Magic Lantern Forum

General Discussion => General Chat => Topic started by: Thomas Worth on May 15, 2014, 08:12:10 PM

Title: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Thomas Worth on May 15, 2014, 08:12:10 PM
Well, let me just ask this:

Do you want commercial products to support the Magic Lantern file format?

If the answer is yes, then I suggest relaxing the licensing on the vertical stripes code. The reason is the 5D Mark III files written by Magic Lantern, for whatever reason, have errors in them that need to be corrected through post-processing using Alex's code. This needs to be done to get something 100% useful out of the camera. Releasing the MLV format to the public was a very good thing, but this only gets us 90% there.

By keeping restrictive GPL licensing on this in particular, you're basically holding the image hostage until commercial software developers give up all their code, which they're not going to do. The result is commercial developers are discouraged from adding support for RAW and MLV, which hurts Magic Lantern users for the reasons already discussed in the thread.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Audionut on May 15, 2014, 08:34:44 PM
You could consider calling the code as a third party application.  This way, AFAIK, you would only have to release the source code for that third party application, and you are free to keep the rest of your code proprietary.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions


I'm the mean time, I believe it is appropriate to respect the GPL, and remove the offending code from your program (as a show of good faith).  The needs and wants of users, do not override the fundamental aspects of the GPL.
This is like saying, lets break the law, because it is useful to a subset of society.

Please note:  This is my opinion, and my opinion only.  Please do not consider my opinion, as a statement on behalf of a1ex, or the ML core development team.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: a1ex on May 15, 2014, 09:44:11 PM
Yes, I'm fine with commercial programs (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#commercialSoftware) that are also free software, working with ML file formats and being supported here on this forum.

I'm also fine with proprietary software (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware) (aka closed source) supporting ML file formats, but if they want to make a profit, that should come from their own code, not from a closed-source modified version of my code.

Alex, you might consider releasing the vertical stripes code as LGPL, or something more permissive.

If you look at the number of ML downloads (it exceeded 1 million downloads, without counting the 5D3, 7D and most recent ports), you will realize right away that relaxing the license for my postprocessing code would be like saying "here you have the perfect recipe to make a small fortune from my work, just take it, it's all free".

Unfortunately for some of you, this is not exactly my intention, and GPL is just a tool to prevent such situations from happening. I could have given this code away as public domain, but I chose to protect my work from being used without giving back.

Instead, I'm trying to build a community that does not just consume whatever we give to them, but I want this community to actually participate in the development process, help each other, and share the knowledge. We gave you some free software, we gave you a proof of concept that you found useful, and now we expect you all to take this software at the next level, and let us build upon your work, in the same way as you have built upon ours. I'm quite far from this utopian goal though, but this is the direction I want ML to go.

Therefore, please give me a good explanation about why relaxing the licensing for my postprocessing code can help achieving this goal.

This is also my personal opinion, I'm not speaking about other ML team members. But I invite them to share their opinions.

A comment from here (http://redmonk.com/dberkholz/2012/04/05/whither-the-gpl-why-we-dont-need-it-anymore/) summarizes my feelings on this matter:
Quote
i find those that argue against the GPL are those that want to use something and not have to bother giving back

P.S. Without the original discussion (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6218.msg115206#msg115206), this thread may be kinda hard to understand.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Thomas Worth on May 15, 2014, 11:07:58 PM
If you look at the number of ML downloads (it exceeded 1 million downloads, without counting the 5D3, 7D and most recent ports), you will realize right away that relaxing the license for my postprocessing code would be like saying "here you have the perfect recipe to make a small fortune from my work, just take it, it's all free".
I don't know about that, Alex. Your vertical stripes code (let's limit the discussion to this code in particular) is fairly specific to Magic Lantern, and as far as I see would mainly be used for processing files written by Magic Lantern. The only interest I have in this bit of code is for presenting a clean, correct-looking image to the user.

Quote
Unfortunately for some of you, this is not exactly my intention, and GPL is just a tool to prevent such situations from happening. I could have given this code away as public domain, but I chose to protect my work from being used without giving back.
I'm sure many of your users feel that RAWMagic does give back. It gives back by streamlining many of the workflow issues mentioned by your users, which boosts the value of Magic Lantern as a whole. Furthermore, I am contributing my professional experience as a filmmaker to the project by offering tools that cater to users with professional needs.

And I don't disagree with your decision to GPL your code. You've clearly done an enormous amount of work, and deserve to make that call. But, as this situation demonstrates, this isn't the perfect solution for Magic Lantern as a whole.

Quote
Instead, I'm trying to build a community that does not just consume whatever we give to them, but I want this community to actually participate in the development process, help each other, and share the knowledge. We gave you some free software, we gave you a proof of concept that you found useful, and now we expect you all to take this software at the next level, and let us build upon your work, in the same way as you have built upon ours. I'm quite far from this utopian goal though, but this is the direction I want ML to go.
I understand that, and I agree to a point. But I am getting the impression that the developers' definition of "progress" is strictly how clever you can make the code and not how usable Magic Lantern is to the non-software developer. I think there should be a balance here. What about the ability for users to be more creative, and the resulting content? Is that not a positive result of your work? Just because people aren't fixing bugs doesn't mean they're not being productive in other creative ways.

Quote
Therefore, please give me a good explanation about why relaxing the licensing for my postprocessing code can help achieving this goal.
The vertical stripes code in particular is a key component to getting usable images from the 5D Mark III in the way adopters of your file format would expect. You mentioned you're fine with closed source software supporting ML file formats, which suggests you support commercial software working with your files. Unfortunately, the files straight out of the 5D Mk III aren't 100% usable, and this isn't simply a case of requiring post-processing with a well-established technique (e.g. debayering). No, the files require processing in a way that you understand because your software is actually writing the files. Therefore, it seems fairly common sense that if the files require post-processing to look correct, you'd facilitate that in any way you could to all types of developers, open source or otherwise. Again, I'm not talking about post-processing software that performs general image processing that can be used to "make a small fortune" as you mentioned. This code is fairly specific to ML. In other words, I'm not looking to convince you to relax licensing on your vertical stripes code so I can integrate it into all my products as a general image processing algorithm for the purpose of making money from it. I just want to be able to provide ML users with a clean, usable image. I will happily handle any subsequent image processing from there with my own code.

I'm only asking that you relax licensing on the minimum code required to get a clean image out of your files. If people want to make a fortune off your vertical stripes code, they will. They'll just go download it and use it and not tell anyone about it. I'm not going to do that though, and instead am going to hope you grant the community a more permissive license so we can move on from this issue and redirect our time to helping ML users be more creative.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Midphase on May 15, 2014, 11:21:43 PM
Instead, I'm trying to build a community that does not just consume whatever we give to them, but I want this community to actually participate in the development process, help each other, and share the knowledge. We gave you some free software, we gave you a proof of concept that you found useful, and now we expect you all to take this software at the next level, and let us build upon your work, in the same way as you have built upon ours. I'm quite far from this utopian goal though, but this is the direction I want ML to go.

I wish we could have a conversation about this on Skype, because it's so difficult to convey the concept I'm trying to convey simply through text.

In essence, what you're asking for is impossible due to the huge knowledge gap between who your product is used by vs. who can develop the product. ML appeals to users who are interested in taking still photography or shooting video with a very specific (and narrow) line of cameras. Those users (including myself) have a great deal of knowledge of lenses, lighting, frame composition, and so on. A very small minority of those members have knowledge of how to write code, or even how to properly test code and report bugs. The best that can be expected from your end-user base is to provide some feedback on improvements that they would like to see. Unfortunately, more often than not, this feedback is misinterpreted by the developers as criticism which is responded to with the same retort "If you want to do ... then why don't you program the code yourself?"


The basic conclusion is this -- We (the users) by and large have no desire to "participate" in the development of ML. We are excited about ML inasmuch as it allows us to capture better looking video with cameras we already own. We look on with excitement at new possible developments and your upcoming ability to unlock even more functionality out of our old and tired DSLR's. At the same time, we want to invest the least amount of time as possible online, or reading manuals. We want to pretty much install ML as fast as possible, and get back to doing what we are actually interested in doing which is to shoot.

Sorry if this doesn't fit your utopian goal, but if we're all honest about the world we live in; this is in effect the truth.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: g3gg0 on May 15, 2014, 11:45:27 PM
what about a:

"hi alex, i want to make a commercial tool. do you see a chance to somehow fix vertical stripes without violating GPL?"
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Thomas Worth on May 16, 2014, 08:22:19 PM
Anyone trying to implement RAW or MLV format in their commercial products will need these functions in raw2dng.c to repair the vertical stripes artifact:

add_pixel()
detect_vertical_stripes_coeffs()
apply_vertical_stripes_correction()

You could change the license for these functions to make it more appealing to commercial developers. That would be the only license change to the entire Magic Lantern codebase, just those three functions, to allow a basic image to be correctly rendered from a RAW or MLV file without the GPL threat. Any additional processing like debayering or stuck pixel removal would be a separate matter.

Without these functions, a proper image can't be rendered from a Magic Lantern file without GPLing your own code. I'd suggest something very permissive, like a BSD-style license. That's the only way to not scare off big companies like Adobe.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: dmilligan on May 16, 2014, 10:51:05 PM
or you could just re-implement them yourself,
or you could put them in an external library and release the source of that library,
or you could just release your code (which IMO is what you should do)

it's not fair that you would get to take all the work done by the developers here, build on top of it, and then not share the work you did back, unlike those who came before you who did SIGNIFICANTLY more work than you did without whom your own work would be worthless, and then profit from it.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Marsu42 on May 16, 2014, 11:47:45 PM
Unfortunately for some of you, this is not exactly my intention, and GPL is just a tool to prevent such situations from happening. I could have given this code away as public domain, but I chose to protect my work from being used without giving back.

Next to thanking alex, g3gg0 and the rest of the devb team again I'd like to comment that building a community seems to work (even though I'm lagging behind what I'd like to share back. The reason I sit down at all and polish up code for merging is that I feel obliged to the project and it's essentially non-commercial.

Imho the current community building is only possibly because of the gpl system, my understanding of lgpl is that this is created for cases when the oss software wouldn't be adopted at all because vendors cannot or don't want to share their source and would use (probably inferior) commercial libs instead... so lgpl is a "2nd best" option to inject oss software into the closed software industry and to creat alternatives to existing commercial software, not to enable making money from integrating other people's work into source code.

My observation: the current gpl seems to work with the exception of the "usual suspect" big lgpl projects - there are lots of companies out there successfully packaging gpl software and providing support for it. With the lacking ML docs, this is surely a field that could generate money w/o undermining the "share code back" idea.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: g3gg0 on May 17, 2014, 01:00:30 AM
Anyone trying to implement RAW or MLV format in their commercial products will need these functions in raw2dng.c to repair the vertical stripes artifact

this is open source. it is readable code. it explains what it does and what you would have to implement on your own.
i am sure there is even a thread explaining the backgrounds, if the comments are not enough.
this algorithm is simple and not patented...

you want to sell a product, you want to earn money. please do so, thats a good idea.

so what about contributing back to the community?
understand what the code does and present your version that is free of any license (public domain).
that way you can use it in your tool without any fear and the solution you are demanding is done.

i dont understand why ML devs should give everything for free and people earning money dont have to give something back.
especially if things are so simple.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Thomas Worth on May 17, 2014, 01:30:07 AM
i dont understand why ML devs should give everything for free and people earning money dont have to give something back.
especially if things are so simple.
Not everything, just enough to get usable footage from your file format. I just want to be able to give your users a clean image. Do you think that request alone takes things too far?

The fact is I would be accused of stealing the above code even if I wrote my own implementation. That's why I'm asking you to release it under a more permissive license, so we can avoid this conversation altogether in the future.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Audionut on May 17, 2014, 02:08:47 AM
Not everything, just enough to get usable footage from your file format.

If I understand you correctly Thomas, if the vertical line code contained, say, 1,000,000 lines of code, you would agree with the wishes of the developer of that code?

You have been given various methods, by which you can still maintain the code in your application.  But since these methods involve you actually doing the leg work, you seem to deem it appropriate to continue to insist, that the world would be a better place, if a1ex made the changes.

a1ex, of course, being the same person who did all of the initial leg work in helping to develop, and release the actual raw recording feature, and the vertical line code, and everything else he does.

Still, after all of that, and after personally advising you, that he is happy for your application to be supported here at these forums, when using his code in commercial manner, you continue to insist that he should make further allowances, to make life easier for you, to make money.

I just want to be able to give your users a clean image. Do you think that request alone takes things too far?

You Thomas, have the option of, "giving users a clean image", from your application, by using any of the methods described in this thread.  a1ex has already given, "his users", the ability to obtain "clean images", from the code developed for Magic Lantern.  Your opinion on the usefulness of your application, vs the usefulness of the applications already available, is simply that, your opinion.  It is not a justification!

The fact is I would be accused of stealing the above code even if I wrote my own implementation. That's why I'm asking you to release it under a more permissive license, so we can avoid this conversation altogether in the future.

The fact is, you could be accused of stealing code, because people choose to act in a manner, that I otherwise do not even want to get into here.  I have never coded a proprietary application myself, but common sense dictates, that many developers of these applications, probably deal with this as a matter of course.  This is certainly nothing special to you, or your application.

what about a:

"hi alex, i want to make a commercial tool. do you see a chance to somehow fix vertical stripes without violating GPL?"

Communication goes a long way towards an harmonious relationship.  And I can assure you, that as a moderator of these forums, I would take appropriate action towards any members, claiming your application was stealing code, without any sufficient evidence.

As it stands now.  You have stolen code, and you are using it to help you make money.  This is poor form!
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Thomas Worth on May 17, 2014, 02:54:05 AM
Well, thanks anyway for hearing me out.

This is really too bad. :( With a little help from you with this issue, I think Magic Lantern users could have benefited greatly.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: dubzeebass on May 17, 2014, 04:18:47 AM
So are you giving up? There's got to be a happy medium.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: kontrakatze on May 17, 2014, 09:27:11 AM
In my humble opinion this problem has been discussed in the past millions of times if you take a look at the linux community. Here we have two paties as very often:
A) party one thinks of a community based project, open to everyone to his own personal degree.
You get
- a broad community
- a project getting bigger by its userbase
- support by people who wouldn't do anything if it would be a commercial thing
- transperancy for everyone who can follow the technical stuff up to a certain degree

In my personal opinion, very strong points to think abaout.

B) party two wants to make a business aka money
- they need a broad community
- they need a big project, otherwise no one would be interested in buying anything
- for small parties, they need the support by a userbase
- transperancy is nothing they are interested in, as any other guy could copy their basis for business and maybe make it somehow better.

In my personal opinion, we all need some kind of bread and butter to live. So making money is NOT an evil at all.

In the end both parties have good reasons for their points of view, but they are opposing each other and always will. And, as usually in situations like these, as done with linux, mozilla and all the others, its first come, first serve. The ones who started the project, set up the rules. Without them, there would't be the project at all.
For the second party there are still possibilities to go their own way without violating the basic ideas of the founders. Some of them are already mentioned above. So, there should't be anything to complain about, but only new ways to approach their goal.

Regards, and keep on going doing a great job.

Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Toffifee on May 17, 2014, 10:04:08 AM
It's been very interesting to follow this discussion and I do hope you guys find a great solution!

Great solutions always exists. Some just take longer than other to find.
I mean, even Apple and Google announced today that they would drop all lawsuits towards each other and work towards better solutions.

Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: g3gg0 on May 17, 2014, 12:02:31 PM
The fact is I would be accused of stealing the above code even if I wrote my own implementation.

we know (after this discussion) that you are honest and not want to violate licensing.
thats not the point.

noone is accusing you that you have stolen anything.
we just want to hear:
 a) yes, i use GPL code and will relicense my tool as GPL
 b) no, i implemented it on my own
 c) no, i implemented it on my own, you want to throw a look at it to make yourself confident?

with GPL you have two options:
 a) use it as it is and contribute back (GPL spirit)
 b) do it on your own and do whatever you want


Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Phil Rhodes on May 19, 2014, 01:50:06 AM
First a disclaimer: I'm an acquaintance of Thomas's, but I'm not financially involved in his business. I'm also an admirer of both Magic Lantern and Thomas's past efforts with 5DtoRGB and his other work.

I think the issue here is one of standardisation and compatibility more than it is of who wrote the code.

The banding mitigation code at the core of this issue is intrinsically a best-guess at the ideal correction; it isn't completely perfect and nor can it ever be. That being the case, it is of course perfectly possible for other implementations to be written which would do a similar or better job.

Regardless of the quality of the solution, though, the problem that would create is that we now have two pieces of postproduction software that give different results from the same camera originals. This is not a new issue with any raw-shooting camera, but with a piece of fault-correction code like this, I think it's particularly important that efforts are pooled - which is what GPL is designed to do - but also that a consistent approach is taken, which GPL serves to limit in this case.

My recommendation would be for the anti-banding code to be released to LGPL on the basis that it's very important that everyone is doing the same thing, and that the widest possible group of people can (or are willing to) contribute to the code. Otherwise, MLV is intrinsically an obfuscated file format. That's extremely unhelpful, and might limit the deployability of Magic Lantern in a lot of circumstances.

Phil
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: dmilligan on May 19, 2014, 01:05:56 PM
Regardless of the quality of the solution, though, the problem that would create is that we now have two pieces of postproduction software that give different results from the same camera originals.
Why is that a problem? Every single piece of post production software ever written yields different results for the same input. I've never heard anybody complain about that before now.

the widest possible group of people can (or are willing to) contribute to the code
You do realize that the only thing LGPL would accomplish is fewer people contributing to the code? GPL does not hinder contribution, in fact it only hinders non-contribution. That is what you are arguing for is it not? that people would be able to take this code and not contribute back.

Otherwise, MLV is intrinsically an obfuscated file format.
That is absurd. MLV is completely open. The spec (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgQ2MOkAZTFHdHJraTVTOEpmNEIwTVlKd0dHVi1ULUE#gid=0) is open, the code that generates it is open and example code for parsing it is open. Maybe you don't understand what obfuscation means.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Stedda on May 19, 2014, 01:42:10 PM
All the other post processing tools before yours got along fine by doing 1 of the 3 things listed above by g3gg0. Also several other options have been laid out yet still were back to the same one request that the creators of the code should change their ideals and bend to suit your firm position (LGPL over and over again plus the help of a few cheerleaders) to be able to profit from someone else's work. It's almost funny to watch and knowing what I know from these threads I wouldn't spend a penny on the software
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Phil Rhodes on May 19, 2014, 02:30:38 PM
The fact that the code is open is largely irrelevant if people aren't allowed to use it. Also, there seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding here as to why consistency and compatibility is important, which I find quite mystifying. This isn't really about opensource flag-waving, it's about usable, consistent postproduction software.

Anyway, if that's the situation, I think the best approach would probably be for Thomas to write an anti-banding implementation and release it to the public domain. It's a reasonably trivial piece of code and it might be possible to do better than the current implementation in any case. Of course, the best solution would be for Canon to release their approach, but I can't see that happening.

With a fresh implementation, anyone can use it, we gain consistency, and the entire concern becomes void. I do echo Thomas's concern that any such reimplementation would risk looking very much like the existing one, though.

For that to be valid, anyway, projects like Magic Lantern would need to make the decision to use it. If anyone were interested in doing that it might be worth opening a second thread dedicated to technical discussion of the problem and the sort of approaches that might be used to fix it.

P
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: g3gg0 on May 19, 2014, 02:45:09 PM
i would appreciate this decision.

reasons:
a) you contribute back know how to the public domain / Magic Lantern
b) you solve that situation without anything that would offend anyone
c) we are not responsible for polishing the code until perfection, but provide a "good reference" and people with profesisonal experience care for their domain

Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Stedda on May 19, 2014, 02:50:55 PM
Also, there seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding here as to why consistency and compatibility is important, which I find quite mystifying.

You came to that conclusion in the hour you've had an account here after creating an account to defend your friends position? Really? Do you even own a Canon camera with ML on it? Or use any of the other free conversion tools?

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how post processing software works. As dmilligian stated there's not a one that will render any given image the same way. People choose them for their own style and look or for what works best with the camera they use.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Audionut on May 19, 2014, 03:25:38 PM
I think the best approach would probably be for Thomas to write an anti-banding implementation and release it to the public domain. It's a reasonably trivial piece of code and it might be possible to do better than the current implementation in any case.


Instead, I'm trying to build a community that does not just consume whatever we give to them, but I want this community to actually participate in the development process, help each other, and share the knowledge. We gave you some free software, we gave you a proof of concept that you found useful, and now we expect you all to take this software at the next level, and let us build upon your work, in the same way as you have built upon ours.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: g3gg0 on May 19, 2014, 05:27:40 PM
 = constraint satisfied.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Phil Rhodes on May 19, 2014, 05:59:39 PM
You may be satisfied, but unfortunately I'm bound to point out that the users might still be confused by the fact that they don't get the same results with various software. So, they're less likely to be satisfied.

You're absolutely right that inconsistency between software is a problem - and yes, it's a problem. It isn't something we should be deliberately creating. I think that standing on ceremony over the licencing terms of a relatively trivial piece of software is a bit silly, if it risks creating that problem.

P

Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: chmee on May 19, 2014, 06:15:51 PM
i really dont understand your point.

if its so ugly simple coding yourself, do that - no gpl-violation. if it does the same - neutralizing vertical patterns - i dont understand argueing about differences in result. the guys here gave tools to make the convert process kind of unique, with all benefits (all the same code) and all drawbacks (could be better) - and on this point you could jump on the bandwagon, supporting the codebase. but no, discussing about other licensing and holding back this crazy unique code.

crazy world.

btw. adobe fi is not interested in supporting mlv/raw from ml. but there could be a big base of coders writing their own importer. oh gosh. no, license-discussion will destroy that hope..
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Phil Rhodes on May 19, 2014, 06:26:55 PM
The point - to reiterate - is that it's desirable for all the software to give the same results. Any reimplemented solution would be either one of two things:

- Bit exact with the existing solution, which would inevitably provoke accusations of duplicated code, as well as being a huge waste of time, or

- Not bit exact with the existing solution, which creates the problem I'm proposing should be avoided.

Plus, of course, you'd be more likely to get people working on it if they're actually allowed to use the results.

P
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: dmilligan on May 19, 2014, 06:47:26 PM
might still be confused by the fact that they don't get the same results with various software
You're just grasping at straws now. No user would ever be confused that one particular software gives different results of some other different software. Otherwise, they wouldn't be different!

It isn't something we should be deliberately creating.
Then there should be no closed source software at all. That's the only way you could fix this "problem" (which isn't really a problem). Thomas not releasing his code is "deliberately creating" differences in the output of his program and the output of the open source converters out there. In fact it's this very difference that he hopes to monetize. If there was no difference, why would anyone purchase his software? You have essentially just argued against the very point you were arguing for.

The only way one particular image processing software can compete against some other is if it produces different (better) output.

Any reimplemented solution would be either one of two things
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

Plus, of course, you'd be more likely to get people working on it if they're actually allowed to use the results.
No, you'd simply get more people ripping it off to make money off of it and not contributing back. Anyone is more than welcome to use, modify, and distribute this code (shoot, they can even sell it for money!). The only stipulation is that they contribute their changes back.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Audionut on May 19, 2014, 06:55:00 PM
I think that standing on ceremony over the licencing terms of a relatively trivial piece of software is a bit silly, if it risks creating that problem.

If code released under more relaxed licensing agreements, is greater then the existing code, then it makes sense that this new code, would be universally adopted.  You yourself, have hinted that the existing code is relatively trivial, and is a likely candidate for improvement.



ML is a development project aimed at providing extended features to Canon EOS cameras.  No more, no less.

The existing code has been developed, as a means of testing the functionality added to the camera.  Anyone with a hint of technical prowess, or common-sense, can understand that it is rather difficult to test features such as raw recording, without a means to view the content.

Second to that, an open source code base is created, where-by, other developers can view the existing code, for a basic understanding of the requirements.

Quote
we gave you a proof of concept that you found useful

Here is where the breakdown appears to be happening.  Some people seem to be of the opinion, that the original author is responsible for a polished end user product.  To be honest, if a1ex was only concerned with raw recording, and more specifically, providing that functionality, as a polished end user product, and/or, the means by which, other users can benefit from his hard work, by profiting.  Had every waking hour, unpaid, to develop polished end user products, then I could probably somewhat agree.

The fact that this particular piece of code is relatively trivial, is completely beside the point.

If I understand you correctly Thomas, if the vertical line code contained, say, 1,000,000 lines of code, you would agree with the wishes of the developer of that code?

Not to mention, what happens if someone wants to take another piece of trivial code, and use that within a paid application, while violating the GPL?  Should a1ex relent again, and release this code as LGPL also?  What about another piece of code?  And another?  And another?  Heck, why not simply release the entire code base as LGPL?  I mean, think of the users right.  They would benefit greatly from paid application developers being able to use this code, as they see fit.  And that's all that matters, right!


Well, there's no hard "end goal", it's more like a hobby project where we try to push the cameras beyond their limits, while also sharpening programming skills and sharing knowledge. Everybody here is working on their spare time (and I happen to have a bit more time because my daily job is not a 9 to 5 one). Also, everybody is free to work on whatever he feels like; there's no hard to-do list.

I come from a research background, so I like to experiment with cutting edge techniques. And of course, I like sharing these tools with other people that may find them useful and can improve these things.

For metadata (WB and a ton of other settings), just read the MLV thread, this is work in progress. Synced audio is pretty hard (but not impossible), and I don't have any use for it myself, for example. On the other hand, dual ISO is something I'd use in over 80% of my pics (since I like to shoot in very tricky lighting conditions). I don't shoot professionally, but I shoot some events for friends every now and then (not paid work, just hobby level, and mostly photos and sometimes timelapse).

Anyway. For me, the end goal is not to provide a finished product that everybody can consume. I'd rather see it as an open software platform where others can program their own enhancements and share them with the community (which actually happens to some degree). I prefer it to be a little on the nerdy side and attract knowledgeable people and enthusiasts; after all, ML is a tool for power users.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Phil Rhodes on May 19, 2014, 06:56:57 PM
I think further comment here is almost pointless, as there seems to be more interest in open-source flagwaving than there is in creating useful software - but I digress.

Quote
No user would ever be confused that one particular software gives different results of some other different software.

Well, they should be! If you don't understand why it's highly desirable - well, essential, if it can possibly be done - for postproduction software to be consistent and to produce identical output from the same input, I can't really help you. Suffice to say - it is desirable, and the modern tendency toward variability in output is a disaster. I can almost see now, from this conversation, why Red won't open their file format! They'd end up in this exact, disastrous situation!

Quote
Thomas not releasing his code is "deliberately creating" differences in the output of his program and the output of the open source converters out there.

Well - no - think about it - he's being forced to respin his own solution when one already exists. I've already suggested that a public domain solution should exist, but you folks would have to agree to use it. So... what? What on earth are you on about? This is political rhetoric, not technical discussion, and I've no interest in it.

Quote
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

But any solution absolutely would be either bit exact, or not. Good grief, it really is beneath me to get involved in this sort of college-level debating society bullshit.

Quote
No, you'd simply get more people ripping it off to make money off of it and not contributing back.

So what? The ffmpeg guys already have this happening on a grand scale, and it's hardly destroyed the project. And you don't have anyone else proposing to work on this code, anyway, so you're losing more than you'd gain.

P
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: dmilligan on May 19, 2014, 07:04:18 PM
Good grief, it really is beneath me to get involved in this sort of college-level debating society bullshit.
Then feel free to leave
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Audionut on May 19, 2014, 07:08:46 PM
And you don't have anyone else proposing to work on this code, anyway, so you're losing more than you'd gain.

By whose standards, you own, I guess!
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: chmee on May 19, 2014, 07:10:45 PM
uaaah. sorry. in right this moment someone's losing one more time 30 bucks, because the hopes in the mac-area are that high. but wait, he could do better, but he won't. every time its the balance of giving and taking. by now a1ex gave way too much, and took nearly nothing.

its not up to the ml-community to change the way of thinking. and its not flagwaving - its something you can cope with or not.

regards chmee
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Thomas Worth on May 19, 2014, 07:24:22 PM
You're just grasping at straws now. No user would ever be confused that one particular software gives different results of some other different software. Otherwise, they wouldn't be different!
Sorry dmilligan, but you're way off base here. There is a reason why the ITU and SMPTE exist. There's a reason why everyone uses the same Rec. 709 coefficients in reconstructing YCbCr video to display on computer monitors. There's a reason Charles Poynton wrote a book about it. It's because users need consistent output, and are upset when they don't get it. Any self-respecting software developer would do their best to generate consistent results in a way that users would expect.

Look guys, it is clear you are uninterested in whether or not Magic Lantern is adopted in professional setting. Fine. I'm accepting the fact that you're not going to help. Chmee brought up the point that Adobe aren't interested in supporting ML. Well gee-whiz, I wonder why?!?!?!

Keep in mind I work with professional post-production people in the center of the universe for film and TV. I am creating tools that appeal to professionals. Professionals get paid for their work. That's why they don't mind paying for RAWMagic. They have needs that were not being met by the GPL tools that are available, so I addressed this. Crucify me if you want, but your software is now being adopted by more and more professionals because the reputation of my company is behind it.

You're welcome.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Audionut on May 19, 2014, 07:27:25 PM
I'm pretty sure the developers are more interest in the development aspect, and development collaboration.  I think I have read that somewhere, once or twice.

But thanks anyway!
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Marsu42 on May 19, 2014, 07:38:02 PM
Chmee brought up the point that Adobe aren't interested in supporting ML. Well gee-whiz, I wonder why?!?!?!

Because the near-monopoly market leader won't adopt software they don't control into their core workflow.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Thomas Worth on May 19, 2014, 07:41:45 PM
I'm pretty sure the developers are more interest in the development aspect, and development collaboration.  I think I have read that somewhere, once or twice.
You guys have really have done some amazing work. I may have come off a little harsh in my last post, so I just wanted to clarify that. I mean that sincerely. I understand your position, and I'm fine with it. I'll make it work.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: chmee on May 19, 2014, 07:50:27 PM
DFM, seems a guy from adobe inner circle - told some things about it (it doesnt fit into your argumentation):

"adobe has other supporters than magiclantern" ;)
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=11174.msg110968#msg110968


reagrds chmee


Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Thomas Worth on May 19, 2014, 08:19:15 PM
DFM, seems a guy from adobe inner circle - told some things about it (it doesnt fit into your argumentation):
"adobe has other supporters than magiclantern" ;)
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=11174.msg110968#msg110968
They are talking about the Canon C500. "CanonRAW" has nothing to do with Magic Lantern. Adobe probably has plans to expand CinemaDNG support. This will help you, of course, and others who write DNG files that currently don't work properly with Premiere.

Adobe will never support Magic Lantern because there's no control over when and how the file format and post-processing will change. This is all up to Alex, and basically he could just hold Adobe hostage and request they GPL the entire code base for Premiere because he writes a combination of file format and post-processing code that must be used together. Adobe makes deals with RED and Canon under the strict agreement that they will coordinate changes to the file format so users won't be frustrated that the plugins are outdated. Adobe haven't had to worry about this with CinemaDNG because they control it.

