Does anyone here know what's going on with the licensing change in FAAD2 cvs? The included COPYING file is still straight GPL, but the source files include the following:



Now, IANAL, but that seems GPL incompatible to me, as the GPL states:



I have tried to contact Menno on the matter without any success, can anyone else cast any light/opinions?

From the GPL:



It is not an additional restriction, it clarifies how we interprent this part of the GPL.

But that requirement applies to source code, not to the gui of a linked application.

In addition,

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

There is a guidance about applying copyright notices to source code and executable programs:



So, our addition is also an additional clarification of the guidance.

IMHO, clarifying the copyright owner (which is usually done) is, by no means, an additional restriction of the license. I believe that this notice does not violate GPL freedoms in any way.

That guidance says nothing about outputting the copyright notices for code written by other people which you may have included.



Ok, let's say hypothetically I wish to include faad2 source code in another library, say xine-lib. Now, xine-lib has no about box or help screen or anything, it's a library. So, this means as xine-lib authors we now have to impose a requirement on anyone writing a xine-lib frontend to put the message on their about/help box.

This is an additional restriction on our use of the code under the terms of the GPL.

Your program is a derived work of those programs, of course it applies.



Nonsense. You don't have to do anything. It's up to people using your library to check the license of the work, and as we already explained, the GPL already requires a notice:



This is exactly what the FAAD2 license says. If you have a startup screen, of help-about boxes, or any kind of copyright blurp, please put the copyright message there.

xine-lib is straight GPL licensed. The GPL does not state anywhere (that I can see anyway) that copyright notices must be displayed in the gui of the application, only in the source.

This is false, I just quoted the appropriate paragraph above.

No it doesn't, as it applies to source code copies.



The issue here has nothing to do with source code.

Hmm, I'm not a lawyer, but the last part of Section 2c of the GPL states (as quoted below):



Section 2C appears to be the portion being discussed (as no-one disputes that credit should remain in the source). It seems that exception would apply to the situation of FAAD2 used as a library, as it normally doesn't "print" output (unless you want it verbally announce the copyright ).

So, this whole point might be moot for non-console versions of the software? If not, this reminds me a little of the recent XFree86 licensing shenanigans in which the XFree86 authors stated that software linking to the X libraries must display a credit notice -- rendering it GPL incompatible and causing a fork by the folks at X.org.

It might be a good idea to reword your license clarification to state: "The credit under Section 2C must be of the form..." or similar? Perhaps check with the FSF?

If you mean the one you just quoted, then it certainly does not ;-) But Garf quoted paragraph number 2



Source code, by itself - does not display anything. section 2c is related to the execution of the derived works Integrating third-party GPL code does not mean transfering of Copyright rights and removing Copyright rights of the original work -

Final work is Copyright © Original GPL Module Author and Copyright © GPL Derived Work Author.

So, in my opinion - it is fair to put the copyright notice of all relavant modules if the application has about box or copyright notification, if these exist and/or if it makes sense to put them (i.e. application has visible user interface)

Heh, he changed his post to include paragraph 2 after I'd replied.



No, it isn't exactly the same. The FAAD2 license says that you must display it, it allows no provision for a program that doesn't have anywhere to display it.

Hmm, that seems like a valid point. We'll address that.

Great stuff

Interestingly I wonder if a xine-lib frontend would have to display any copyright messages for xine-lib components, assuming it is distributed separately. Returning again to paragraph 2:



Of course this depends on your interpretation of "independent and separate", which seems quite subjective imho.

Well.. hmm... if a derived software product has the AAC decoding capabilities and it happens to use FAAD2 for decoding, I would say that is hardly "independent and separate" from FAAD2 ;-)

But, you are right - definition indeed seems to be open to subjective interpretations

Was FAAD sponsored / owned by Ahead from the beginning? Or did they just hire all the developers after the fact and get the copyrights transferred? I don't remember seeing the notices of copyright a year back when I was fiddling with FAAC & FAAD.

