IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

FAAD2 Licensing, Now GPL Incompatible?
jstembridge
post Jul 14 2005, 10:28
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 14-July 05
Member No.: 23324



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:

QUOTE
** Software using this code must display the following message visibly in the
** software:
** "FAAD2 AAC/HE-AAC/HE-AACv2/DRM decoder © Ahead Software, www.nero.com"
** in, for example, the about-box or help/startup screen.


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

QUOTE
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.


I have tried to contact Menno on the matter without any success, can anyone else cast any light/opinions?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
gusnz
post Jul 14 2005, 12:47
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 23-November 03
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 9985



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

QUOTE
(Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)


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 wink.gif ).

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?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- jstembridge   FAAD2 Licensing   Jul 14 2005, 10:28
- - Garf   From the GPL: QUOTE 1.  You may copy and dis...   Jul 14 2005, 10:52
- - jstembridge   But that requirement applies to source code, not t...   Jul 14 2005, 11:32
- - Ivan Dimkovic   In addition, http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html...   Jul 14 2005, 11:45
- - jstembridge   QUOTE If the program is interactive, make it outpu...   Jul 14 2005, 11:54
|- - Garf   QUOTE (jstembridge @ Jul 14 2005, 12:54 PM)QU...   Jul 14 2005, 12:13
- - jstembridge   QUOTE (Garf @ Jul 14 2005, 12:13 PM)Nonsense....   Jul 14 2005, 12:27
- - Garf   This is false, I just quoted the appropriate parag...   Jul 14 2005, 12:30
- - jstembridge   No it doesn't, as it applies to source code co...   Jul 14 2005, 12:35
- - gusnz   Hmm, I'm not a lawyer, but the last part of Se...   Jul 14 2005, 12:47
- - Ivan Dimkovic   QUOTE The issue here has nothing to do with source...   Jul 14 2005, 12:52
- - jstembridge   QUOTE (Ivan Dimkovic @ Jul 14 2005, 12:52 PM)...   Jul 14 2005, 13:06
|- - Garf   QUOTE (jstembridge @ Jul 14 2005, 02:06 PM)Th...   Jul 14 2005, 13:10
- - jstembridge   Great stuff Interestingly I wonder if a xine-lib...   Jul 14 2005, 13:28
- - Ivan Dimkovic   Well.. hmm... if a derived software product has th...   Jul 14 2005, 13:31
- - Klyith   Was FAAD sponsored / owned by Ahead from the begin...   Jul 14 2005, 16:22
- - Garf   FAAC is GPL, not owned by Nero FAAD is LGPL, owned...   Jul 14 2005, 16:30
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (Garf @ Jul 14 2005, 12:30 PM)FAAC is G...   Jul 14 2005, 16:34
|- - DarkAvenger   IIRC, XFree86 put in an advertising clause and thu...   Jul 14 2005, 16:58
- - Garf   The XFree86 license added restrictions to end-user...   Jul 14 2005, 17:07
- - Klyith   People may be getting this confused with the bad p...   Jul 14 2005, 19:05
- - NumLOCK   Still, what if people want to use FAAD2 code in an...   Jul 14 2005, 19:18
|- - guest0101   Any updates on FAAD2 code? The latest I see in the...   Jul 14 2005, 20:29
|- - Mr_Rabid_Teddybear   QUOTE (guest0101 @ Jul 14 2005, 11:29 AM)Any ...   Jul 15 2005, 00:59
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (Mr_Rabid_Teddybear @ Jul 14 2005, 08:5...   Jul 15 2005, 03:04
- - spoon   QUOTE (NumLOCK @ Jul 14 2005, 06:18 PM)Still,...   Jul 15 2005, 09:35
|- - Garf   QUOTE (spoon @ Jul 15 2005, 10:35 AM)QUOTE (N...   Jul 15 2005, 09:50
- - Klyith   QUOTE (NumLOCK)Still, what if people want to use F...   Jul 15 2005, 21:30
- - Otto42   QUOTE ** Software using this code must display the...   Jul 16 2005, 06:05
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (Otto42 @ Jul 16 2005, 02:05 AM)The fac...   Jul 16 2005, 06:20
- - Garf   I know about the BSD-with-advertising problem and ...   Jul 16 2005, 08:43
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (Garf @ Jul 16 2005, 04:43 AM)This is t...   Jul 19 2005, 02:36
- - Otto42   So, how, exactly, am I supposed to adhere to this ...   Jul 16 2005, 08:53
- - Otto42   Heh. You edited while I posted and then I did the ...   Jul 16 2005, 09:01
- - Garf   Yeah, sorry. I guess it's better to make multi...   Jul 16 2005, 10:06
- - spoon   Just stick with the older version, pre-that clause...   Jul 19 2005, 09:17
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (spoon @ Jul 19 2005, 05:17 AM)Just sti...   Jul 19 2005, 15:08
- - Mr_Rabid_Teddybear   I hope the developers will be willing to change th...   Jul 20 2005, 07:46
- - rjamorim   OK, as it turns out, the obnoxious clause was adde...   Jul 21 2005, 17:37
- - jstembridge   Any progress on changing the license header? CVS s...   Aug 15 2005, 12:45
- - kode54   No PS for yuo! <owned> Is it really so ...   Aug 15 2005, 13:17
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (kode54 @ Aug 15 2005, 09:17 AM)No PS f...   Aug 15 2005, 14:38
|- - Otto42   QUOTE (kode54 @ Aug 15 2005, 06:17 AM)Is it r...   Aug 15 2005, 16:21
- - stephanV   Not to start a grammatical discussion (well maybe ...   Aug 15 2005, 15:01
- - robert   I would say the FAAD2 licensing is fully GPL confo...   Aug 15 2005, 16:45
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (robert @ Aug 15 2005, 12:45 PM)I would...   Aug 15 2005, 18:34
- - rasher   So, has there been any progress in this case? Is ...   Sep 22 2005, 00:08
- - rjamorim   Heh, the Nero AG employees here are quite fast to ...   Sep 22 2005, 14:00
- - rasher   What I don't get is, how they can claim that i...   Sep 28 2005, 02:52
- - rjamorim   http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.p...9...   Nov 14 2005, 21:49
|- - cartman   QUOTE (rjamorim @ Nov 15 2005, 12:49 AM)Bad n...   Nov 15 2005, 21:10
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (cartman @ Nov 15 2005, 06:10 PM)Or goo...   Nov 15 2005, 21:31
|- - cartman   QUOTE (rjamorim @ Nov 16 2005, 12:31 AM)QUOTE...   Nov 16 2005, 00:54
|- - Gambit   QUOTE (rjamorim @ Nov 15 2005, 10:31 PM)QUOTE...   Nov 17 2005, 00:18
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (Gambit @ Nov 16 2005, 09:18 PM)Hmm, is...   Nov 19 2005, 00:59
- - bond   how great!   Nov 15 2005, 02:01
- - davechapman   Has there been any change to this situation? Are ...   Jan 28 2006, 16:49
- - AstralStorm   Well, FAAD2 development seems dead. Bad for us and...   May 31 2006, 20:50


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st November 2014 - 05:25