This is why I am hesitant to write my own vertical stripes implementation, no matter how trivial. The way the files are written can change at any time based on Alex's mood, which may invalidate any stripes correction based on previous methods. Then I have to figure it all out again, under threat of violating the GPL. I'm not interested in playing the cat-and-mouse game for a measly $30 per copy. And you can be sure Adobe aren't, either.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Audionut on May 19, 2014, 08:21:55 PM
I may have come off a little harsh in my last post, so I just wanted to clarify that.

We are all passionate.  On this occasion, just not for the same end goal, I guess.   :)
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: g3gg0 on May 19, 2014, 08:23:42 PM
i wonder what you all are discussing about?
if only half of the lines that were written here would been contributed to ML source code, today would be a glorious day.

one last word which is a "closer" for this thread for me:
this new market, that allows you to sell an image converter for 30 bucks, was brought to you by ML team.
there was even no need to reverse engineer anything - as usual for converters - everything was explained down to single bits.
for sure not in the quality you get for commercially available specifications, but good enough.

so as *our* main concern is not making RAW/MLV the worldwide standard for raw video that all tools support, but keeping
Magic Lantern a well known and a healthy project with active developers, we HAVE to say:
"if you use it in your tools, please contribute back"
and we do that by licensing our code under GPL which is exactly what it was designed for.
that our format comes with a ready-to-go GPL based code is not common!
so this is not a show stopper or even a hurdle for any commercial user.

i personally prefer having 1 contributor more to ML over 5 companies that implement the format, because
this contributor improves experience for the large scale main end user base instead only for a few paying customers.

let me refine one of my previous posts:
a) use GPL code and relicense the tool as GPL so ML community has benefit
b) implement it as public domain and improve some things, share to ML
c) implement it on your own, allow ML team to throw a look at it to make them confident
d) implement it on your own

i absolutely understand that a) may be out of scope.
you want to earn money because spent time = money. its totally normal, i want my work also be paid.
(well, not the ML work of course)

b) is a highly welcome solution that helps ML end users if the code is better...
c) is a honorable decision and already done with other tools here
d) well, then we have no other choice than hope you are honorable

i am a bit disappointed that there is so much discussion about our position.
so with all the other disturbing shitstorm going on here, please understand that this is our position.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Audionut on May 19, 2014, 08:27:12 PM
This is why I am hesitant to write my own vertical stripes implementation, no matter how trivial. The way the files are written can change at any time based on Alex's mood, which may invalidate any stripes correction based on previous methods. Then I have to figure it all out again, under threat of violating the GPL. I'm not interested in playing the cat-and-mouse game for a measly $30 per copy. And you can be sure Adobe aren't, either.

What about option a:

Hi g3gg0, I'm interested in taking MLV support to the next level.  Perhaps we can work together, so that I can stay ahead of your development progress, to better support my customers.  Hopefully, together we can ensure that the standards don't change significantly, and perhaps I can suggest better development options, so these standards do no change.  Lets work together to take MLV forward, while supporting our own end goals.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: swinxx on August 25, 2014, 04:04:16 PM
Quote from: a1ex
8K?! You would need a 42 megapixel sensor for that ;)

I'm actually thinking to move away from the video side of ML, and let those actually interested in video do the hard work instead. I'd rather focus on the still photo stuff, which is what I actually use.

I might change my mind if the ML community would do these things:

- encourage newcomers to post in the right forum (I've locked the 1.2.3 thread because it was flooded with offtopic questions about RAW/MLV)
- contribute to the user guide (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=11269.0) and help updating the site (everything besides forum is static HTML/JS, so just edit it locally and propose your changes here (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?board=28.0))
- help solving this issue (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=11879.0) instead of just hoping it will be forgotten (it's not funny to do the hard work for free, and then to have third parties getting rich just by selling a fancy GUI, without contributing anything back)

Thanks for your support!

Alex, your inventions are really invaluable to us (the crowd), but please keep in mind that most people like me have no coding skills. I have spend a lot of time in the forum (i hoped that i would understand it more over the time) but the opposite happened.
when it comes to technical coding stuff its simply too complicated. I would of course like to help and i am sure that there are many ml consumers that want to help but come on.. Its better not.. ;)
So perhaps i can translate text (manual) into german.. ;)
Greets and i hope that video is one of those thins you will not stop developing cause this is the biggest improvement and so worth it..
Greets
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: jimmyD30 on August 25, 2014, 04:05:51 PM
I can tell you that I try to give back to the ML community by helping in the forum and taking a little bit of the burden off the developers in that way.

I can appreciate all the VERY HARD WORK done by ML contributors and plan to help in more ways in the future, just kind of spread thin right now.

So, for now I can help with encouraging others to stay on-topic (that is when I'm not off-topic myself :-[)

Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: a1ex on August 25, 2014, 04:17:14 PM
Thanks. What is really demotivating me is when some third party - with skills - chooses to take our hard work, ignores license issues, slaps a fancy GUI and starts selling it here, without contributing back. And gets the community support.

When this happens, I think it's fair to ask that third party to continue the development. Let them get their profits from their own work, not from mine.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: jimmyD30 on August 25, 2014, 04:20:28 PM
Quote from GNU GPL: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."

Seems like a perfect solution, charge for your software if you like, but apply GPL to your own code too if you used others' code with a GPL.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Walter Schulz on August 25, 2014, 04:33:09 PM
You're quoting and linking GPL v3. AFAIK v3 doesn't apply to ML's GPL but v2.
Your quote is identical in both but v3 and v2 must not be mixed up.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: jimmyD30 on August 25, 2014, 04:40:07 PM
Thank you!

As an example of this model you can look to Red Hat's Linux distribution. They charge a fee for open source software, this is allowed as the 'Free' refers to "freedom to see and modify the source code ("libre")" not "free of charge ("gratis")" although the software can also be free of charge.

I believe Red Hat justifies their fees by offering support.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: swinxx on August 25, 2014, 05:16:09 PM
Alex - you are 100% right - gaining profit from your work is a bad thing.
On the other hand: they are smart and port your commandline tools to consumer level.. And thats a very important step
Perhaps you should change your strategy.. Making a gui could not be so hard for such a smart guy like you. Then nobody would have to buy 2nd hand tools.
All in all - i love mlrawviewer

Greets sw
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: garry23 on August 25, 2014, 05:49:08 PM
For what it's worth: here is my twopenneth.

As mainly a still photographer, although I am a timelapser, I have always 'favoured' the photography side of the ML developments.

I have said elsewhere, that ML creates an EOS camera system that is second to none, especially when you integrate all the features.

In fact some of the ML features are simply not obtainable elsewhere. As an example, on my IR converted 50D I can get perfectly exposed images through A-ETTR. and on my TSE-24mm Tilt-Shift, I can also use the A-ETTR to ensure perfect photon capture.

The latest ND module is great for my LE work.

The intervalometer is a boon for my timelapse; as is the emerging silent DNG feature.

And, of course, Dual-ISO is in a league of its own.

Etc, etc etc.

I guess what I'm saying is that sometimes, ML's (photo) developments get 'shadowed' by some of the RAW video excitement. And before someone shoots me, I fully understand that RAW video is critical to some.

The issue we seem to face is that we have two user groups, ie photographers and videographers (with an overlap group in the middle); and two 'development' communities, ie those that code and those that can’t code but can test and feedback (I ignore those that simply wait and 'do nothing').

Bottom line: I hope we as an ML community can find a way through this stage of our development, ie I understand the ‘hurt’ in seeing your work ‘abused’. I seems we need to find a way of bringing together this 2x2 community, ie photographers vs videographers and coders vs testers.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: nikfreak on August 25, 2014, 06:23:28 PM
I'm actually thinking to move away from the video side of ML, and let those actually interested in video do the hard work instead. I'd rather focus on the still photo stuff, which is what I actually use.

+1 on this.
Lots of forum questions regarding video. With the upcoming 4K hype I think time will tell what happens to ML video but the focus should definitely be on photo stuff.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: ansius on August 25, 2014, 06:59:01 PM
If I may...

I'm a video person, I use ML primary because of the pro video features it brings to DSLRs, and I have many friends who do that as well. And I can speak for them - we highly appreciate all the hard work done on ML, many of the features actually at the end saves us money, because saves us time. Thank you! but some of the features are not working for many cameras, like audio monitoring on 7D, or even the audio features as such now on latest builds for 7D. If we would be able to fix it we would, but we are not or that would require a grate effort to learn how to do that, not mentioning that would take us away from the job we do best - film and edit. I know that fixing half done things is not interesting, the cool new features like full res silent images which is grate, but please at don't leave us behind.

As I said I and I know many of my collages that use it really appreciate the humongous work done! Kudos!
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Danne on August 25, 2014, 07:03:54 PM
Thanks. What is really demotivating me is when some third party - with skills - chooses to take our hard work, ignores license issues, slaps a fancy GUI and starts selling it here, without contributing back. And gets the community support.

When this happens, I think it's fair to ask that third party to continue the development. Let them get their profits from their own work, not from mine.

I was under the impression this issue was sorted with rawmagic, especially since he implemented stripes correction? Apparently not.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: a1ex on August 25, 2014, 07:25:34 PM
I'm not aware of that (the thread was left open without a solution), but I'd like to see some proof.

Either way, it's easy to estimate the profits, given that ML had over 1 million downloads in the last two months, remembering that MLV requires the paid version, and judging from thread activity. With this in mind, if you think this is fair and fits the community spirit, then I think it's fair for Thomas to continue ML development on the video side, fix issues, implement feature requests, polish the user interface, cleanup the code and so on.

Why should I keep doing it?
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Danne on August 25, 2014, 07:39:30 PM
I totally agree. Without your efforts and open source philosophy magic lantern would be nothing close to what it is today. It would be a huge loss if development on videoside stopped. Huge.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: nikfreak on August 25, 2014, 08:09:53 PM
..Without your efforts and open source philosophy magic lantern would be nothing...
Without his efforts one of the next cams appearing with armv6/7 processor and 4k raw video possibility will be nothing cause all his brain will be needed to get it working asap. Others may do the work too but until they get it done 8K will be available  :P
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: QuickHitRecord on August 25, 2014, 08:33:09 PM
I appreciate the free nature of ML thus far, but I've been aching to make a donation. The amount of good work that A1ex and the other devs do with this software should not go unrewarded and I want to show my support and appreciation. I don't need "supporter" next to my name here or anything like that. I just want to do what I know is right. However, the fact that I have to set up a Bitcoin account is keeping me from doing this. I know that I am not the only one who feels this way. Why not offer an email address to which users can send donations via PayPal, and see what happens?
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: LRF on August 26, 2014, 02:00:19 AM
I would also like to have option for donating by PayPal, if it doesn't create any fiscal problems for the receiver, ofc.

As for the RawMagic issue... well, as far as I understand, there's opinion, that Thomas Worth misuses something that was intended to be a non-profit community effort started by Trammel Hudson and now developed by A1ex and other devs.

If those who contributed most to the project feel, that what Thomas does is against the idea, why not to remove the RawMagic thread and discussion from this forum and stop promoting it here? If someone doesn't respect suggestions from people who gave him tool to make money, and doesn't want to contribute to development process, why bother? You moderate the forum, you know what attitude and what tools you want to promote here.

Looking from outside, for me it's simple: if there are doubts, remove (unfair) moneymaking from the forum. When problems and are solved and situation is clear, welcome the businessman back as part of community.

I have great respect for all skilled people who GAVE us Magic Lantern and sacrificed own free time to do this. Thank you.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: swinxx on August 26, 2014, 06:14:39 AM
Respect to all developers but nobody would have been able to do things like raw video..

...but you alex!

If the number of downloads is increasing further just think about this:

2 solutions for the most problems

. Make paypal donations available and
. Make your own gui platform independent app


I asked for a paypal donations option 1 year ago, but there was no interest from developer side?! Just make it possible and you will will see that we noobs honor your hard work.

Greets
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Walter Schulz on August 26, 2014, 06:17:47 AM
Would you please explain which problem may be addressed and solved by donations?
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: swinxx on August 26, 2014, 06:47:25 AM
@ Walter: good question

i think the answer could be "frustration".

greets. sw
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Walter Schulz on August 26, 2014, 07:09:56 AM
Yours? Alex'?
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: motionSOUL on August 26, 2014, 08:09:40 AM
Hello,

I use ML primary for the video part which brings incredible quality to my shooting needs (all what Canon hasn't given me due to protection purposes). But the workflow asks more steps, so we have to find ways to simplify them. I've tried to use raw2dng first but the lack of a simple UI made me choose Mystic over it (which is really great, simple, all I need is there). As I have understood Mystic is no longer in development because of parts of ML code used. So I was planning to buy RawMagic instead (I've tried to use the last raw2dng but my MLV files weren't recognized). As I have red the forum, RawMagic seems not to be a good choice now because it doesn't support all a1ex and other coders' work. I encourage all people to do the same until licence issues have been clarified. They clearly not coding ML to make profit but I can understand the frustration to see others take their work to make some. So, for me, a paypal account would be a good and natural thing to support the work (we all have paypal accounts but bitcoins is more under the hood). Just my two cents to ask a1ex not to stop the video part development, we need it to continue to express our passion.

ML is free and free is great but it is as fragile as liberty so we as a community must be vigilant to support all efforts done.

Thanks ML!

S.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: beagle on August 27, 2014, 10:22:41 AM
The following is not legal advice. It is not to be acted on as such.

RareVision's taking the code first and asking permission later was bad form. It was also misguided arguing the relative value, size or significance of piece of code. If the code was trivial, Mr. Worth could or should have written it himself and the infringement discussion would be moot.

Mr. Worth was quick to highlight his need to recoup his investment, without acknowledging that others need to recoup theirs. In cases of typical open-source development, people like contributor A1ex can be said to recoup their investments through the contributions of other developers. Code is the currency, and the GPL is the rules.

But beyond sour grapes and on to the meat of the matter. Mr. Worth has violated the license by taking code from the project, using it within derivative works, and publishing them as proprietary. This is a presumed matter of fact based on release notes published by RareVision, and the original author's assertion that the code was not trivial. The latter point is subject to argument, but RareVision's admitted dependence on the original GPL code indicates in favor of the original author.

Selling GPL-based products is allowed, but to not compensate the project with the resulting code is a direct violation of the license, and therefore copyright infringement. It is not an ethical matter but a legal one.

Regarding remedy, understand that the horse has already left the barn. The derivative works have already been created and distributed, and are therefore either copyright infringements or licensed under existing terms. Negotiating new terms or re-architecting a new product does not negate that derivatives already exist and were published concurrent to the GPL. All Magic Lantern contributors should be concerned, not just member A1ex.

As a solution, Mr. Worth could publish or make his company’s product source code available according to the GPL terms, and continue to sell the product if he chooses. This is the only valid acknowledgement of copyright law and the license, which are the only mechanisms by which RareVision was allowed to incorporate and redistribute the GPL work in the first place.

Barring that, one or more contributors could perform US DMCA takedowns with hosts of the infringing material, most significantly the Apple App Store. Most international jurisdictions honor the procedure for practical if not legal or ethical reasons, as well as to be protected by the safe harbor provisions of the law. Takedowns are simple to perform. Anyone who has contributed materially to the code can assert as an authorized agent and has standing to issue a takedown notice.

Also, although officially registering a copyright is not required to seek relief from infringement, it has advantages. To register the Magic Lantern source code with the US Copyright Office, at least, allows that if RareVision or others are judged via a suit to have infringed, Magic Lantern contributors may be awarded statutory damages. This is important since Magic Lantern is generally an unpaid product(s), and compensatory damages are arguably nil. This has no bearing on the Magic Lantern community's prospects for injunctive relief at least with regard to currently infringing material, and possibly future ones, given RareVision's willingness to continue with apparent impunity in spite of warnings.