I'm not trying to start any flames, just looking for info.

FAAC is GPL, not owned by Nero
FAAD is LGPL, owned by Menno (I think?)
FAAD2 is GPL, owned completely by Nero

LGPL

IIRC, XFree86 put in an advertising clause and thus many distributions turned theior backs to it, as they think this is GPL incompatible. So xorg's X server (a XFree86 fork prior to license change) which doesn't have such an advertisind clause is preferred.

I think we have the same situation with FAAD2, as in my eyes the changed to GPL license are the same. So if major distibutors (esp free debian distibution, free gentoo distribution, etc) think that this is GPL incompatible, I'd wonder if they were all wrong and FAAD2 wouldn't have the same problem.

The XFree86 license added restrictions to end-user documentation, among other things, and wasn't GPL to begin with.

The FAAD2 license hasn't even changed. We clarified how we see a statement that is already in the GPL.

You state that "in my eyes the changed to GPL license are the same" yet you fail to point out why this could be so and ignore the previous discussion, and then wonder if the linux distros are wrong. Way to go!

People may be getting this confused with the bad part of the old BSD license, namely the "obnoxious advertising clause". There were two bad parts of that, and both are not the same as the chunk of comment that jstembridge quoted in the first post. The first bad part of the BSD clause was that it wasn't just about run-time, it was advertisements, documentation, and such. The other problem was that in the original BSD license, the phrase "This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors." was directly in the license. So it wasn't just a copyright thing, it was part of the license itself. The big trouble happened when other contributors started putting their own names in there in addition to UCB. That clause was incompatable with the GPL; it has since been removed from the main BSD license.

So in short, FAAD2 is fine with the GPL, but someone who only has a brief knowledge of open source licenses and thier history would be confused on seeing that notice.

Still, what if people want to use FAAD2 code in an "closed" (ie: embedded) system - for example if I developed a portable player with no LCD screen, which therefore couldn't display acknowledgements ?

I would have thought that publishing the full firmware source code (including the authors' source code, its acknowledgements and my changes to it) would be enough.. Does that mean now, the authors' names would have to be advertised in the product itself ?

Any updates on FAAD2 code? The latest I see in the source of AudioCoding.com is dated 9/2004. Have there been any improvments since then and/or new code updates that have been released? If so, perhaps that source code needs a "refresh".

Have you come across any aac, mp4, m4a etc. file FAAD2 can't decode properly? In that case it might be time for an update.... FAAD2 is a decoding library and as long as it decodes current AAC files (in and out of mp4 container) and does that job well, there's really no need for any update as far as I can understand....?

Current CVS code won't decode parametric stereo. Menno also mentioned there have been some improvements in the Ahead source tree.

He said he'll synch trees soon, after he returns from a trip. Then there'll be a new release as well.

You would be best using Reals HE-AAC implementation, with a less restrictive license:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....=32051&hl=helix

and for community contributions, that would be the one to focus improvements on.

Real's license is not GPL compatible.

A device wouldn't be software, and wouldn't "read commands interactively when run". So it wouldn't count as far as that bit goes. You would still have to follow the other provisions (publishing source, attribute copyright, etc). For example, the Sveasoft replacement firmware for the Linksys WRT54G uses chunks of GNU and BSD code, but they don't follow 2c.

The RPSL is actually not a bad license as far as corporate OS goes, much better than Sun's for example. The RCSL is far more restrictive, but as far as I can see is only for anyone who also does proprietary commercial software. But they also put a EULA on binaries, which goes against the GPL in spirit if not in law. EULAs are totally at odds with copyleft ideals.

I guess it depends on how he means "restrictive". It's more restrictive on developers because of the derivative works clause, which requires you to send your modifications back to Real. But it's less restrictive than the GPL because it doesn't have any of the restrictions on incorporating the code in other non-free software. Note that the RCSL forbids corporations other than Real from using the code in non-free software. The whole idea of the licenses for this kind of corporate controlled (as opposed to sponsored) os project is that new innovations stay out of the hands of competitors, but are able to be rolled back into the proprietary product. As opposed to the GPL where everything that touches it must become free, or at least the LGPL where at least all descendent modifications will stay free.

