IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Plugin foo_dsp_src violates copyright
m3ga
post Aug 9 2005, 11:16
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 9-August 05
Member No.: 23796



Dear Sir/Madam,

I am the author and copyright owner of software known as "Secret Rabbit Code" which is released
under the terms of the GNU General Public License.

On Monday August 8th 2005, I was made aware of a web site:

http://pelit.koillismaa.fi/plugins/dsp.php

which contains a php redirect link

http://pelit.koillismaa.fi/plugins/redir.php?id=494

which redirects to :

http://sbougribate.free.fr/Files/Foobar2000/foo_dsp_src.zip

which offers a binary derived from Secret Rabbit Code in direct violation of the GNU GPL [0].

I would like the people responsible for the above websites to do the following:

Free.fr (sbougribate.free.fr / Proxad.net):
Please remove the offending binary immediately. If the person who posted the binary
wishes to comply with the GNU GPL they can contact me at the email address listed
on the Secret Rabbit Code web page.

koillismaa.fi:
Please get the owner of the page:
http://pelit.koillismaa.fi/plugins/dsp.php
to remove the link to the binary as soons as possible and replace it with a statement that
the link was removed because of copyright violation.

I look forward to your swift reponse to this copyright violation.

Regards,
Erik
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
PatchWorKs
post Oct 22 2005, 23:32
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 498
Joined: 2-October 01
Member No.: 168



From FSF's Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU GPL:
QUOTE
Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in?
    It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license of the plug-in makes no requirements about the main program.

    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. In order to use the GPL-covered plug-ins, the main program must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when the main program is distributed for use with these plug-ins.

    If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the `main' function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.


Hope it helps.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Oct 23 2005, 00:03
Post #3


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (PatchWorKs @ Oct 22 2005, 08:32 PM)


It doesn't.

First, because Peter is not releasing foobar to use SRC, but someone else released a plugin to be used in foobar. There's a cause and consequence difference there.

Second, because most often than not you can not trust the FAQs at FSF. They are permeated by their zealotry.



Let's imagine a situation here:

Somebody managed to reverse engineer the foobar2000 SDK and created another player that can use foobar2000's plugins (we all saw that happen before with Winamp). This somebody releases this player under the GPL.

So, now, it suddenly becomes legal to create and release a plugin that uses SRC? It'll obviously be perfectly fine to add a SRC plugin for this hypotetical player, being GPL and all.

So, it is legal to create and release plugins, but you are limited to where you can use your plugin? Hrm... the plot thickens.


The bottom line:

Wooohooo, here comes the clue train, last stop is Mr. Erik de Castro Lopo! SRC is not and did not link against foobar2000. It's linking against the foobar SDK. And the SDK is released under the BSD license - that is compatible with the GPL.
Neither is Peter releasing "a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in". For that to be characterized, he would have to bundle the plugin with foobar - and he's smart enough and knowledgeable enough about licenses to know that is a no-no.

Hope that clarifies the situation.

Best regards;

Me.


Edit: typos

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Oct 23 2005, 00:07


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
m3ga
post Oct 23 2005, 09:05
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 9-August 05
Member No.: 23796



[quote=rjamorim,Oct 23 2005, 09:03 AM]

> First, because Peter is not releasing foobar to use SRC,

Who is Peter? I assume he is the author of FooBar. I have not made any claims
against FooBar. My claim was the the plugin which uses SRC and violated my
license.

> Second, because most often than not you can not trust the FAQs at FSF. They are permeated by
> their zealotry.

So according to you we should ignore the FSF's zealotry but listen to yours?

> Wooohooo, here comes the clue train, last stop is Mr. Erik de Castro Lopo!

That is somewhat inflamatory. I'll try to ignore it.

> SRC is not and did not link against foobar2000. It's linking against the foobar SDK. And the SDK is
> released under the BSD license - that is compatible with the GPL.

I repeat, my claim was against the plugin author not the foobar author. Secondly, my
complaint was that the plugin was released as a binary and that the source code was
not made available. Please explain to me how this was not a violation of the GPL.

In this plugin, SRC linked the the FooBar SDK which links to FooBar, therefore, when the
plugin is loaded by foobar, SRC links to FooBar. Once SRC links to Foobar my license
is being violated. It is being violated by the end user who under the GPL has rights to
do just about anything as long as they don't distribute it. However, even if the plugin author
released the source code, the sole purpose of this source would be to link my GPL code
to a binary only program. I think that you will find that this is somewhat shaky legal
ground.

