How nice from Otto to write that he is the author of the WavPack, MP4/AAC etc. plugins when all he did was to write a wrapper for our BASS addons.
What is the license of the player?
I checed out license.txt in the source but it just has every license in existance...which one is it?
I noticed that the webpage includes a plugin for M4A/MP4 support. Upon downloading this plugin, you only get a binary and file saying it's licensed under the GPL, but no source anywhere. I don't see any on the webpage either.
The M4A/MP4 support is being provided via FAAD2, a GPL'ed library.
What they are doing is a clear license violation, and the distribution is illegal.
Was that directed at me? I have received a permission from Menno to write a plugin for BASS based on FAAD2. BASS_AAC is released under the GPL and source code is available on request.
[deleted]
Was that directed at me? I have received a permission from Menno to write a plugin for BASS based on FAAD2. BASS_AAC is released under the GPL and source code is available on request.
No, no It's about this player and the input plugins. This player bundles BASS and FAAD with the sources nowhere to be found. It's global mixup of a bunch of libraries, some of which may have licenses which can't even be compatible to begin with.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
graf isnt CVS the source? if so then it is available here (http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/musik/) i dont know about the licencing but from following a few projects on sourceforge it seems to host many projects that skirt around or break outright there license (or maybe some project leaders are just to strict about it)
graf isnt CVS the source? if so then it is available here (http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/musik/)
There is no BASS or FAAD source, and no mention of the real license anywhere.
i dont know about the licencing but from following a few projects on sourceforge it seems to host many projects that skirt aroud or break outright there license (or maybe so project leaders are just to strict about it)
I am sorry to hear that and I hope that such sites are eventually shut down, because they ultimately hurt the Free Software cause.
BASS is closed source, so you won't find its source code anywhere. To clear up things just in case anyone is wondering, the reason I am using FAAD2 is that:
- I have received permission from Menno
- Our addon is GPLed, so is FAAD2 (so it's OK for me to use FAAD2)
- Although BASS is not GPLed, BASS_AAC is not vital for BASS to work and it (BASS_AAC) can be compared to GPLed Adobe PhotoShop plugins for example and therefore it's OK if the non-GPLed BASS loads the GPLed BASS_AAC
Anyways, I am a bit annoyed that Otto claims that the AAC/MP4 decoder is written by himself when it's actually written by MaresWEB. Also, he never requested source code for any of our addons which are all open source.
As far as I know, point (3) is one of big contention (see for example libsamplerate and libaudiofile), but that's not my concern here.
At the very least, the player should properly publish your BASS_AAC sources, and FAAD2 sources. Also, it should make it clear that it itself is GPL, which means it also cannot link to GPL-incompatible libraries.
[deleted]
My points were only directed towards BASS_AAC and not musikCube. Just wanted to make clear that BASS_AAC does not violate anything in order to avoid people claiming that BASS_AAC is also illegal because it links to BASS which is closed source.
In the case of BASS_AAC, Sebastian says that he has the permission of the copyright holder of the GPL code to use that code in a non-GPL program. The copyright holder isn't bound to the GPL in any way - they are free to licence the code they own under terms of their own choosing.
If, however, the explicit permission of the copyright holder has not been granted to use the GPL code (or link against a GPL library) in a non-GPL program, then it is a violation of the licence to do so. The FSF's opinion is that plugins which plugins which link to GPL libraries count as part of the base program and thus the whole program must either by covered by the GPL or not use the GPL code. Whether this is the interpretation a court would use is another question, but it is certainly the spirit of the GPL.
You can not link any (L)GPL code statically in a non-GPL program AFAIK. In a discussin at Doom9 forums, I was told, that from a closed source program you can use dynamically loaded LGPL libraries, but not GPL. But if you use the libraries as plugins, this should circumwent the GPL restriction. Am I right? I think, I can for example write a closed source GUI for a GPL command line program. This was the case of DVDAuthor GUI, for example.
I think that in this case Bill Gates was right, that GPL is spreading like a cancer (and so are Microsoft products). 2 extremes, none of them is good in my opinion.
In the case of BASS_AAC, Sebastian says that he has the permission of the copyright holder of the GPL code to use that code in a non-GPL program. The copyright holder isn't bound to the GPL in any way - they are free to licence the code they own under terms of their own choosing.
If, however, the explicit permission of the copyright holder has not been granted to use the GPL code (or link against a GPL library) in a non-GPL program, then it is a violation of the licence to do so. The FSF's opinion is that plugins which plugins which link to GPL libraries count as part of the base program and thus the whole program must either by covered by the GPL or not use the GPL code. Whether this is the interpretation a court would use is another question, but it is certainly the spirit of the GPL.