Putting legal engagement aside, the simplest solution is of course corrective action on the part of RareVision and, ideally, mutual agreement that the terms of the GPL are satisfied. However, it must be made clear that no one GPL contributor should speak for all others in such a way as to explicitly or effectively waive their rights under the GPL. Therefore, there is likely no legal basis for a "deal” outside the terms of the GPL, which preceded any one’s contribution. To compromise on this could be to undermine the present veracity of the GPL.

If contributors choose to initiate takedowns, official and layman's instructions for “DMCA takedown" are readily available on the web, and are best followed carefully. But hopefully this can be resolved amiably and to everyone's mutual benefit.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: vovkinson on August 27, 2014, 01:40:02 PM
agree. Alex should get paid for his hard work.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: 5DanielMIII on August 27, 2014, 04:23:46 PM
It`s not always about the money!
Supporting is good, and yes they should all be billioners (cause they are that gooood)

But sometimes it is actually nice that we all can do something for each other =) We all know and have different skills in life, and if we made a little effort, we could together make Magic Lantern really MAGIC :D  Not just swing by and grab whatever we can for our own profit..
I guess if everyone said THANKS MagicLantern dudes every time they replied to something, every time we had a silly question, or even better, we stopped asking silly questions, that would be nice for everyone involved..less unrelated/non develop posting.

But again, millions of "thank you`s would also be a lot of posting :P

If you have not noticed it in between the many lines of codes and questions, the Devs keep developing and take a lot of TIME out of their private LIVES, FAMILIES and so on, to give us the fun stuff, and sometimes the same answers all over again and again, and they try doing that with a SMILE!

Com`on humans, let`s make love to magic lantern, appreciate them, thank them and help them help all of us ;D
Would we, make such an effort for everyone else, strangers online..
..

Thanks developers! All of you  :D
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Doyle4 on August 27, 2014, 05:32:44 PM
Donations are nice, but a better idea could be something along the lines of: If a new canon is realised we can raise money for the devs to buy one and work on it.

Problem with paying the devs is it can cause problems with the S&!&$Y noobs, for example.. "I pay towards ML and i demand a fix now!" or "I demand this feature to be added as i pay you guys!"

Wish ML was out for my GoPro Hero 3+ :)
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Thomas Worth on August 28, 2014, 03:46:08 AM
Quote
RawMagic seems not to be a good choice now because it doesn't support all a1ex and other coders' work.
There is no code in RAWMagic written by anyone else but me, save of course for the usual C and Objective-C libraries that you're forced to use if working with the Mac OS X API. Vertical stripes correction is implemented, but RAWMagic uses an external binary (which itself is GPL'd code) to apply it. This causes a performance hit, but is necessary to maintain compliance with the GPL and frankly, done out of respect for the ML developers.

I am a filmmaker, own multiple Canon DSLRs and use RAWMagic on my own projects. I know what is needed from the software to make it just plain work. If a feature is missing that makes the workflow impractical (based on real world testing), I add it. I need the software to work in a professional setting, as do other professionals. Filmmakers up against deadlines don't want to mess around with "entering DOS" into a Terminal.

Just thought I'd clear that all up. ;)
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: a1ex on August 28, 2014, 08:16:10 AM
You may also want to take a look here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/hugin-ptx/MVi1TmkDKC4/31vX-scSrTkJ

Therefore, this challenge (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6218.msg126689#msg126689) remains valid:

Quote
@Thomas,

Here's a challenge for you.

As discussed here (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=3072.msg126650#msg126650), I'm thinking to move away from the video side of ML. Naturally, video users will need somebody who does what I used to do - fix bugs, implement feature requests, polish th user interface, cleanup and maintain the code and so on. Since you are directly interested in ML RAW video - you are getting a nice profit out of it after all - I think it's high time you started contributing.

What do you think?
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Widget on August 28, 2014, 09:02:07 AM
@A1ex

I'm a professional in the camera department of a local IATSE union. While I haven't yet been able to convince union shows to install your software on DSLRs that we've used, I have used your software extensively on smaller productions. I cannot tell you how elated my colleagues are with your work. It really is humbling to see what you've done and I'm working with those same productions to ensure that you and the ML team are credited appropriately, and that any owner/operators lend a helping hand. I recently bought a 50D to experiment with ML on my own time, and I'm really looking forward to participating and helping out the community.

Sadly, I will admit that I bought RAWMagic. I'd used 5DtoRGB and simply hadn't really considered were the code was coming from or how releasing commercial products like this affected the ML community. It is helpful software but I believe that the philosophical implications of what Thomas is asking are troubling. While I can't imagine the frustration you're going through, I want you to know that I regret purchasing RAWMagic. 

@Thomas
I think you're a talented developer. I paid for 5DtoRGB and RAWMagic, and both can be tremendously helpful. With that said, I have to side with A1ex on this one. You are standing on the shoulders of giants. Yes, it does help ML users to have software that smooths out their workflows but asking a developer to relax a licensing scheme so that you can include that code in your commercial product is appalling. I do not agree that any of the ML code should be anything other than GPL. I know that I'm not a saint--I haven't contributed much of anything to this community, and one of my early posts was actually pretty inflammatory--but I hope you're going to take the time to consider the ramifications of what you're doing.

Considering the tumultuous nature of this issue, and the value of ML to artists everywhere, I will not be using RAWMagic any more and I will be recommending other applications to my colleagues from here on out. I hope that this isn't always the case but, until I can be sure that I am not hurting the community by using your software, I am going to avoid it like the plague. Convenience is not worth exploiting these guys.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: LRF on August 28, 2014, 12:18:00 PM
Thomas, "out of respect for the ML developers" and thousands of people around the world using Magic Lantern, stop using funny emoticons like everything was a joke.

At this point situation is clear and not funny: if you don't stop doing what is considered by the authors of Magic Lantern as something at least unfair, it will be your, Thomas Worth's responsibility for sabotaging the whole project, and you personally will be responsible for stopping development of something, that was a common work of many talented people across the globe for many years.

So far, everybody involved in the project did it for free. So don't be an ass$#&% and don't try to be the first smart here, who got the idea how to make money on it.

Try to imagine that you are not greedy and arrogant, and let the development of Magic Lantern continue. You are one. But thousands of people, including many professionals, will be directly hurt by your actions if A1ex - the one who made RAW filming possible - gives up on development.

Thomas Worth, do you want to help Magic Lantern users, as you claim, or you want to stop this collective effort by making some money on it?

This is not your private business. Try to care and realize, that there are other people out there.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Thomas Worth on August 28, 2014, 12:47:30 PM
the simplest solution is of course corrective action on the part of RareVision
Already done.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: nikfreak on August 28, 2014, 12:57:03 PM
Time to push out a final nightly (call it 2.4 or whatever) and at the same time an announcement of raw video stuff being thrown out of ML in future nightlies releases. Code will be cleaned up on bitbucket to get focus on photo stuff. Maybe that would be also the time to announce unsupporting some old cams or cams with less contributors. All video'ers might use that final nightly and others will shoot fullres-silent pics up to 1/8000 in future releases incorporating much more photo stuff which gets contributed. Something like that should do the trick to get the internet's eye on ML. Afterwards we will see what happens and who pops up here to help and get all back into development branch - if that will be ever needed.

and btw that's no joke.





Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Thomas Worth on August 28, 2014, 01:07:33 PM
I have complied with the wishes of the developers and have dealt with any GPL code in a way that satisfies the GPL. This is what I said I was going to do, after going to great lengths to assure the ML community I would follow the rules.

I refer you to this:

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=11879.msg115399#msg115399

Quote
Yes, I'm fine with commercial programs that are also free software, working with ML file formats and being supported here on this forum.

I'm also fine with proprietary software (aka closed source) supporting ML file formats, but if they want to make a profit, that should come from their own code, not from a closed-source modified version of my code.

I'm not really sure why this is an issue anymore.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: g3gg0 on August 28, 2014, 08:28:55 PM
Already done.
cool, where can one download the GPL'ed sources of RareVision that contains GPL code?
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: peoplemerge on August 30, 2014, 05:27:49 PM
Instead of copying the source or object code into an app (like Thomas Worth's), would there be any problem in creating a shared library containing those implementations?  Most of the post processing I do is in bash, but I might like to be able to use a different high-level language like python, ruby, or java (all of which can depend on shared libraries) to achieve a level of efficiency in automation that is tailored to me that I can't get with a gui or bash.  Hell, maybe other vendors like Adobe would produce support as well, if this were more developer friendly.  Yeah, I know, dream on ;]

One of the benefits of GPL is that it protects the customer.  Suppose I became dependent on Thomas's tool, but then the GPL code were to fix a bug that I found desirable (or even if MLV format changed), all I would need to do is build a new shared library, swap out the one that RawMagic uses with that one, and as long as the code syntax and semantics hadn't changed, I'd be good to go.

The reason that's good for the customer is that if Thomas were to copy compiled artifacts into his app, I would have no recourse if Thomas got too busy to produce an update, decided to cut support, or became otherwise unavailable.  If he just depended on a library, I as a customer would be protected.

I'm not a lawyer, but isn't this shared library approach permissible in GPLv2?

If this seems like a worthwhile direction to you, I'd be happy to investigate what would be needed to produce that shared library.  I'll have some time later next week because I'm taking a week off between day jobs :)

Happy shooting, folks!
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Thomas Worth on August 31, 2014, 10:44:03 AM
Instead of copying the source or object code into an app (like Thomas Worth's)
RAWMagic does not contain any GPL code. This is a misconception.

Quote
One of the benefits of GPL is that it protects the customer.  Suppose I became dependent on Thomas's tool, but then the GPL code were to fix a bug that I found desirable (or even if MLV format changed), all I would need to do is build a new shared library, swap out the one that RawMagic uses with that one, and as long as the code syntax and semantics hadn't changed, I'd be good to go.
You can indeed do that now.

Quote
I'm not a lawyer, but isn't this shared library approach permissible in GPLv2?
From what I understand, no. The code is still executed within the main binary, so this doesn't meet the requirements. A separate binary could be implemented, itself compiled from GPL code, which is what I've done with RAWMagic. This separate binary must itself be open source, of course.

LGPL would allow the shared library approach, which would give better performance and streamline development of commercial apps. I proposed the LGPL idea to the Magic Lantern developers, but they aren't interested.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: g3gg0 on August 31, 2014, 12:33:58 PM
iirc even shared libraries are not enough.
it should be a separete binary that you can call via command line.
just making a lib from GPL code and link that dynamically is similar to putting GPL code into a .c and linking that .o

so .so/.dll are too close to the clearly forbidden things when using GPL.

-> overall recommendation: build an interface that doesnt rely on loading the GPL image into the same process RAM, like calling it from shell
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: a1ex on September 04, 2014, 02:27:32 PM
RAWMagic does not contain any GPL code. This is a misconception.

It relies on my GPL code to do its basic functionality. You may have found an workaround that bypasses the GPL (like using two separate binaries), but you are still profiting from my code without permission.

And your workaround is questionable btw:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#MereAggregation
http://lwn.net/Articles/417852/
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Thomas Worth on September 04, 2014, 08:15:03 PM
It relies on my GPL code to do its basic functionality.
If one converts RAW or MLV files with RAWMagic that don't suffer from the vertical stripes issue, no GPL code is employed whatsoever (external binary or otherwise) since vertical stripes correction isn't needed. So no, basic functionaity does not rely on GPL code. I assume that's the code you are referring to.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: a1ex on September 04, 2014, 09:20:02 PM
If it were true, you would have little or no reason to rely on the GPL code, right?
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Thomas Worth on September 04, 2014, 11:48:01 PM
Only for vertical stripes correction, and only to stay consistent with other ML tools. So, only four GPL functions which are related to stripes correction.

I'm not sure what you're implying. Are you saying you think RAWMagic's core conversion engine is based on your code, e.g. raw2dng?
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: chmee on September 05, 2014, 12:21:26 AM
the question is not "how many/often", but "if".
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: g3gg0 on September 05, 2014, 01:18:28 AM
point is
a) you used GPL code in some of your versions
b) you sold them without releasing GPL'ed source

until today we didnt see *these* versions that contain one or more lines of GPL code released under GPL.

it does NOT matter that today there is just a few lines of GPL code, or even no GPL code anymore.
the OLD versions still are not GPLed! and this means: you are still ignoring GPL.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: a1ex on September 06, 2014, 09:11:42 AM
Looks like a GUI wrapper over a command-line GPL program must also be GPL:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/392395/a-gui-wrapper-around-a-gpl-cli-application-is-it-a-derivative
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/110380/call-gpl-software-from-non-gpl-software

Quote
IMHO, in spirit, a pure wrapper that merely exposes the functionality of a GPL program should be GPL.

Therefore, I suggest enforcing GPL compliance on all the postprocessing apps based on ML command-line tools.

Authors who do not respect the license will have their threads locked. If no corrective action is done within 1 month, their threads will be deleted.

Any objections?
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Thomas Worth on September 06, 2014, 12:34:53 PM
Therefore, I suggest enforcing GPL compliance on all the postprocessing apps based on ML command-line tools.
As stated previously, RAWMagic is not based on any ML command line tools, nor does it require any GPL code (either linked to the application or calling a separate binary) from the Magic Lantern project to operate. Its core functionality comes from 100% proprietary code, just to be clear. It is not a "derivative work." Far from it.

RAWMagic is certainly not a wrapper over a GPL program, although some, if not most, of the other post-processing apps on this forum are.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: chmee on September 06, 2014, 12:59:10 PM
@Thomas Worth
loool. i'm really tired of your beating around the bush...
you? gpl? no? yes?
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: ayshih on September 06, 2014, 09:09:27 PM
I've had to wade through licenses on other projects, and the "viral" nature of GPL always leads to furious debate.  Here are my comments:

Looks like a GUI wrapper over a command-line GPL program must also be GPL:
Both fortunately and unfortunately, that's not automatically the case, and the links you cite also show that.  It depends on many factors, including how the wrapper and the GPL program communicate.  FSF's GPL FAQ on this issue (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation) acknowledges that the murkiness has to be resolved on a case-by-case basis based on the mechanism and semantics of communication.  There is a space for non-GPL programs to call GPL binaries and still be compliant with GPL.

Even if wrappers automatically had to be GPL-ed, I have to agree with Thomas Worth that it seems inaccurate to characterize RAWMagic as a wrapper.  I don't know what the distribution of RAWMagic users, but it seems like there could reasonably be a significant fraction of the user base has no need for the vertical-stripes correction.

point is
a) you used GPL code in some of your versions
b) you sold them without releasing GPL'ed source
...
the OLD versions still are not GPLed! and this means: you are still ignoring GPL.
This is a clear violation of GPL, and something that Thomas Worth must address and remedy.  Unlike the above debate, direct integration of GPL code triggers GPL protections.  You can't get around this.

Therefore, I suggest enforcing GPL compliance on all the postprocessing apps based on ML command-line tools.

Authors who do not respect the license will have their threads locked. If no corrective action is done within 1 month, their threads will be deleted.
Again, it's possible for non-GPL postprocessing apps to use ML tools while still being compliant with GPL, depending on the nature of the communication.  However, reasonable people can disagree about where that line gets drawn.  So, instead of dealing with the recurring debates over GPL compliance, simply only allow threads on this forum for GPL apps.  Thus, unless Thomas Worth distributes RAWMagic under GPL, its forum thread will be locked/deleted regardless of the app's compliance with GPL.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Audionut on September 06, 2014, 11:26:48 PM
I don't know what the distribution of RAWMagic users, but it seems like there could reasonably be a significant fraction of the user base has no need for the vertical-stripes correction.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make here.  On what basis does the size of the userbase affect GPL?
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: ayshih on September 06, 2014, 11:45:59 PM
It's about whether RAWMagic can be labeled a "wrapper" and whether the ML tool can be considered part of the core functionality of RAWMagic.  For example, if vertical-stripe correction is used by the majority of the RAWMagic user base, that can be contributing evidence that the ML tool is effectively core functionality, even if it is not necessarily implemented that way.

