon you use the GPL'd component, independently of the format (that'd include dynamic linking as I understand it).

Optimally, you'd write your own library (I had to, for one of my projects, but I can build now monolithic executable versions too without issues), but in case of something complex as an AAC library, this isn't always possible/affordable/<inserttermhere>.

--edit: Typo fix.

My opinion: If you can strip the code (codec) and app (dBpowerAMP) continues to work (properly), then there's no infringement.

Why not decoding using an installed Nero?
It would probably suit everyone.

Linux users would kill you

What do you mean? Is DMC running under Wine?

? I don't get it ?

Me neither.

Why woud linux users want to "kill" me because I'm suggesting to call the installed Nero decoder?

It seems reasonable to me:
By default, decode using FAAD1 (LGPL), and if Nero is installed, then use it to decode.

Ooh, I get it now. You're talking about dbPoweramp only

It's worth noting that the Free Software Foundation, the authors of the GPL, disagrees with you on this point. As far as I know, this particular point has never been tried on a court of law, so you could always take the risk if you believe you can afford a law suit.

Other options include to either do as they suggest and use fork() and exec() (or their Windows equivalents), or as Gabriel points out, use FAAD.

This whole thread illustrates exactly why the GPL is considered viral by many. Many programmers and/or developers wouldn't touch GPLed code with a ten-foot pole, and for good reason.

Here's to hoping this all gets straightened out for dbPoweramp. Spoon, you'd be better off using only non-GPLed code for use with dbPoweramp as using GPL code will only stir the zealots up and cause more problems for you in the long run due to the viral nature of the GPL.

What danchr linked to:

It would not be a violation of the GPL if dBPowerAmp was distributed with a seperate GPL'd program which acted as a frontend to the DLL. You could use an existing front end or write one yourself. If you made this frontend useful to others then you will be doing a service to the community that provided you with this code.


I like to believe I am not a Zealot, but you seem to misunderstand the purpose of the GPL. Yes, the GPL is 'viral'. Yes, it makes it inconvenient to included the code in non-free programs. Yes, it's a very restrictive licence. The purpose of the GPL is to allow people to write, share and distribute free software while ensuring that it remains free in the future. GPL code is not a free for all, it is code that was released to the community under a licence that protects the rights of the copyright holder.

Being 'viral' is a feature of the GPL, not a bug.

Unfortunately, you are right.

There's a license for every need. People interested in releasing "free for all" code should use BSD, like Xiph and WavPack do.

Look at this another way..

Say somebody developed a closed source application... call it barfoo.

They make the headers to develop plugins available under, say, a BSD license. Just these headers, since that's all you really need to develop a plugin.

Now somebody else comes along, takes FAAD, wraps it into a DLL with those headers in such a way that barfoo can use it. He release the full source to this plugin, as is required under the GPL.

Has the author of barfoo now violated the GPL? Has the author of the plugin done so?

The author of barfoo can't have violated the GPL. He didn't use any GPL code. He just created his app, and his headers, and made the headers BSD licensed.

The author of the plugin can't have violated the GPL either. He just took GPL and BSD code, mixed them (permissible under both licenses), wrote a wrapper, and released the whole thing under the GPL. He has done nothing that could possibly be construed as violating the GPL.

So, if the author of the plugin and the author of barfoo are the same person, has a violation now occured? Some of you seem to be thinking that yes, it has, even though if two separate people did it, it would be plainly obvious that no, it has not.

The truth of the matter is that this is totally permissible under the GPL as long as you don't distribute the two together. barfoo and the GPL plugin can't be in the same chunk of distribution. That's really all the GPL can enforce in this case. Developing a plugin that is wholly separate from the application does not make the GPL jump to the application UNLESS you distribute them both together. The GPL, section 2b:

"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."

This is the so-called viral clause. "Any work that you distribute or publish, that...contains or is derived from the program" must be GPL'd as well. So if I were to publish or distribute a program which contained code from FAAD, this would apply. But my example work, barfoo, contains no code from FAAD. As long as I don't distribute it with code that does contain work from FAAD, this clause will not apply to me.

So it's my considered opinion that dbPowerAmp is in the clear, as long as he doesn't distribute the FAAD plugin with the dbPowerAmp program itself.

Yes and if MPC had been released with a BSD we'd proably see it supported in the Karma right now

yes ... and you would have comercial companies profiting from OTHERS WORK without giving anything in return, as was the case with WINE/CrossOver Office at the time ... now WINE is GPL

Edit: spell

So be it, it's the developer's decision.

so, you develop with all your love and pation, and for free, some code ... it has take you many hours of hard work ... you want it free ... so you

1) released it under GPL
2) releaste it under BSD, and let, lets say, MS profit from it

what would you do?

i would probably use the LGPL (in fact, MAREO is gonna be re-released under it )

obviously is the dev's call, but ... i'm much more inclined to the GPL/LGPL one ... if somebody wants to use other license, they can allways ask me for permition.

so you have approval of all the authors that have made contributions to the faad2? (or are you selling an older version?) - just courious.

And who might those authors be? All the ones I know of agreed and even in those cases most of the code was replaced.

Menno

From http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/faq.html#%23faq9

Okay, so say you choose option 2 and Microsoft uses your library in one of their products. It becomes successful and they sell a million copies. Now you've got over a million people using your code.

So... what's the downside again? Is Microsoft not supposed to make money or something? The only annoying thing I could see would be if someone turned around, pretended the code was theirs, and sued you, but that could happen with any license.

Well, he didn't develop it for Microsoft to profit from. Look what happened to kerberos, Microsoft took the hard work others had done for free, added som proprietary extensions to it just to be incompatible with other implementations and made a profit from it without giving anything back. Of course Microsoft likes that, they don't have to pay anything for a very good product.

And about the comment about "the viral GPL" further up the thread. Have you read about SCO's adventures lately? They claim almost every damn OS is a derivative of their IP, talk about viral!! And that's definately not GPL'd. Proprietary licenses are far more viral than the GPL.

But Microsoft could for example take the Vorbis source, change some very minor things, which makes it completly incompatible with Ogg Vorbis and then release it as "Windows Media Audio 10". OK, somewhere very little in the info-box they´ll have to write "Some code is copyright by xiph.org", but that´s it.

They could also do this if Vorbis would be GPL, but then, their codec must be also open-source and their product in which this codec is included (which most likely means entire Windows)

Well, then people can decide if they want to use the original implementation or Microsoft's and you can compliment yourself on doing such a nice job that Microsoft ripped you off.

It really is the developer's decision which license they want to use and I apologize for sounding kind of trollish with my reply. The question is, why is the source code being released? The GPL lets the developer retain more control over it in that everything done with it also has to have the source released, while a BSD-style license really is just giving the code away to whomever thinks it's useful. The developer has to decide which they're more comfortable with.

Also, just to keep things on topic, I hold with Otto42's interpretation of the GPL. The program loading an add-on plugin like that should not be considered a derivative work as it works just fine without the GPLed library. I think the dynamic linking thing applies more to programs that need a library with GPLed code to be able to perform their core functions. I'm not a lawyer, though, so my opinion is mostly worthless here :/.

Even if you were a lawyer, the GPL has never been tested to court. It's a very interpretative license (although there are worse ones), so it all depends on a judge interpreting it based on his understanding of the law, and then creating a precedent.

Other than that, it's only opinions, and each party is trying to defent its beef (Spoon+dbPowerAmp, Ahead/Menno+Faad2) based on their particular interpretation of the license and its nuances.

And I'm confident the discussion in this thread will lead nowhere.