I don't give a damn about FSF's personal opinion, if it's not explicitly written in the GPL. If your claim about linking is true, that would mean that all PhotoShop, Audition, Winamp, etc. plugins that use GPL code are illegal even if the plugins themselves are GPL. It would even go that far to claim that the host applications themselves are illegal because they use GPLed code. How great - if you ever wanted to see the source code of Adobe Audition, write a GPL plugin for it and then demand that the program is released under the GPL. If anyone is to blame, it's the user who brings the two pieces (plugin and host) together.
From gnu.org's GPL FAQ:
Can I apply the GPL when writing a plug-in for a non-free program?
If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them. So you can use the GPL for a plug-in, and there are no special requirements.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in with the non-free main program would violate the GPL. However, you can resolve that legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's license, giving permission to link it with the non-free main program.
This seems to me to be a common-sense interpretation of the text of the GPL. The last sentence is interesting - so given permission from (for example) the authors of FAAD2, then a plugin could be developed to link to a non-free program.
If no such permission was given then the GPL has been violated. This means that there are two solutions - don't use the plugin or relicense the closed source program under the GPL. The second is not very attractive (for a variety of reasons) to many developers so they are stuck with the first option. Unfortunately many choose a third option - violate the GPL. Whether that's moral or not depends on your personal views on intellectual property licencing - but it's not legal.
How nice from Otto to write that he is the author of the WavPack, MP4/AAC etc. plugins when all he did was to write a wrapper for our BASS addons.
Huh? Where in the heck did I write that?
I've very clearly spelled it out in the musikCube forums as to exactly how I did those. Even told others how to do it.
http://www.musikcube.com/page/plugins/view/15 (http://www.musikcube.com/page/plugins/view/15)
Authored By: Otto
Also no mention of MaresWEB in the readme, on the plugin page or on your site.
What is the license of the player?
Modified BSD. Source is on SourceForge. License is in the CVS: http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/musi...1.9&view=markup (http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/musik/musikCube/license.txt?rev=1.9&view=markup)
As far as licensing, here's the rundown:
musikCore/Cube/Box: All modified BSD. Fully GPL Compatible.
All the plugins: Ditto, modified BSD. The AAC plugin does use FAAD and the source is in the process of being checked into CVS. Or I'll send it to anybody who asks. No huhu.
BASS: Closed, but free. It's an external DLL, dynamically linked.
SQLite: Public Domain
Taglib: GPL, statically linked
OpenThreads: GPL, statically linked
Shibatch Audio Tools: GPL, statically linked
There is really no licensing issue here. All the code is free except for BASS, and it's dynamically linked to all the rest of the code.
I checed out license.txt in the source but it just has every license in existance...which one is it?
The top one, the one that says "All project musik source code..."
I noticed that the webpage includes a plugin for M4A/MP4 support. Upon downloading this plugin, you only get a binary and file saying it's licensed under the GPL, but no source anywhere. I don't see any on the webpage either.
The core_m4a.dll source code was only recently checked into SourceForge (day before yesterday) along with all the rest of the source. Same thing as far as licensing, it's a modified BSD licence, free for anybody to do anything they like with.
The M4A/MP4 support is being provided via FAAD2, a GPL'ed library.
What they are doing is a clear license violation, and the distribution is illegal.
Not at all. The source is available to anybody who wants it. The licensing is fully GPL compatible. BASS is closed source, but BASS has special permission from Menno, as explained above.
http://www.musikcube.com/page/plugins/view/15 (http://www.musikcube.com/page/plugins/view/15)
Authored By: Otto
Also no mention of MaresWEB in the readme, on the plugin page or on your site.
I didn't add those entries on the plugin page, and I don't know who did. But in any case, I fixed the plugin page to mention MaresWEB.
And those things on musikcube.com/~otto really need to be deleted as they're all outdated and not used anymore. That page was only meant to be temporary, for doing testing and such. It's not official and frankly I didn't want it to be put on musikcube.com in the first place. I'll see about removing it.
OK, thanks. However, the WavPack plugin page now mentions AAC playback.
I can send you the sources of the plugins if you want to put them on CVS.
OK, thanks. However, the WavPack plugin page now mentions AAC playback.
Hah. Fixed again.
I can send you the sources of the plugins if you want to put them on CVS.
You did send me source to the MPC plugin, however I had troubles getting it to work directly. Still haven't worked that one out.
For the rest of the stuff, there's no rush. We don't need *everything* to be in CVS.
[deleted]
[deleted]
If your claim about linking is true, that would mean that all PhotoShop, Audition, Winamp, etc. plugins that use GPL code are illegal even if the plugins themselves are GPL. It would even go that far to claim that the host applications themselves are illegal because they use GPLed code. How great - if you ever wanted to see the source code of Adobe Audition, write a GPL plugin for it and then demand that the program is released under the GPL. If anyone is to blame, it's the user who brings the two pieces (plugin and host) together.
Unfortunately, this is not the case according to the FSF.
The FSF can go suck eggs. If it's not in the GPL, then it's not part of the license. Nowhere in the license does it state that you can't write a GPL plugin for a non-GPL program, nor does it imply it anywhere.