That line in the license DOES make the code GPL-Incompatible. I refer you to the "obnoxious BSD advertising clause" in the original BSD License. The reasons jstembridge refers to in the first post do, in fact, render it incompatible with the GPL. You can't tack on extras like that.

More info on the "original BSD license" problem here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list...patibleLicenses

And here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html

Despite Klyith's take on it, it's still incompatible because of the wording. The fact that you require software to visibly display that notice is the problem. If you required source to have that notice in it, then fine. That's already part of the GPL and you're just giving the wording of your notice. But forcing it to be displayed in the program is a problem.

That's my take anyway. As somebody who works with a lot of various licenses in my own coding, that line would prevent me from using your code.

Since I have already used the FAAD2 code, I now will have to remove that code from distribution unless this is fixed. I wrote an AAC plugin for musikCube based on the BASS_AAC library for the BASS system which musikCube uses. BASS_AAC is based on FAAD2. I also directly used parts of FAAD2 in my own code. musikCube format plugins don't have any way to make the program display an about box. Therefore I am in violation of FAAD2's license. So if it's not fixed, I'll have no choice but to remove the code or open myself up to civil action.

Edit: Note that I am trying to add a way for musikcube to be able to display about boxes for format plugins (not too hard, just haven't gotten round to it), but until that's done, this is still a real problem for me, and it's a real GPL problem in any case.

Correct. That's an "advertizing clause", and that clause renders it incompatible with the GPL.

Also, check out this entry in the GPL FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL

As it stands, FAAD2 simply isn't GPL-compatible, and therefore can't be used in GPLd software like Dream, FFMPEG, Videolan, ffdshow...

Even if these software abide to the obnoxious clause and display proeminently about Ahead's ownership, it would still generate conflicts with other modules participating in the same software and licensed under the GPL.

I know about the BSD-with-advertising problem and it is an entirely different manner. Specifically, the old BSD license said:



Now *that* is an "advertising clause". Requiring copyright attribution is *not* an "avertising clause".

The snip above is obviously a problem with the GPL and something entirely different from what is in our license. We require copyright attribution which is something the GPL also does.

I still maintain our license is the GPL, and that we only clarified an *already existing part* of that license, namely section 2)c).

This is the second time I see someone post something in the order of "x had a problem, and this is the same" without giving *any* evidence that is the case here.

And read this, too:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=313279

So, how, exactly, am I supposed to adhere to this requirement to display something if I don't have an about box or the ability to display one?

Nowhere does the GPL require me to display your copyright message unless my plugin is interactive in some fashion. Which I have no problem with, but the plugin isn't interactive, as such. It has no visible display. Yet this line in the source still requires me to display this message somewhere. I cannot adhere to this additional requirement, it's impossible for the plugin to do, at present.

So if it is clarifying part 2c, as you state, then it needs to be reworded to reflect that fact. At the moment, it's not; it's imposing an additional requirement. One that I never noticed until reading this thread, I might add.

As long as you're aware of the possible problem and working on it, then cool. That's all I really need to hear.

Heh. You edited while I posted and then I did the same thing.

Like I said, as long as you're aware of the potential conflict there and are presumably addressing it, then it's all good.

Yeah, sorry. I guess it's better to make multiple posts if you forgot/want to clarify something.

OK, since you want evidence...

As nobody here seems interested in taking initiatives, I took the plunge and e-mailed licensing@gnu.org

Here is my e-mail, followed by the e-mail they sent back:



OK, I'm not really a Dream developer, but I didn't feel like explaining the lenghty story that I'm their webmaster and release manager, and I help them on licensing issues, because I admin RareWares, and that forced me to learn about licenses... yadda yadda.