Erik

This post has been edited by m3ga: Oct 23 2005, 09:27
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Oct 23 2005, 14:36
Post #5


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (m3ga @ Oct 23 2005, 06:05 AM)
> First, because Peter is not releasing foobar to use SRC,
Who is Peter? I assume he is the author of FooBar. I have not made any claims
against FooBar. My claim was the the plugin which uses SRC and violated my
license.


Calm down... that was just part of my argumentation...

QUOTE
> Second, because most often than not you can not trust the FAQs at FSF. They
> are permeated by their zealotry.

So according to you we should ignore the FSF's zealotry but listen to yours?


You should look for a less biased opinion. Be it mine or someone else, I don't care. But the FSF is definitely not unbiased.

QUOTE
> SRC is not and did not link against foobar2000. It's linking against the foobar SDK. And the SDK is
> released under the BSD license - that is compatible with the GPL.

I repeat, my claim was against the plugin author not the foobar author. Secondly, my
complaint was that the plugin was released as a binary and that the source code was
not made available.


Yes, that too. But you also claimed that your beloved code can't be linked against foobar's closed code. I quote:

QUOTE
GPL cannot be linked to closed source code. Is Foobar2000 released under a GPL
compatible license?


QUOTE
It is being violated by the end user who under the GPL has rights to
do just about anything as long as they don't distribute it.


Right! So you should go around screaming at users, and not at whoever is hosting your plugin at a site.

You WOULD have a point if you complained about lack of sources only. The point about the plugin not being allowed to be distributed because it MAY be linked to foobar is moot, for somewhat obvious reasons.


QUOTE
However, even if the plugin author
released the source code, the sole purpose of this source would be to link my GPL code
to a binary only program. I think that you will find that this is somewhat shaky legal
ground.
*


Not really. Maybe someone would like to look into the sources to learn how to implement a resampler in the SDK? Or maybe use it as a base to reverse-engineer the SDK and come up with his own player?


Besides, the "might get linked against non-GPLd code" has never been tested to court. We know of countless cases even more grave that foobar's case. I already gave a few examples in a previous post. Here's another one:

Audacity uses your sampling rate converter. At the same time, the developers of audacity release a VST add-on that adds VST capabilities. The key point there is that the developers are releasing it, and announcing it at the official page. So, your code might eventually be linked against non-GPL code (Steinberg's SDK is incompatible to the GPL)! Egad!

People might even start using closed source VST plugins there! Double egad!

Why don't you go after Audacity then too? Either demand that they stop distributing the VST plugin altogether, or demand that they remove your code.


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
m3ga
post Oct 23 2005, 19:04
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 9-August 05
Member No.: 23796



QUOTE (rjamorim @ Oct 23 2005, 11:36 PM)
Calm down... that was just part of my argumentation...


I'll calm down if you stop being inflmatory.

QUOTE
You should look for a less biased opinion. Be it mine or someone else, I don't
care. But the FSF is definitely not unbiased.


Noone can correctly claim to be unbaised. The FSF may not have won many court
battles, but they haven't lost any either. The main reason for this is the infingers
back down rather than go to court. This history lends a lot of weight to the arguments
they put forth.

QUOTE
You WOULD have a point if you complained about lack of sources only. The point about the plugin not being allowed to be distributed because it MAY be linked to foobar is moot, for somewhat obvious reasons.


Really, care to explain why? Actually, don't bother.

QUOTE
Besides, the "might get linked against non-GPLd code" has never been tested to court. We know of countless cases even more grave that foobar's case.


If any of those cases involve SRC, you be sure to tell me what they are.

QUOTE
  I already gave a few examples in a previous post. Here's another one:

Audacity uses your sampling rate converter. At the same time, the developers of audacity release a VST add-on that adds VST capabilities. The key point there is that the developers are releasing it, and announcing it at the official page.


I have just been to:

http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/source

and downloaded audacity-src-1.2.3.tar.gz. It does not contain the SRC code, neither is SRC
listed as an optional component (same page).

Some time ago, the Audacity authors emailed me and asked me my thoughts on linking
SRC to an application which also linked in VST plugins at run time. I told them that I
would consider this an infringment of my license and asked them not to. They complied
and we are still on good terms. Dominic Mazzoni and Joshua Haberman have both
supplied suggestions for my other project libsndfile. Josh was actually the Debian
maintainer of libsndfile for a number of years.