You may not release a plugin for Photoshop or Audition or Winamp under the GPL license legally. This has been made quite clear by the FSF.
Nonsense. They can make things as "quite clear" as they like. They're still wrong.
These 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.
If somebody release a program (say, Photoshop) and an API for that program and encourages third parties to make code for it, and I write a plugin for that program and GPL the source and distribute that, it has absolutely no effect on the program. The program is an identifiably separate work from the plugin for the program. It's not even distributed along with the plugin.
Please a take a moment and realize this is certaintly a license issue.
Please take a moment to read your own links.
Why is the original BSD license incompatible with the GPL?
Because it imposes a specific requirement that is not in the GPL; namely, the requirement on advertisements of the program. The GPL states:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise
of the rights granted herein.
The advertising clause provides just such a further restriction, and thus is GPL-incompatible.
The revised BSD license does not have the advertising clause, which eliminates the problem.
Also, note the text here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD)
This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.
Even the FSF disagrees with you.
Somebody can close the source to their copy of the Modified BSD licensed program all they like, but in so doing they will be unable to use the GPL'd code in their distribution any more.
[deleted]
Split from
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=43587&hl= (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=43587&hl=)
The MySQL case was caused by non-GPL code being loaded into a GPL application. I see no reason why the FSF would not be able to enforce the case of GPL code being loaded into a non-GPL application.
Who do you sue?
-Let's say that Adam writes some closed software. He makes it work with plugins. He also writes a basic interface for plugin authors to write code with. For giggles, let's say he makes that interface public domain.
-Now, Bob has written some GPL'd code to do something cool.
-Carl comes along, takes Bob's code and combines it with the public domain interface into a wrapper or sorts. He distributes this whole thing, standalone, along with the code.
Trick question: Who violated the GPL?
-Adam couldn't have possibly done it. He didn't use any GPL'd code at all.
-Bob wrote all his code himself.
-Carl used Bob's code and other public domain code. But his release included all the code as well. He didn't distribute *any* non-free code. He abided by everything in the GPL.
There's nobody to sue in such a case. Carl's code derives from both Adam's and Bob's, and he has permission to use both pieces of code. He has permission to use Adam's code because Adam made the code public domain. He has permission to use Bob's code because he abided by the GPL, word for word.
Bob has no case.
But none of this matters in the musikCube case, BTW. musikCube is ModBSD, FAAD is GPL. They're perfectly compatible.
This is correct as well, but woudln't that also make the software lose quite alot of it's appeal and functionality at this point? Do you have a particular purpose for not using the GPL for your software?
I don't use the GPL because I think the GPL sucks ass. But then that's just me, personally. I release all my free code under a Modified BSD because I want my code to really be free, not to be encumbered by the GPL and its insanity. Whether or not other people use it in open or closed source apps, I don't much care. If they really want to make it non-free, then I figure that they can deal with the work it will take to do so.
But musikCube is copyrighted by Casey, not me. Why he used ModBSD, I cannot say.
[deleted]
As stated, the FAAD2/BASS interaction was explictly permitted. If menno could clarify the situation to extend the agreement to explicitly cover all software that uses/includes FAAD2 via BASS, I think this would essentially solve the problem, would it not?
As far as mC is concerned, there is no problem. My core_m4a plugin also uses FAAD2 directly, not just through BASS. I think we can admit consensus.
Even if you are not violating the GPL yourself, end users might be. While most people don't give a damn about licensing, a simple clarification of these issues would clear up all possible future issues.
I agree that clarification is needed. But, end users cannot possibly violate the GPL, the GPL does not cover end use of a program. It covers modification and distribution/copying of a program. Use of a program is intentionally omitted from the GPL.
[deleted]
If an end-users combining plugins could be considered to be creating a derivitive work, they are. This is interpretation that the FSF can make, but can only be enforced by a court.
This is the crap that makes the GPL suck. As an end-user, I enjoy staying out of court.
I'm under the impression that you are allowed to do such things for private use but you aren't allowed to distribute the resulting program by any means.
I'm under the impression that you are allowed to do such things for private use but you aren't allowed to distribute the resulting program by any means.
True. Modification falls under section 2, and section 2b only requires you to relicense the work under the GPL if you "distribute or publish" it.
True. Modification falls under section 2, and section 2b only requires you to relicense the work under the GPL if you "distribute or publish" it.
Section 2 is not particularly clear on whether the three subsections (a, b and c) only apply to distribution or to modification too. As I read the text, it could be fairly interpreted either way. You guys make a very good point - while the FSF are extremely clear cut on this issue, the license itself is much hazier. I wonder which way a court would rule?
If the license's not explicit on end-user behavior, despite whatever FSF says, go with your heart. In my case, that means, I'll create derivative work anytime I want.
I do not intend to lose in court. I'll countersue if FSF dare to sue me. And make the case as public as possible. Then I can settle for a nice out-of-court settlement of... oh, let's say, one million goobers