All parties here are unlikely to ever agree on whether or not RAWMagic is, in its current form, is compliant with GPL, and I suspect that Thomas Worth has a defensible position (not counting the clear GPL violation of earlier versions).  If the stakes were higher, this would be adjudicated in a legal system, and even then the parties would likely not agree on the outcome.

Again, I like the approach of simply declaring that this forum will only allow threads for GPL apps.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Audionut on September 07, 2014, 12:14:39 AM
I think closing and deleting threads is a last resort (and we're probably already there), but I think the main intent is/was to support these other applications on the basis that the core project (ML), would gain development progress through this support.

If I know the developers well enough, simple compliance with GPL by these other applications would have been fine also.

In my mind, there is no agreement or disagreement.  These other applications exist solely thanks to the development of ML.  So regardless of all other issues, there should be some reasonable expectation to respect the wishes of that development team.

As far as I'm concerned, Thomas Worth has ignored all reasonable requests by the development team, and now expects the development team to assume his application abides by the GPL, based solely on his word.  Support for his applications should be immediately ceased from these forums. 

However, I'm not sure if blanket banning all non GPL applications is the right approach, based on my first paragraph.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Thomas Worth on September 07, 2014, 04:40:07 AM
As far as I'm concerned, Thomas Worth has ignored all reasonable requests by the development team, and now expects the development team to assume his application abides by the GPL, based solely on his word.  Support for his applications should be immediately ceased from these forums.
I have not ignored any requests. In fact, I went to great lengths to try to appease the ML team. Anyone who reads this forum can figure that out.

It seems there's nothing I can do to make you guys happy. So, if you think it's good for the community to delete the RAWMagic thread, I guess I can't stop you.

How do you think your users would feel about that? Perhaps you should take a poll before making a decision.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: dmilligan on September 07, 2014, 06:07:47 AM
Since RAWMagic is available through the Apple App store, that means Apple has reviewed the code. It may be possible to file a DMCA takedown notice with Apple since this would be a violation of copyright (if in fact Thomas has infringed the GPL, personally, I will take him at his word that he hasn't). Apple could verify whether or not RAWMagic is in violation of the GPL.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Audionut on September 07, 2014, 11:28:48 AM
Thomas, if you call months of no communication, and then telling everyone to "think of the users", as respecting the developers of this project, then I stand corrected!
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: g3gg0 on September 07, 2014, 12:58:59 PM
i didnt see any move forward. GPL violation is still present.

point is
a) you used GPL code in some of your versions
b) you sold them without releasing GPL'ed source

until today we didnt see *these* versions [...] released under GPL.

solution: release source
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: spnsir on September 10, 2014, 08:02:21 AM
I'm extremely appreciative of ML and RawMagic. Both have enabled me to take my work to the next level, ML of course with RAW/MLV video, and RawMagic being integral in conversion into a Davinci Resolve audio-synced dng sequence. I hope you can all find a solution and move forward with no bad blood.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: peoplemerge on September 10, 2014, 07:38:19 PM
There is another way around the previous versions with GPL code.

If you did not buy a RawMagic version with GPL code, you have no standing to demand the source code for RawMagic.

If you did buy RawMagic with GPL code and you still possess it, you can demand the source code.  At that point, Thomas can refund your money and claim you are not a customer.  Then you have no standing again.

I propose a new implementation of the post-processing code with an Apache license.  That would encourage other firms wanting to make life easier for ML users building support for MLRaw.  LGPL is an alternative (looks like FFMPEG uses that https://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html).  There are probably some pitfalls but there is probably a way where everyone wins if it's done considerately.  Worst case, it would mean rewriting it all, which is a nontrivial effort

Opinions?
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: g3gg0 on September 10, 2014, 10:33:09 PM
There is another way around the previous versions with GPL code.

If you did not buy a RawMagic version with GPL code, you have no standing to demand the source code for RawMagic.

If you did buy RawMagic with GPL code and you still possess it, you can demand the source code.  At that point, Thomas can refund your money and claim you are not a customer.  Then you have no standing again.

wrong. GPL requires the seller of a program to either distribute the whole source code with the GPLed binary, or
to provide a clear instruction how to get the source code.
not doing that is alreay a violation of copyleft rules.

we are not trying to find a way around this situation.

we say:
 - we give thousands of hours of work on unique tools away for free
 - if you re-use parts of our work, do so - we are happy about that
 - the only restriction: do it for free, just like we did!

thats why we use GPL.
if one cant live with that, he must not re-use our work, no matter how much of it.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: peoplemerge on September 12, 2014, 03:22:09 AM
Let's separate the free software discussion from the open-source discussion.  Yes, not having to pay for software is great.  Open source software is great too.  They're distinct ideas, though.

I went to a talk by Richard Stallman some years ago where he told an anecdote of a firm he went after for copyleft infringement.  He bought their software which depended on a GPL library.  He wrote them demanding the source code.  He heard nothing for six months.  Six months later, they returned his check with a note from their lawyer saying he was not a customer.

The talk he gave was at a meeting held by a local university, where he promoted the idea that GPL supports those of us who want to make a living as developers.  A common scenario is that you work for a firm building software and they are your customer.  You have only one customer, and you're going to give them your code.  If you want a customer #2, then good luck getting them to pay you since it's open at that point.  Anyway, that's a typical scenario.

The alternative for the firm in question was to release the source code.  They decided they would rather not have Stallman as a paying customer.  Real users weren't willing to put pressure on their vendor to release the source code because they liked the product.  The story basically ended there.

I see a lot of similarities in this case.  If at some point in time there was a version that had GPL, and when someone complained, Thomas Worth in good faith remedied the situation by removing GPL code, that should be satisfactory.  To say it's not good enough sends a message to the world at large not to adopt MLV.  It just seems like an extreme position to me.

My main concern here has nothing to do with the particulars of RawMagic, it puts into question the viability of developing any meaningful post-production workflow for the larger community.  If Thomas Worth faces this amount of hostility, then we'll definitely never see MLV support in any of the nice post-production tools we all know and love.

Also, just because there once existed a copy of software called RawMagic in the universe that had GPL code, that anyone anywhere can demand to have it open is a pretty scary thought.  In his case, it really doesn't seem like he intentionally set out to violate the license and abuse the thousands of hours of work you've contributed.

g3gg0, I really hope you reconsider your position.  The Linux kernel, fair enough, GPL.  Basically every library that programmers use enables programmers to charge for their time.  I like the idea of ML code that runs in-camera to be GPL for the same reason I like Linux to be GPL.  But the post workflow that's supposed to provide convenience for users should adopt a more flexible, programmer-friendly model.

What are the options for well-intentioned programmers who want to work for food?  Let's say I wanted to work for a studio that just decided to use MLRAW on a crash cam for a small part of their production.  If I were to tell them that I had to release any code I wrote for their in-house video management system as open source -- or in the extreme case, their whole platform, I would be out of a job for sure.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Audionut on September 12, 2014, 03:57:21 AM
What are the options for well-intentioned programmers who want to work for food?

There are plenty of other ways to make money from development work, that don't involve ML.



Let's say I wanted to work for a studio that just decided to use MLRAW on a crash cam for a small part of their production.  If I were to tell them that I had to release any code I wrote for their in-house video management system as open source -- or in the extreme case, their whole platform, I would be out of a job for sure.

If you simply copied the work of others that was released under the GPL, and claimed it as your own, then yes, I guess you would be out of a job, and rightly so.

There is an important distinction here you seem to be missing, or ignoring.

Thomas (anyone) can code their own applications, and do with it as they see fit.
The ML source code is released under the GPL license, and if some other user wants to use this code, they must abide by the terms of the GPL.

Past stories about some company using lawyers to circumvent the conditions set forth by the GPL, are nonsense at best.  Of course, Thomas could employ that option against ML also, since this development project is funded solely by donations which are used for equipment.

Would that tactic be in good spirit?

Any post processing applications designed to work with ML raw files, only live because of ML.  No ML, no p/p tools.  As such, IMHO, the very least these application developers could do, is respect the wishes of the original authors of the code, rather than counter claims about their own best interests.


There have been numerous occasions where Thomas could have resolved a useful outcome with the developers.  Instead, he chooses to side step the core issues, claim that the ML developers "don't listen", and a bunch of other excuses he has listed through this thread.

Where I come from, respect still holds meaning!
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: g3gg0 on September 12, 2014, 10:36:23 AM
@peoplemerge:
you got it wrong.

there are commercial developer who contacted us and they even got support and example code they can use freely in their tools.
e.g. mlv.c/mlv.h accessing code at an early stage was given out to commercial tools for inclusion.

i dont complain about the "big ones", tools where reading and processing MLV/RAW is 0.1% of their code base.
but re-using our GPLed processing code for a commerical product that does the same as our GPL one is a red rag. (yeah he added a GUI. wow. amazing work)

it is about respecting rights and licenses. we did not even receive a earnest "sorry, i didnt think about it", just ignorance and lies.
"no, there is no GPL code", then "i removed the GPL code", no honest discussion, even requests to support ML were ignored.

so our decision is clear: we dont want such tools here.
whats wrong with that?
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: peoplemerge on September 12, 2014, 08:32:25 PM
there are commercial developer who contacted us and they even got support and example code they can use freely in their tools.
e.g. mlv.c/mlv.h accessing code at an early stage was given out to commercial tools for inclusion.

Nice.  At first I was concerned that ML was against supporting commercial tools.  It's good to see that's not the case.

i dont complain about the "big ones", tools where reading and processing MLV/RAW is 0.1% of their code base.

That's exactly where it gets tricky.  Just because today, you go after some people for abusing your GPL code and not others that use the exact same code in the exact same way, by your earlier standard, everybody is potentially in jeopardy into perpetuity.  Unless you grant them a different license, of course, but IIRC every contributor needs to sign off on that.  Is that the case?

but re-using our GPLed processing code for a commerical product that does the same as our GPL one is a red rag. (yeah he added a GUI. wow. amazing work)

If that were true, then yeah you have every right to be pissed.  I know the man's been writing post production code for decades and has his own debayer algorithms.

How much code are we really talking about?  I thought raw/mlv to dng is pretty straightforward.

it is about respecting rights and licenses. we did not even receive a earnest "sorry, i didnt think about it", just ignorance and lies.
"no, there is no GPL code", then "i removed the GPL code", no honest discussion, even requests to support ML were ignored.

so our decision is clear: we dont want such tools here.
whats wrong with that?

I see that things have escalated to the point where everyone is resentful.  If he were to come clean about any misdeeds of his past, would that help?  Other than what he's not willing to do (release rawmagic source), what are your expectations of him in terms of contributions?

There are enough RawMagic users out there that find it useful that would like to see the hatchets be buried.  As a developer, I just hope to see a precedent made where he gets treated rationally and with fairness.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: peoplemerge on September 12, 2014, 08:33:41 PM
@Audionut - you make some good points.  I gotta run but I'll think about what you have to say.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: dmilligan on September 12, 2014, 09:49:18 PM
http://readwrite.com/2011/01/09/as_vlc_for_iphone_ipad_pulled_from_app_store_whats
Quote
According to TUAW, the removal of VLC was not a case - as we have oftenseen - of Apple pulling an app because it felt as though it violated the developer guidelines. Rather, the app was removed because Apple received an infringement complaint from VLC developers.

Here's your link: http://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/appstorenotices/
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: 1% on September 13, 2014, 03:57:29 AM
Quote
If one converts RAW or MLV files with RAWMagic that don't suffer from the vertical stripes issue, no GPL code is employed whatsoever (external binary or otherwise) since vertical stripes correction isn't needed

Are you for real? You want to steal the vertical stripe correction which only kinda sorta works on 5DIII, cry about GPL licensing and then not fix the multiple banding/pattern noise/hot pixel issues across cameras while charging $30? Some better batching on MLrawViewer would end this in a heartbeat.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Midphase on September 15, 2014, 11:32:54 AM
It seems like there's an awful lot of "cut off your nose to spite the face" spirit going around here.

I get it, you guys are hurt because not everybody is willing to give away their coding work for free. The truth of the matter is that, when it comes to OS X, RAWMagic is the only feasible solution for people who don't want to deal with command-line or unreliable apps. The ML developer community at large has had plenty of time to develop tools for real-world post workflow needs, and for the most part it chose to ignore the needs of post-production and focus instead on what happens in-camera. Of course that's their prerogative, but to then turn around and get their panties in a bunch about the only app which is actually designed with real-world needs in mind, only because the developer chooses to charge money for it, seems petty and childish. Yes, I understand the GPL accusations levied against Thomas, but they only came up the moment he decided to charge money and never once were they brought up for the entire year that RAWMagic was a free product.

The central point that the majority of you guys seem to miss is that RAWMagic has made your work more meaningful because end-users aren't required to jump through difficult obstacles in order to benefit from ML raw video. It's as if Henry Ford would have been upset about paved roads being constructed.

If you could only stop for a second and look at the big picture, you would see that this benefits everyone involved. A successful RAWMagic is consonant with a successful ML, it's a win-win for everyone involved.

I think that Thomas is being demonized for all of the wrong reasons, I also think that there is a not-so-subtle insinuation that a large portion of RAWMagic is ripped off from the pre-existing command-line apps. This doesn't seem to be the case, the code in question only applies to the vertical-stripe correction algorithm which in turn only applies to the 5DmkIII. While I understand that GPL terms are valid regardless of how much or how little code is used, I think it's also important for all participants in this discussion to understand that 99% of RAWMagic is proprietary and non-derivative code created solely by Thomas, and that his app goes well beyond being a mere "GUI wrapper."

Ultimately, if you decide to lock the RAWMagic thread or ban Thomas, you have the full right to do so, but IMHO it would only punish your OS X end users and push them to look elsewhere for their raw video needs (i.e. Blackmagic).
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: g3gg0 on September 15, 2014, 12:10:26 PM
guess you are no programmer. at least your last post makes me think so. your analogies are far off the reality.

alex complained about closed source tools long before i jumped in.
and now i understand - and you confirm that right now - we should have taken actions against closed source tools that use GPL code much earlier.
i was like "cmon, those are honorable guys. why so strict" but i guess i was wrong.

it's about honor and respect to
 a) not use GPL code in closed source tools
 b) not to lie about that
 c) to support the project, especially if invited directly to do so after violating their terms
 d) and never ever make money unless one is sure there is no work of others in it
not sure if everyone thinks so. at least i do!

there are other tools too. all of them were so honorable to offer a code review, made it GPL or we talked to each other and
we gave to okay to use that portion of code without any trouble.  all that happened without any pressure, just with mentioning
that we are concerned about GPL infringements in general.

on PC side there were about ten different tools, half of them GUI and on mac side just one?
why the god-praised OSX and their obviously small developer world are that kinda special? i dont know.


no offense against the buyers of that tools. i can understand them.
but its my free will to be against the sellers of tools that dont cooperate while using our code.
there is nothing childish and wrong with it.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: surami on September 15, 2014, 02:32:32 PM
I think there are many ML users out there, who knows nothing about the roots of the ML project.

I follow this magic since the begining of 2011 and this kind of open developement is a very respectful thing. I like it not because of it's free for everyone, I like it because of the open spirit, thinking what's behind of this. It's not about the money, it's about passion, enthusiasm, respect, fun, just simple help out each other, share the knowledge and postpone the boundaries.

What is awful, that their are people who are chewing this open spirit.

Here are the roots guys:
http://trmm.net/Magic_Lantern_firmware
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Lantern_%28firmware%29
https://vimeo.com/groups/magiclantern/forum/
https://www.flickr.com/groups/magiclanternfirmware/

Think about it a bit if you can. If you aren't an open thinking person, you will never know and feel what moves forward this community.