Erik
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- m3ga   Plugin foo_dsp_src violates copyright   Aug 9 2005, 11:16
- - Gabriel   Have you contacted the plugin author about source ...   Aug 9 2005, 11:54
|- - m3ga   QUOTE (Gabriel @ Aug 9 2005, 08:54 PM)Have yo...   Aug 9 2005, 12:29
- - Gabriel   QUOTE GPL cannot be linked to closed source code. ...   Aug 9 2005, 13:21
|- - PoisonDan   QUOTE (Gabriel @ Aug 9 2005, 02:21 PM)QUOTE G...   Aug 9 2005, 13:40
||- - m3ga   QUOTE (PoisonDan @ Aug 9 2005, 10:40 PM)I don...   Aug 9 2005, 14:40
||- - rjamorim   QUOTE (m3ga @ Aug 9 2005, 10:40 AM)I am now l...   Aug 31 2005, 01:40
|||- - kode54   QUOTE (rjamorim @ Aug 30 2005, 05:40 PM)in_ma...   Aug 31 2005, 15:18
||- - m3ga   QUOTE (m3ga @ Aug 9 2005, 23:40) I am now...   Jun 6 2006, 09:41
||- - OCedHrt   Couldn't we consider Foobar2000 to be the ...   Jun 6 2006, 10:04
||- - TrNSZ   Erik has been nice enough to provide his resampler...   Jun 6 2006, 13:53
|- - KarLKoX   QUOTE (Gabriel @ Aug 9 2005, 04:21 AM)QUOTE G...   Aug 9 2005, 14:19
- - rjamorim   Weeeee. Somebody didn't do his licensing homew...   Aug 31 2005, 01:14
- - PatchWorKs   From FSF's Frequently Asked Questions about th...   Oct 22 2005, 23:32
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (PatchWorKs @ Oct 22 2005, 08:32 PM)Fro...   Oct 23 2005, 00:03
|- - m3ga   [quote=rjamorim,Oct 23 2005, 09:03 AM] > First...   Oct 23 2005, 09:05
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (m3ga @ Oct 23 2005, 06:05 AM)> Firs...   Oct 23 2005, 14:36
|- - m3ga   QUOTE (rjamorim @ Oct 23 2005, 11:36 PM)Calm ...   Oct 23 2005, 19:04
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (m3ga @ Oct 23 2005, 04:04 PM)Noone can...   Oct 23 2005, 21:30
||- - Otto42   QUOTE (rjamorim @ Oct 23 2005, 03:30 PM)But I...   Oct 27 2005, 01:34
||- - rjamorim   QUOTE (Otto42 @ Oct 26 2005, 10:34 PM)> 3....   Oct 27 2005, 02:07
||- - iStormy   [removed]   Dec 12 2005, 08:49
|- - kode54   QUOTE (m3ga @ Oct 23 2005, 11:04 AM)Some time...   Oct 24 2005, 15:01
- - rjamorim   Now that I think about it, I should urge John33 to...   Oct 24 2005, 15:19
- - kjoonlee   Um, you're taking this too far. the GPL specif...   Oct 24 2005, 16:55
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (kjoonlee @ Oct 24 2005, 01:55 PM)Um, y...   Oct 24 2005, 20:25
- - Lyx   I know that licences and laws aren't about it,...   Oct 24 2005, 21:00
- - kjoonlee   IANAL. rjamorim, aren't you verging way off-...   Oct 24 2005, 21:01
- - rjamorim   QUOTE (Lyx @ Oct 24 2005, 06:00 PM)But concer...   Oct 24 2005, 22:16
- - Kadavro   We're about to have a brand new law here on ne...   Dec 12 2005, 06:47
|- - Lyx   QUOTE (Kadavro @ Dec 12 2005, 06:47 AM)We...   Dec 12 2005, 12:57
||- - anza   QUOTE (Lyx @ Dec 12 2005, 01:57 PM)ROFLMAO - ...   Dec 12 2005, 13:47
|||- - Lyx   QUOTE (anza @ Dec 12 2005, 01:47 PM)You can p...   Dec 12 2005, 14:20
||- - Kadavro   QUOTE (Lyx @ Dec 12 2005, 01:57 PM)ROFLMAO - ...   Dec 13 2005, 15:39
|- - ssamadhi97   QUOTE (Kadavro @ Dec 12 2005, 06:47 AM)Since ...   Dec 13 2005, 23:15
- - Sandman2012   I was never interested in this plugin until there ...   Dec 13 2005, 00:00
- - klez   QUOTE It would make sense to be respectful of the ...   Jun 7 2006, 13:28
|- - saivert   The GPL license was made to protect free and open ...   Aug 6 2006, 12:21
- - Enig123   Sorry to take this old thread up. I'm wonderin...   Sep 18 2008, 15:34
- - Yirkha   $ure.   Sep 18 2008, 15:56


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: 30th September 2014 - 11:15