So here is your proof kids, from the mouth of a FSF representative. FAAD2 is GPL incompatible, and therefore software such as CoreAAC, Dream, ffdshow, VideoLan, MPlayer, etc. etc. should not be using it.

Regards;

Roberto Amorim
licensing jerk

Just stick with the older version, pre-that clause (it was added a few months ago?).

I'll have to check the CVS and see the exact point where that happened.

I hope the developers will be willing to change that requirement to a request, or else I guess we'll see AAC support in Linux go >>>>POOOOFF!!!<<<<

OK, as it turns out, the obnoxious clause was added in the last CVS sync with Ahead's CVS, that happened on February 1st.

So, for people writing GPL projects that use FAAD2, I uploaded a CVS sweep with files dated January 30th to my web space:
http://www.rarewares.org/rja/faad2-2005-01-30.rar

Enjoy;

R.

Any progress on changing the license header? CVS seems to be unchanged.

No PS for yuo! <owned>

Is it really so hard to add copyright attribution to your about box, or if you have none, then the accompanying documentation? I know I can't recall seeing random copyrights smattered all over some piece of electronics, but I have seen indication of relevant patents listed all over the back of some device or package...

Perhaps the license should be clarified to indicate alternatives where "in the software" is not convenient. I would be a bit miffed if I had to stare at a series of copyright notices every time I powered on my portable player. Although, I wouldn't be likely to notice or care if one of the menus were to have an About entry with a full list of version information and copyright crap.

The issue here is not really having "to add copyright attribution to the about box" or the documentation. That can be done in a moment, and several apps using FAAD2 already do that.

The problem is that a single word - "must" - made FAAD2 in its entirety GPL-incompatible. Now, GPL apps using FAAD2 would be forced to change their license or start adding exceptions for it. Also, often, it's not even these apps' choice to change licenses, as themselves are linked against other GPL code. In the case of Dream, FFTW and Freeimage. In the case of FFMPEG, several codecs.

If the Ahead team of lawyers could only replace "must" with "should", all the issues would be magically solved.

Not to start a grammatical discussion (well maybe it is necessary anyway) but "should" can be just as obligatory as "must". I don't know how this applies to legal documents though, and the correct usage of "should" remains a bit of a mystery anyway.

It really has nothing to do with that.

If I were to take FAAD2 (with this "must" clause) and some GPL software and write some application using those two, I would be unable to release that application without breaking one of the two licenses as written. I couldn't release it under the GPL (as I'd have to do having used GPL'd software) because the "must" clause in FAAD2 makes it GPL-incompatible.

It's not really about not wanting to stick attribution in where possible. No problem, the about box is a perfect place for it. But by making it mandatory like that, you're unable to release it at all because of the incompatibility.

I would say the FAAD2 licensing is fully GPL conform. Read the GPL, especially TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION.

Please, not Garf's and Ivan's old arguments again. Have you read the assestment done by the FSF engineer? (it's at post #35)

So, has there been any progress in this case?

Is FAAD2 going to be released under a GPL compatible license again?

Heh, the Nero AG employees here are quite fast to reply claiming FAAD's license is compatible to the GPL, but won't answer that simple question :B

What I don't get is, how they can claim that it is "just a clarification". If the clause was already there, why not go after people breaking it?

They obviously know that this was not a requirement in the GPL, so they felt the need to add it - why else would they?

There's no way to be "halfway GPL compatible". Either you are, completely, or you're not. This is not, and it means that any and all code wanting to use this code will have to add restrictions to the license, so you cannot use other people's GPL code in your project.

Say in the case of a music player. You write a music player and include FAAD2 with this new license. So far so good, you just add the clause to your own local modified GPL. But now you want mp3 support and decide you want to use libmad. Ooops, danger Will Robinson! You can't. Libmad is licensed under the GPL, and you cannot change this license.

FAAD2 ate your GPL.

http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.p...9&forum_id=7131





Bad news. Now because of this licensing fiasco, we're seeing several FAAD2 forks surfacing