Much respect for the developers, big up guys!
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: nikfreak on September 15, 2014, 10:34:41 PM
Quote from: a1ex url=https://bitbucket.org/hudson/magic-lantern/pull-request/591/custom-button-handler-in-gui-commonc-to/diff#comment-3044473
...
I will do these changes myself after the GPL issues from the forum will be fixed.

 The GPL issues make me feel :o :-X >:(


Here's your link: http://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/appstorenotices/

did someone already fill out this form?
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: kichetof on September 15, 2014, 11:13:07 PM
If you could only stop for a second and look at the big picture, you would see that this benefits everyone involved. A successful RAWMagic is consonant with a successful ML, it's a win-win for everyone involved.

Are you crazy !?

ML doesn't need RAWMagic to exist! BUT RAWMagic NEEDS ML to exist!

Why ML is free (with a lot of works, a lot of money: yes to buy all these DSLR) and a "little app" is not free ?
I'm not saying that RAWMagic didn't request a lot of work. BUT you have to respect the term of license of ML! In case GNU GPL. If you're not happy and don't agree, you can go elsewhere!

Don't forget why you're here... and who develops all these features!
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: LRF on September 16, 2014, 12:24:53 AM
For those who don't realize how much work, knowledge and own "free" time devs like Alex, g3gg0 and others put into this project and free apps connected to it, just take a look here and use "Next" button. It's really eye-opening:

https://bitbucket.org/hudson/magic-lantern/commits/all?page=6

And now imagine that there's ONE greedy f***** who sabotages the whole project by leeching on it.

I'm just... I don't know. What kind of... person one has to be to not respect such effort and people behind it?!
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Audionut on September 16, 2014, 12:56:32 AM
I get it, you guys are hurt because not everybody is willing to give away their coding work for free.

The issue is not, and has not, been one of price/profit.  Anyone is free to release their code under any conditions they see fit, including Thomas.  To beat the dead horse with a stick, the issue is one whereby Thomas has taken the work of others, and used it as he saw fit, irregardless of the licensing agreement he agreed to when copying that work (the GPL).

The truth of the matter is that, when it comes to OS X, RAWMagic is the only feasible solution for people who don't want to deal with command-line or unreliable apps.

There's probably a reason why a1ex is making a consistent effort to increase the developer input to this project.  But if you don't venture outside of the raw recording forum often, I guess you can be forgivenn for missing this.

Magic Lantern may gain an OSX developer from that effort, which may lead to fancy OSX apps being released free of charge, as opposed to a $30 app, but I digress.  :P

The central point that the majority of you guys seem to miss is that RAWMagic has made your work more meaningful because..........

I'm pretty sure the guys who actually spend the countless hours developing this project, are well aware of the meaningfulness of their work.  But don't let the wishes of the original developers ruin a good bitch session.

The ML developer community at large has had plenty of time to develop tools for real-world post workflow needs, and for the most part it chose to ignore the needs of post-production and focus instead on what happens in-camera.

Thanks for the performance review.  It's always handy to receive reviews from people who cannot lead by example!  ;)

Of course that's their prerogative, but to then turn around and get their panties in a bunch about the only app which is actually designed with real-world needs in mind, only because the developer chooses to charge money for it, seems petty and childish. Yes, I understand the GPL accusations levied against Thomas, but they only came up the moment he decided to charge money and never once were they brought up for the entire year that RAWMagic was a free product.

If you truly understood the GPL accusations, or probably more appropriately, actually gave a shit about the GPL, the timeline would be of little consequence.  And I can assure you either way, that a1ex had licensing concerns long before you claim they came to fruition.

We actually get together and discuss these things long before any official announcements are made, as opposed to a singular person from the project, doing as they see fit to make a profit, but I digress again!


If you could only stop for a second and look at the big picture, you would see that this benefits everyone involved. A successful RAWMagic is consonant with a successful ML, it's a win-win for everyone involved.

Since you seem to be aware of the long term goals of this project, how exactly is a GUI for one OS, that goes against the core values of this project (open source), a win for this project?  Explain this in detail.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: peoplemerge on September 16, 2014, 10:02:56 PM
I've been putting some thought into this and I think making post-processing code GPL is appalling.  I maintain it's a good choice for in-camera stuff, that's dependent on CHDK for the same reason that it's a good choice for the Linux kernel but it has no place running as part of any desktop app.  [Edit: In-camera code is] the vast majority of the ML code base.  How many libraries that are intended to be reused by developers are GPL, and not LGPL, Apache, etc?  That's the real issue here.  Go find me one, a major one.  VLC? nope.  Anything that web apps use? nope.  glibc?  nope.  Hmm, I wonder why that is.

As a programmer that's worked developing software for large studios and video engineering firms, it would be silly to expect for example, an in-house asset management system to be forced to open it's code just because there is that .05% of it that needs to use ML code to pull .RAW and .MLV metadata.  Getting into that kind of licensing battle that you can see in this thread is the last thing any production large or small needs.  Even if you say to yourselves, "no we're not jerks, we would never do that since this feature is such a minute part of their code base," the problem is that the whole idea of a license is to allow people to use software in very specific ways and under very specific conditions.  I want nothing to do with that kind of headache.

So perhaps the most useful contribution I could make is a complete open-source re-implementation of the post-processing code in an Apache license.  There are lots of optimizations I think I can be made in the process anyhow that would benefit the community.

Alright I'm all fired up do do this.  I'm certainly not going to contribute to any GPL code base that could touch the post-production workflow but I hope to work in partnership with and respect for the community in providing tools that liberate developers.  I also totally support the in camera code staying GPL and I would contribute to it if I had something useful to do.

Please post feedback as to this direction and feedback on potential pitfalls and how we can work together to avoid them.

P.S. Does anyone have the MLRaw spec handy for me?  IIRC something was published.  I gather that for RAW, the last 192 bytes has a data structure holding most of the metadata needed to process a file.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: dmilligan on September 16, 2014, 11:04:34 PM
Go find me one, a major one.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=list+of+GPL+software

VLC? nope.
Completely false. VLC is GPL. Somebody didn't do their homework: http://www.videolan.org/legal.html

an in-house asset management system to be forced to open it's code just because there is that .05% of it that needs to use ML code to pull .RAW and .MLV metadata.
Why wouldn't such a company be able to simply implement MLV processing code itself? They have the resources to do 99.95% of the coding, but for that last little bit, they need to use some GPL code??? I don't really think you understand. It's not like MLV processing is patented or something. If you're a commercial firm that wants to process MLV files, there's nothing stopping you.

Alright I'm all fired up do do this.  I'm certainly not going to contribute to any GPL code base that could touch the post-production workflow but I hope to work in partnership with and respect for the community in providing tools that liberate developers.
You are essentially volunteering to work for free for people who will turn around make money off of your work and give nothing back. You are basically asking to be taken advantage of. You have every right to do this, but why would you?

I would never freely contribute code to an LGPL (etc.) project, and I think you'll find the other developers here are probably in the same boat. If I'm going to put my work out there for free, I'm not doing it out of the goodness of my heart. I'm doing because I want something in return: that is other people to come along and add to what I've done, so that I can learn from them and receive the benefit of their work, just like they received the benefit of mine. When you stop using copy-left you completely loose that.

I recently started a new project MLVFS (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=13152) with an idea I had for a new way to process MLV video. I made it GPL b/c I knew I couldn't do all of it myself and I wanted others to help. And they did, and now it's quite mature, supported on all major platforms => in less than a month. I could never have done that myself. LGPL or some other license would not have accomplished that level of collaboration. Some commercial developer could have simply taken my work, polished it, sold it, and then charged me to even use it! And I still would never get to see the code improvements.

I think you have completely missed the point, which is especially sad since you call yourself a developer. Developers who intend to make commercial tools for ML do not need you to make these libraries for them (they can and should simply make their own, they're the ones who are going to be making money off of it after all). I doubt the ML developer community will want to contribute, help, or use your libraries either, because of the lack of copyleft protection. So who's left? What's the point?

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: peoplemerge on September 16, 2014, 11:18:02 PM
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=list+of+GPL+software
Completely false. VLC is GPL. Somebody didn't do their homework: http://www.videolan.org/legal.html

Grin.  You are correct.  I did my homework on FFmpeg which is LGPL.

There's the distinction.   VLC is an app.  FFmpeg is a library.  Find me a library is what I should have said.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: peoplemerge on September 16, 2014, 11:54:04 PM
Reading... http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html this seems like a well-reasoned article covering both pros and cons.  It's maybe not the list I was looking for, but is consistent with @dmilligan's argument, while addressing some of my concerns.  Here's a small list of apache licensed projects: https://projects.apache.org/indexes/quick.html -- there is a huge number of professional programmers that depend on these libraries that wouldn't use them if they were GPL.

Why wouldn't such a company be able to simply implement MLV processing code itself? They have the resources to do 99.95% of the coding, but for that last little bit, they need to use some GPL code??? I don't really think you understand. It's not like MLV processing is patented or something. If you're a commercial firm that wants to process MLV files, there's nothing stopping you.

Well, it's kind of annoying to have to reinvent the wheel.  That's why open source is great :D


You are essentially volunteering to work for free for people who will turn around make money off of your work and give nothing back. You are basically asking to be taken advantage of. You have every right to do this, but why would you?

For one, I use RawMagic and I don't want to see it forced out of existence by GPL.  For two, being the author of a good library is good for the resume.  For three, because I care about ML's future and GPL post processing code is a barrier to that IMO.

I would never freely contribute code to an LGPL (etc.) project, and I think you'll find the other developers here are probably in the same boat. If I'm going to put my work out there for free, I'm not doing it out of the goodness of my heart. I'm doing because I want something in return: that is other people to come along and add to what I've done, so that I can learn from them and receive the benefit of their work, just like they received the benefit of mine. When you stop using copy-left you completely loose that.

That's true, but in another sense, a more flexible license will allow another class of applications to exist.  I understand the needs of users enough to recognize they want better tools than they want to save $30 by not buying RawMagic.  That is why there are a few buyers.

I recently started a new project MLVFS (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=13152) with an idea I had for a new way to process MLV video.

Nice.  I'm already a fan.  Good work!  If I use it and make changes I would totally contribute them back.  GPL seems like a good choice for you.

I made it GPL b/c I knew I couldn't do all of it myself and I wanted others to help. And they did, and now it's quite mature, supported on all major platforms => in less than a month. I could never have done that myself. LGPL or some other license would not have accomplished that level of collaboration. Some commercial developer could have simply taken my work, polished it, sold it, and then charged me to even use it! And I still would never get to see the code improvements.

I guess it's a good sign that a month was sufficient for people to make progress.  What I'm trying to do doesn't seem like rocket science but raw processing is somewhat new to me.

It's cool that if you make code improvements to have those contributed back.  This thread is about using the GPL to force Thomas to open source ALL of RawMagic, not just the improvements to ML.  I would have liked to have RawMagic's source but I support his right to free software.

I think you have completely missed the point, which is especially sad since you call yourself a developer. Developers who intend to make commercial tools for ML do not need you to make these libraries for them (they can and should simply make their own, they're the ones who are going to be making money off of it after all).

I understand what you're saying, and I don't think I've missed the point.  Your point is that GPL is good in that it encourages contributions.  I understand that and I think ML by and large benefits from it.

I guess I call myself a developer, though I admit most of the code I've written has not been open-source, something I'd like to change.  I still don't agree that commercial tools developers don't need ready-made libraries.  Wouldn't everyone benefit if they shared the library between them especially if that was a supporting/generic part of their business, as opposed to the core thing that delivered them their competitive advantage?

I doubt the ML developer community will want to contribute, help, or use your libraries either, because of the lack of copyleft protection. So who's left? What's the point?

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

I'm sad to hear that.  I hope that sentiment is not universal.  We live in a world where ML is not included in consumer-grade post production apps we love, and that's what we could gain by a rewrite.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: g3gg0 on September 16, 2014, 11:59:04 PM
Magic Lantern's reference implementations and end user tools are no platform libraries.
and they are GPLed. period.

whats the problem with it?
even commercial tools adopted the formats without any cry.
they even said thanks and gave out free beta versions.
no trouble, nice talking and happy end users.

now as we dont want the devs of a better wrapper to misbehave, not asking, not cooperating and copying code without credits,
suddenly third people come up explaining how we should treat our work and how free software works?
hell, what?!

ive coded now way more than half a million lines of code of software that is freely available to everyone, in ML and in a dozen of tools before.
not mentioning how many thousand hours of digging in IDA was necesary for all that.
dont you think i can decide how people should behave when they use my code?

same applies to:
a1ex, Albert Shih, kichetof, Gr3g01, escho,
David Milligan, Mathew Kelly, zloe, Jarno Paananen,
Andreas Kotes, Audionut, One Percent, dmilligan,
josepvm, philmoz, a_d_, sodapopodalaigh,
Vladimir Vyskocil, Giovanni Condello and others

all of them decided that their code is GPL and really i dont understand why people now come up and ask us to change that just because they don't like it.
we found solutions for all requests we got.

and now we say:
YOU NOT ASK US TO SELL OUR CODE = WE NOT WANT YOU
thats all this topic is about.

close?
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Midphase on September 17, 2014, 12:14:50 AM
There's something profoundly ironic about a group of individuals, whose very work piggybacks upon other people's engineering and coding efforts and skirts around a very grey legal area open to subjective interpretation, complaining about others doing the same to them.   8)
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: g3gg0 on September 17, 2014, 12:34:15 AM
a very grey legal area open to subjective interpretation

not sure what you mean. ML and all things we do are perfectly legal.

http://www.magiclantern.fm/about.html
Quote
Is Magic Lantern legal? Short answer: Yes.

Long answer:

    Background reading: check out the Reverse Engineering FAQ from EFF.
    Both USA and European laws allow reverse engineering for interoperability, without requiring the permission from the copyright holder (in our case, Canon).
    Since we are not distributing any Canon code and we reverse engineer solely for purposes of interoperability, Magic Lantern does not run afoul of the law.
    We do respect Canon as a company, and love their products.
    We do not publish Canon code or any other copyrighted material - be it from Canon or from any other third party.
    We publish limited information about DSLR internals, with the only purpose of achieving interoperability. Reverse engineering is required to achieve interoperability, because no public documentation is available to create software for Canon DSLRs.
    To our knowledge, Canon has not yet made any official statements about Magic Lantern, nor CHDK.
    If anyone (including Canon) thinks we can improve the way ML is working, just let us know.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: peoplemerge on September 17, 2014, 12:37:33 AM
Magic Lantern's reference implementations and end user tools are no platform libraries.
and they are GPLed. period.

whats the problem with it?

I don't want to speak for anyone else but I see no problem.  Your contributions on ML are awesome.

Since they're reference implementations and not reusable libraries for post production, I see an opportunity to improve the adoption of ML in some places where there is currently no innovation. 

@g3gg0 are you cool with this?  This is the time to discourage me, before I have devoted a lot of time :D

I guess I'd like to build this library with the cooperation of the community, rather than fighting an uphill battle.  And I'm certainly not suggesting it'll be closed-source, just with a different open-source license.  It wouldn't be in defiance of ML, rather, be an enabler of other downstream products, just like ML depends on CHDK.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: a1ex on September 17, 2014, 01:02:52 AM
Before relicensing ML code, read this: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/81705/rewriting-gpl-code-to-change-license

It's not as simple as copying the existing code and renaming some variables.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: peoplemerge on September 17, 2014, 01:41:14 AM
@alex - of course!  Thanks for the input.

I meant it when I said it would be a *complete* rewrite.  It won't be in C or even a language that resembles anything like C, maybe Erlang but more likely Haskell or Scala.  I've already worked out how to generate C libraries from those languages so they are accessible externally.

Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: a1ex on September 17, 2014, 08:03:41 AM
Also see http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10952689/code-ported-from-one-to-another-language-licensing

So you are going to take for example my postprocessing algorithms (vertical stripes, chroma smoothing, bad pixel fix, dual iso, whatever) and rewrite them in some other language, under a more permissive license, enabling commercial developers to use them without giving anything back.

Will you design those algorithms from scratch? I highly doubt.

Will I create more algorithms for ML? Why would I do that? To fill the pockets of some third parties?

=> you will be sabotaging the ML project, as others have already pointed out.



FYI, ML development is stopped because of this issue.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: vertigopix on September 17, 2014, 09:30:54 AM
Quote
=> you will be sabotaging the ML project, as others have already pointed out.
FYI, ML development is stopped because of this issue.

That's very SAD.
I can't understand the reason for wanting to destroy such a beautiful project.

ML Team, please keep the faith and keep rockin' !
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: nikfreak on September 17, 2014, 10:22:10 AM
...

FYI, ML development is stopped because of this issue.

I suggest at a first action to delete questionable threads and also ban users which won't agre to comply with ML/GPL rules. I still can't seem to understand why ths didn't happen. On one side there are issues but on the other side there's nothing done by forum admins/mods. It just looks like ML team support such behaviour. I mean the RAWmagic thread is still available and what are we hoping to achieve? That from time to time Mr Thomas Worth will appear here to answer some comments? It's like ping pong. We say he didn't follow GPL, he says no this isn't the case now...

And because of that development is stopped. This is sad.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Audionut on September 17, 2014, 11:24:10 AM
On one side there are issues but on the other side there's nothing done by forum admins/mods. It just looks like ML team support such behaviour.

That is not the case.  We are working on an announcement, but since like most things, time is an issue for all parties involved, the process isn't a 5 minute fix.   ; ;)
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: vertigopix on September 17, 2014, 11:31:52 AM
Quote
We are working on an announcement

I hope that will be a good news...
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: PaulB on September 17, 2014, 03:03:07 PM
I appreciate the issues involved and sympathise wholeheartedly with the ML devs, but I'm thinking genies and bottles, here. Once the code is public, unscrupulous types are going to nick bits of it if it suits them. Hard to think of a solution to that one...
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: swinxx on September 17, 2014, 03:15:57 PM
Are there more third party tool involved? I thought all the discussion started because of rawmagic..?


@a1ex:
The Magic Lantern project is amazing
Your passion and efford was/is second to none. 
You should not stop the development because of 1 black sheep.
I know that it is a different story but i know, that if you would accept paypal donations your work would be honored by so many decent fellowers!
Delete the threads from rawmagic, ban him, stop struggling, make a complaint at the applestore and basta.
It look like this guy is not interested in solving the problem.

Think about the others alex. The good ones!
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Thomas Worth on September 17, 2014, 04:50:38 PM
I've read enough libelous posts here that it's about time someone responded with facts instead of hearsay.

RAWMagic is currently in full GPL compliance. I asked, begged, pleaded with you to release the vertical stripes correction code as LGPL because I wanted to link directly to the code from RAWMagic for performance reasons, but you refused. I therefore had to implement the VS code as a separate binary, which hurts performance but is at least GPL-compliant.

It is a simple matter to read the RAWMagic release notes or inspect the software on a Mac to know this. So, I really don't know what Alex is talking about when he says "ML development is stopped because of this issue." Since RAWMagic is GPL-compliant, I fail to see how this is an issue at all.

Sadly, as a response to my good faith gesture I've been called a thief, ignorant, a liar, greedy, a black sheep and other mean-spirited things. You've also discussed petitioning Apple to remove RAWMagic from the App Store. Come on, guys. How in the world would you justify a nasty, vindictive move like that that to your users?

All I tried to do with RAWMagic was give the community a tool many of its users were asking for. Nobody else seemed interested in meeting these users' needs. Yes, I charge what I think is a fair price for my time. I even asked the forum before adding MLV support if people would be willing to pay for such an app, and the response was YES. So it is your own community that requested a paid piece of software!

Go ahead an delete the RAWMagic thread if you think that's good for the ML community. If you want to ban me, well, I guess that's OK too. I probably won't post here anymore anyway because of the really, really negative energy. :( You indeed do good work, but the negativity and name-calling is really not something I want RAWMagic users exposed to.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: peoplemerge on September 17, 2014, 05:54:57 PM
Also see http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10952689/code-ported-from-one-to-another-language-licensing

I wouldn't even think of it!

So you are going to take for example my postprocessing algorithms (vertical stripes, chroma smoothing, bad pixel fix, dual iso, whatever) and rewrite them in some other language, under a more permissive license, enabling commercial developers to use them without giving anything back.
Will you design those algorithms from scratch? I highly doubt.

Wait.  What?  I thought MLRaw was an open standard, and according to this thread, commercial entities have already done this.  How did they solve these issues?

Isn't one reason you provide a reference implementation is to enable people to create their own implementations?  Yes you don't want people to rip off your work and I get that.

What would you want or not want me to do with regard to these algorithms?  It sounds like you don't want them copied and I respect your wishes.  That seems to mean you want me to write new algorithms.  Anything I come up with I'm happy to contribute back to the reference implementation.

Will I create more algorithms for ML? Why would I do that? To fill the pockets of some third parties?

It's got nothing to do with filling pockets.  I don't believe for a second that Thomas Worth has or will ever have more than a handful of users (no offense).  A million ML downloads?  How many of them unique visitors that are raw video shooters on mac?  If anyone really thinks that they're a big enough user base, someone would have cared enough to provide them satisfactory tools like they have on Windows or Linux.  It's not like they haven't been vocal.  But it's such a small niche I really don't understand the fuss... and I concede the point that even a single 1-penny download is immoral IF it violates agreements.  However people in this community have been very dismissive indeed of their needs, dismissive of Thomas Worth's contribution in providing a UI -- if UIs were trivial, Javascript would not be as hot as it is right now in the job market, and there would be no value in RawMagic.

But forget RawMagic.  My main goal (other than my own selfish desire to write it in a scalable language) is more for the poor guy working at a post processing firm that needs to suddenly deal with ML.  Or a larger entity like Adobe that may want to adopt ML but cannot because of GPL.  Neither of them want to make a small fortune out of ML, it's to support their business processes that currently work fine by not supporting ML.  It wouldn't surprise me to learn Thomas's most active user is himself.

=> you will be sabotaging the ML project, as others have already pointed out.
FYI, ML development is stopped because of this issue.

FYI alternative library development has not started yet.  a1ex, I am asking you, g3ggl, and the community for guidance from you on a potential solution to GPL issues in the context of RawMagic.  I already asked you guys to bury the hatchet with the man but now people are getting dug into their extreme positions and not offering up solutions.  What extreme positions?  Threats to complain to the apple store, threats to remove access to the forum, measures taken.  That's not nice.

I'm sorry to have upset you.  We code because we love it not because we are paid to do it, even if some of us are paid to do it.  I've been coding since I was 4 and I'll be coding 'till the day I die.  If I had to work in another field because there was no money writing code, I would still do it at night.  So make a decision on how you want to proceed and let's get back to doing what we love.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: nikfreak on September 17, 2014, 08:15:48 PM
...
a1ex, I am asking you, g3ggl, and the community for guidance from you on a potential solution to GPL issues in the context of RawMagic.  I already asked you guys to bury the hatchet with the man but now people are getting dug into their extreme positions and not offering up solutions.  What extreme positions?  Threats to complain to the apple store, threats to remove access to the forum, measures taken.  That's not nice.
...

Hmm ofc best solution would be if a1ex and Thomas Worth would find a way to clear things up and solve all issues outside the forum. Dunno but we need to find a way so a1ex may agree to pick up  development again.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: g3gg0 on September 17, 2014, 09:02:22 PM
RAWMagic is currently in full GPL compliance.

we all know that and we dont question that. its not the point.

i love over-specific disclaimers: as you say, it is currently fully GPL compliant.
the older builds were violating GPL, as you admitted in this thread *after* alex
asked you about how you solved vertical stripe corr if not by using GPL code.
after alex asked you to at least support ML and gave you numerous things you could help with,
we just got told how rude we are to not LGPL such simple code and this is making ML raw unacceptable etc..

dont play the poor choirboy now.
alex asked you a few times to at least support ML in some other way after you violated the GPL.
you silently ignored him and never positioned yourself.

and this is the point we are all so upset about.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: N/A on September 19, 2014, 01:31:37 PM
Looking at this topic as somewhat of an outsider since I don't code, I definitely feel the frustration the developers have with someone profiting from their hard work. Canon is an incredibly large company, and with the success of Magic Lantern, we need to be prepared for innumerable amounts of third parties developing support for the ML formats and post-production processes. This is a terrific opportunity to bring ML to the next stage, which imho should be support from mainstream companies and independent developers as we continue to constantly improve this amazing tool we've been blessed with.

I'm not entirely familiar with the stipulations of GPL, open source, creative commons, etc, but I'm all too familiar with having my hard work, ideas and time taken from me without permission, compensation or even a damn "Thank you", so in the future, I propose a mission statement and set of principles for the ML project, as to clarify to third parties what our intentions are and the type of respect and acknowledgement we expect from others.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: LRF on September 19, 2014, 02:02:13 PM
a mission statement and set of principles for the ML project, as to clarify to third parties what our intentions are and the type of respect and acknowledgement we expect from others.

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=13335.0


"Our intention:
To drive forward the Magic Lantern project through open sourced development.  Be that through development of the core code, modules, post processing applications, or any other applications designed to work primarily with the Magic Lantern project.

The only things we ask in return:

    Contribute back to the Magic Lantern project if you make improvements to it.
    Honor our decision that this code is free, and help to establish and support the free nature of Magic Lantern.
    If you use the code, or parts of it and distribute it (or even sell it), you must release this code (per the GPL).
    Don't act against common sense.

What does this mean for developers:
We prefer open sourced development, whether through the use of the code base already available from this project, or entirely on your own.
And of course we tolerate any closed source application as long it doesn't violate GPL terms, even if it is commercial.
But we will definitely take actions against commercial closed source tools that use GPLed code without asking the affected devs before to get an exclusive license.

Compressed view of categories:
a) open source, using our code [preferred]
b) open source, not using our code [preferred]
c) closed source, not using our code [tolerated]
d) closed source, commercial, not using our code [tolerated]
e) closed source, using our code [asked to publish source, ban likely]
f) closed source, commercial, using our code [banned]

What does this mean for end users:
From now on, we discourage everyone from using those applications that have their threads closed.
Using, testing and providing your bug reports for the remaining applications, helps drive forward the Magic Lantern project.
To clarify, only two tools fall into categories e) and f) and will face actions against them, both of them are kind of "better wrappers GUIs".
The professional tools are not affected at all, they know how to behave."
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: N/A on September 20, 2014, 12:33:23 AM
Ohhhhh I missed that thread, thanks!

Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: dyfid on September 20, 2014, 11:32:23 AM
I think the Mission Statement and Principles should have two (maybe three) additional entries:

1. ML Developers should refrain from involvement on threads for any applications until it is ascertained if GPL code is used or not and that in the case of yes it is, the necessary actions take place.

This to me is the issue with arguments about RawMagic and particularly ill feeling about previous releases code infringement. It appears a few expressing their ill feeling and arguing points of historic actions, banning and retribution don't appreciate that RawMagic was introduced to ML forums over twelve months ago and ML developer involvement in that thread started at post #17, first page:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130630095753/http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6218.0 (http://web.archive.org/web/20130630095753/http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6218.0)

ML developer involvement at any level will be seen as encouragement by the application developer and signal acceptance for users to purchase. ML Developer involvement in that RawMagic thread, promoted RawMagic development and promoted sales, luckily it's mac only so....." :-)

The thread was even made a Sticky by forum mods. Then locked, a good move because the History is there to see for users to make up their own minds, then deleted, a pathetic action  which makes users and future users minds up for them.

The lesson has been learnt, you either ACT AT THE TIME and advise the developer, discuss possible GPL infringement, ask for code etc or forever struggle, bitch, harbour ill feeling and gain nothing but learning a lesson, put it down to inexperience and move on. Any move in legal terms would be undermined by the fact ML developers didn't act when they could have and ML developer involvement took place in that thread which will be seen as encouragement. You can thank Thomas for a couple of things, the kick up the ass to tighten up ;-) and the inception of the Mission Statement.

2. Discouraging non cross platform code for open source apps, you know the ones, "I made this app", (even though I ignored perfectly good ones already out there), "it's for" (insert OS of choice) "and just needs this" (insert bullshit runtime environment) "to work".

3. NO JAVA! :-)
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: 5DanielMIII on September 20, 2014, 01:06:24 PM

All I tried to do with RAWMagic was give the community a tool many of its users were asking for. Nobody else seemed interested in meeting these users' needs.
 

So it is your own community that requested a paid piece of software!
 

the negativity and name-calling is really not something I want RAWMagic users exposed to.

Stop it, STOP it STOP IT!!!
So many words, so many reasons and so many seasons! ( a little poem for you all right there, 100% free and without a license)
The following lines may not always be formulated in a very serious manner, but the content is.

Anyways, @Thomas Worth you really should stop hiding behind other people like you are some kind of software-robot, without the ability to control yourself and your actions.


You kind of keep saying that :

"I had to do something because nobody else made a move towards making a program for MLV/RAW files,  the world forced me into this..those evil magic lantern users..so many people overwhelmed me with a MLV/RAW program request, I never had any options..I can not choose for my self..I am just a human that obey greedy little ML users that knows better than me, they have money, so ..right?
Blame them, not me, I am a robot doing all the things I get told!!!
Com on dev´s, look at your children (I am referring to a lot of Magic Lantern users acting as children sometimes, including my self;-) We can not NOT obey them, they may became sad and wimp."

Ok, so if I have crossed the line, been to silly, or if I have misunderstood all the discussions going on, feel free to tell me and I will apologize.
We all make choices in life as sexy humans , and it is frustrating talking to someone who thinks others should be responsible for all the stuff we do.
I can always choose not to do something! (my Norwegian superpower)

Thanks for ML and all the work/projects/clients and adventures it has given me!
It has been so much fun, and still is :)


yeah, just felt like writing this today
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: lintoni on September 20, 2014, 01:32:15 PM

2. Discouraging non cross platform code for open source apps, you know the ones, "I made this app", (even though I ignored perfectly good ones already out there), "it's for" (insert OS of choice) "and just needs this" (insert bullshit runtime environment) "to work".

Somebody may have a bright idea for a useful app and have the knowledge to implement it on one platform.  If it's good enough, then the idea will be picked up and ported to other platforms.  If not, it will fall by the wayside.  There's no need to unnecessarily stifle creativity.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Audionut on September 20, 2014, 01:33:39 PM
@dyfid

The thread hasn't been deleted.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: dyfid on September 20, 2014, 01:46:03 PM
@dyfid

The thread hasn't been deleted.

My apologies, I was sure it was stickied, couldn't see it, thought the worst.

Somebody may have a bright idea for a useful app and have the knowledge to implement it on one platform.  If it's good enough, then the idea will be picked up and ported to other platforms.  If not, it will fall by the wayside.  There's no need to unnecessarily stifle creativity.

It's not that hard to write for cross platform, especially a small targeted app for a certain task. Unless there's some specific specialised support required in the OS. Nothing to do with stifling creativity.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: a1ex on September 20, 2014, 01:47:19 PM
@dyfid:

The first post from a ML developer in the RawMagic thread was asking for the source code: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6218.msg46925#msg46925

I've repeated the request right after Thomas asked the users what they think about a paid app (before he released the paid version): http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6218.msg109216;topicseen#msg109216

Should I have bumped that message a little more often?
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: dyfid on September 20, 2014, 02:28:49 PM
So scraxx was the first developer to respond on the thread:

Quote
Good job, can you share sources?

That could be interpreted in many ways. Including wishing to help in development, which would be first on users minds when reading scraxx request, not that scraxx wanted to check for GPL'd code.

What should have happened was establishing GPL compliance, direct question and advising why there was a request for code, if that was the meaning of scraxx's request. Who knows and that's the point no solid response.

Followed by:
Quote
Is it downloadable somewhere? Am I missing something?

Again, open to interpretation. No direct question regarding GPL or advise on GPL infringement.

At this point Thomas hadn't released the app, that came a few posts later, so scraxx request for a download was / would have been assumed by users on that thread, for the app, not the code.

Then Thomas asks:
Quote
Thanks. I'll have a look at the updated source. Can someone tell me what exactly the problem was?

And ML Developer help comes his way #17:
Quote
Here (see comments):

https://bitbucket.org/hudson/magic-lantern/src/tip/modules/lv_rec/raw2dng.c#cl-130

Pointing him to the very GPL code in contention, active developer involvement.

Thomas reply later that day:

Quote
Fixes coming today:

+ 5D Mk II footage now looks right
+ Vertical line problem should be solved (thanks Alex), requires more testing
+ Cancel button

If anyone is experiencing any other issues, let me know ASAP!

There it is. GPL code used in his application, on day one over twelve months ago and no discussion of GPL infringement. The question then is was Thomas aware he was infringing GPL, no one had made him aware of it in fact they help him use it!

So having ill feeling now for no historic code release is something to get over and move on.

This just reinforces the points I made earlier, active ML Developer involvement pushing Rawmagic development onwards without a mention of risks of GPL infringement or straight to the point ultimatum.

ML Developer encouragement continues: #37, same day.

Quote
If you find any situation where the vertical banding is not solved, just upload the first DNG from the video.

At the same time as weakly asking for sources with no reason or advice, active developer involvement with pointing to code and making encouraging remarks, undermines half baked request for code.

And on and on.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: a1ex on September 20, 2014, 02:42:49 PM
As g3gg0 explained earlier:

Quote
i was like "cmon, those are honorable guys. why so strict" but i guess i was wrong.

A request for sharing the sources, from a ML developer,  in the very first page of the thread, should have been sufficient in my opinion. And my repeating the request before going commercial was very clear.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Audionut on September 20, 2014, 03:22:39 PM
My apologies, I was sure it was stickied, couldn't see it, thought the worst.

Perhaps in the future, you will place more thought into your pathetic observational skills, before making such statements.

then deleted, a pathetic action  which makes users and future users minds up for them

 ;)



You're drawing at straws to justify the actions of a singular person (a developer, not a user), who at any time, if he was indeed misinterpreting the request for source code, could have asked a question, "why"!

Ignorance is bliss.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: dyfid on September 20, 2014, 05:19:56 PM
Perhaps in the future, you will place more thought into your pathetic observational skills, before making such statements.

 ;)



ouch. :-[

Quote
You're drawing at straws to justify the actions of a singular person (a developer, not a user), who at any time, if he was indeed misinterpreting the request for source code, could have asked a question, "why"!

Ignorance is bliss.

I'm not making judgements, I'm not clutching at straws to try and make a point, its quite simple, I'm saying it's very rare that things are solely the blame of one party, very rarely are things black and white, right and wrong.

What I see here is that there was the chance to nip it in the bud, a robust non abusive, respectful assertion of the facts of GPL on that day in June last year and developers know now that they had the chance, but unfortunately due to inexperience in dealing with such things, as we all learn in life, missed the chance.

The problem with that is ill feeling grows because the individual knows the chance was missed, as a defence they blame the other party, in this case Thomas, like you suggest:

Quote
who at any time, if he was indeed misinterpreting the request for source code, could have asked a question, "why"!

Placing blame solely on Thomas would be naive, it was actions or inactions of all parties that contributed to the mess.

As g3gg0 explained earlier:

A request for sharing the sources, from a ML developer,  in the very first page of the thread, should have been sufficient in my opinion.

That's not really sufficient is it, would you stand up in a court of law in defence of the GPL and think that would have any weight behind it?

I think the lesson to learn is one either acts robustly at the time, make it clear where they take issue or forever try to turn back time blaming one party and trying to claw back some control of the situation. A life lesson that will happen to us all more than once.

Quote
Ignorance is bliss
Yes, and procession is 9/10ths the law and all those other platitudes, fact is if we let people get away with something without being robust at the time, we have nothing.

The answer is not to give them the chance to plead ignorance.

Quote
And my repeating the request before going commercial was very clear.

But where was the advice given regarding GPL infringement in the sequence of events? He's a commercial application developer , do they often provide source code?

I understand your point of view and I'm not wishing to make judgements on whats gone on, just feel some pragmatism is needed and acceptance to learn lessons and move on, not literally of coarse. :-)
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Sc0Bee on September 20, 2014, 07:44:42 PM
But where was the advice given regarding GPL infringement in the sequence of events? He's a commercial application developer , do they often provide source code?

What you should be asking is "How is it that a commercial application developer is unaware of the terms of the GPL?" and "Why would a commercial application developer need advice regarding GPL infringement?"

BTW, there's no requirement (in the US anyway) for the devs of ML to ask questions, advise, or to otherwise take preventative measures against infringement in order to have a valid legal claim against an infringer, as you seem to suggest.  Further, it's entirely appropriate for the devs to seek remedy once the infringement has been established.  IMO, Worth got off pretty lightly, given his initial evasiveness and subsequent whining about ML devs not releasing the code in question under LGPL.

Bottom line is that Worth, as a commercial developer, should have know better than to use GPL code in a commercial product without complying with the GPL terms.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: 1% on September 20, 2014, 08:09:50 PM
Its funny because he could have released the source code freely and I bet 90% of his user base would not compile it. Just had to ask that nobody else post binaries.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: g3gg0 on September 20, 2014, 08:58:08 PM
some people seem mixing things up.
we are not starting a lawsuit against someone.

we are saying: "go away"
and to say this we wouldn't need any reason by the way - it is our domestic authority.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Sc0Bee on September 20, 2014, 09:53:07 PM
Its funny because he could have released the source code freely and I bet 90% of his user base would not compile it. Just had to ask that nobody else post binaries.

That occurred to me as well.  Plus, he would have earned quite a bit of goodwill from...well, everyone.

some people seem mixing things up.
we are not starting a lawsuit against someone.

Wait...are you saying you don't have the inclination to pursue a costly, time-consuming lawsuit?  Say it ain't so!

 ;D
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Audionut on September 21, 2014, 01:49:33 AM
@dyfid

https://bitbucket.org/hudson/magic-lantern/src/e12ad3d84e7bc5b61e27c9e9e5a7c0423b39598c/modules/lv_rec/raw2dng.c?at=unified

See the opening 19 lines of that source code, that is license agreement (GPL) under which that code is released. 

What is sufficient, or not sufficient enough in a court of law is of no relevance.  What a "user" understands about the terms of the licensing agreement is also of no relevance.  When scraxx asked for source code in the first page of that thread, he was not trying to provide clarity for the "users", if you don't understand that, that is also of no relevance.
At the time, it was reasonable to assume that Thomas Worth was acting in good faith, so a "simple" request for source code was sufficient.

Since that time, there have obviously been numerous "clear" requests for the source code, as per the terms of the GPL.  Thomas Worth himself has clearly stated that he used our code, and still to this day, has not respected the terms of the GPL.  And yet you appear to be of the opinion that we could have acted in a manner that would have resolved a useful outcome.  Using hindsight no less.  Hindsight is such a wonderful thing.

Thomas Worth has demonstrated since that very first request for source code, that he has no real interest in respecting the terms with which we released our work.  And no, we won't become overly critical of others in the future, based on the actions of one developer, just so we can make ourselves "clear" on where we stand, for yourself, or other "users".  A simple request for source code is respectable, and within the bounds of common sense.  This isn't a court of law, it is an open source development community!

The only things we ask in return:
  • Contribute back to the Magic Lantern project if you make improvements to it.
  • Honor our decision that this code is free, and help to establish and support the free nature of Magic Lantern.
  • If you use the code, or parts of it and distribute it (or even sell it), you must release this code (per the GPL).
  • Don't act against common sense.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: dyfid on September 21, 2014, 09:20:02 AM
A more robust response to Thomas, day one, informing him of GPL infringement would have sent clear signal to all on that thread, prospective purchasers as well, that the GPL licence were being abused.

It doesn't matter whether the GPL license requires a developer to do that or not, it's common sense and removes the chance of pleading ignorance or allowing someone to get away with the infringement quietly without it being public, there's absolutely no reason why a more robust response could not have been made. Clearly setting out GPL infringement.

It can not be excepted for all users on that thread to understand the GPL license, understand why sources we're being requested without making it clear as to why they were being requested and understand how RawMagic infringed GPL, which may have reduced purchases of Rawmagic which also seems to be a bone of contention and no doubt brought the matter to a close far earlier instead of now twelve months on harbouring ill feeling that multiple versions of RawMagic were released with GPL infringement.

ML Developer involvement in that thread aside from requesting sources sent out the wrong signals to ordinary users and Thomas alike. Acceptance of RawMagic by ML Developers by providing help and involvement instead of a brisk robust handling gave Thomas breathing space to continue the infringement and doubt left as to just what action, if any might be taken.

It is surely also the responsibility for the software developers who are having their code infringed upon to assert their position in no uncertain terms as soon as they are aware of an infringement and take robust action, whether that is banning, locking or legal proceedings, not leave it for months / year festering. Rather than hiding behind the terms of the GPL license for months without actually reinforcing them as developers who are having their GPL code violated.

All with the benefit of hindsight, which was my point, there is more that could have been done earlier which wasn't and I say that not as a judgement on any one but to suggest more than one parties inactions prolonged the infringement and have led to where things stand now.

So back to my initial post and this my final, bemoaning Thomas now twelve months on, asking for historic source code and all the other ill feeling is in part a result of in action by ML Developers early on when it could have been nipped in the bud, not one person is solely responsible for the situation now.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: chmee on September 21, 2014, 10:24:20 AM
@dyfid you cant use naivity as an argument. TW coded some more than this tool. shouldnt there be a first view about copyrights/lefts if using other code and/or ideas? BUT, the point is, after telling about gpl-infringements, nothing happend to solve the situation. you said, its not black/white. but dont mislead, first hints by mods/coders had no validity - AND if someone writes commercial tools, (s)he should know at least a little bit about copyright.

my personal view: TW never was interested talking with the community about coding, just having a bug-collector-thread on ml. he never recommended other tools, because its about money. money. money. 500 sells? 500*30 = 15.000 Bucks minus 30% (i dont know).. i am no dialog-partner for him, he often states, that he respects a1ex work - no mention of other coders.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: g3gg0 on September 21, 2014, 10:40:16 AM
A more robust response to Thomas, day one, informing him of GPL infringement would have sent clear signal to all on that thread, prospective purchasers as well, that the GPL licence were being abused.
please from alex: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6218.msg109216;topicseen#msg109216
hint from alex: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6218.msg115206#msg115206
strong word from alex: http://magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=11879.msg115399#msg115399
http://magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=11879.msg115426#msg115426
http://magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=11879.msg115547#msg115547
etc.

come on, do you want us to send him letters cut out of newspapers or kneat him the GPL and our requests in play dough?
this is ridiculous. i guess we, especially alex, asked and requested more than often enough.

he never went into the discussion with the goal to solve this issue.
the only thing he relied on, was us relicensing it with a more liberal license than GPL so he doesnt have to do anything.
did i ever see a sorry? some kind of confession? anything that helps forward in the discussion?
well, anything except asking us to stop relying on our license and doing him that favor after he violated GPL?

oh by the way, then let me start an experiment.
i buy that tool and spread it for free on the in this forum, violating his license.
as soon he asks me to stop this illegal stuff, i will go into this discussion by demanding it to be public domain.
i cant do that? i'll get into a lawsuit? oh, i am criminal then?
weird situation, eh?


but first: please explain why you think you know the situation better than the ML and RM dev(s)?
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Sc0Bee on September 21, 2014, 03:16:14 PM
It can not be excepted for all users on that thread to understand the GPL license, understand why sources we're being requested without making it clear as to why they were being requested and understand how RawMagic infringed GPL...

IMO you greatly underestimate the understanding of the GPL by this forum's users.

It is surely also the responsibility for the software developers who are having their code infringed upon to assert their position in no uncertain terms as soon as they are aware of an infringement and take robust action, whether that is banning, locking or legal proceedings, not leave it for months / year festering.

How is it you know exactly when the ML devs became aware of TW's infringement?  How is it you know when they first made it clear to TW that he was in violation of the GPL?  Are you assuming that all communication between the parties took place on threads in the open forum?  You are aware that this forum supports private messaging, are you not?

Rather than hiding behind the terms of the GPL license for months without actually reinforcing them as developers who are having their GPL code violated.

 :o  Wow.  That's a ah...astonishing statement.  Hiding behind GPL?  Seriously?

...there is more that could have been done earlier which wasn't...

So I guess if the current state of affairs could have been arrived at earlier, you would be happy.  I think I see where you're coming from now!   ::)
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Phil Rhodes on September 25, 2014, 05:14:24 PM
Good grief, is this thread still running?

Let's just examine what happened here. You had a developer stop by to ask if you'd be willing to relicense a trivially small amount of code as a library to allow various applications to maintain compatibility, which helps everyone. You said no, which is of course your right. Probably the wrong thing to do, in my view, but OK.

By the end of the thread people were shouting about lawsuits and GPL violations, even though that's been specifically denied by the developer concerned and there's no reason to believe it's taken place.

This is why people get impatient with the open source movement. It's like dealing with a bunch of schoolchildren.

P
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: 1% on September 25, 2014, 07:31:16 PM
He wanted his cake and to eat it too. It would only help his paid app, not anyone else. If he wanted to help he could have written hot pixel/banding code that works for more than 5DIII and then released that as a library or hell even in the paid app.

Quote
This is why people get impatient with the open source movement. It's like dealing with a bunch of schoolchildren.

This is why developers get pissed at profiteers who take someone else's code/ideas and then try sell them for themselves, in many cases adding nothing to the original and then getting pissy at the original creators. Its kinda endemic on android: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-02-14-ripping-off-flappy-bird-the-murky-world-of-app-cloning
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Sc0Bee on September 25, 2014, 07:38:07 PM
Good grief, is this thread still running?

I guess it is now!   :) 

Your spin on "whats happened here" conveniently absolves Worth of any of his responsibilities.  Worth could have done any number of things to bring his software into compliance, including writing his own code for the functionality (since, you know, it's so trivial.)

You also completely mischaracterize some things.  First, Worth basically admitted to using ML code in previous versions of his proprietary, commercial software.  Second, I see little "shouting" by anyone in this thread - certainly not by ML devs.  If anyone is getting bent out of shape here, it seems to me it's Worth's users.  Would it be childish of me to assume you're one of them?    ::)

Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Stedda on September 25, 2014, 07:47:17 PM
Gee I wonder why the slanted view... Phil Rhodes says
Quote
First a disclaimer: I'm an acquaintance of Thomas's
and every post on this site is in defense of him even to the point of defending what Thomas himself has already admitted to. Such devotion...

After 4 days of no one commenting you just couldn't resist to bring it back to life and then act surprised it's still going.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Phil Rhodes on September 25, 2014, 07:53:38 PM
Sorry - what's he admitted to doing, now?

P
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Sc0Bee on September 25, 2014, 08:28:22 PM
Since you're an acquaintance of Worth, why don't you ask him directly?  Something like "Hey Tom, were any of your RAWMagic versions ever released with GPL code in violation of the GPL?"

That way, you won't have to engage with a bunch of open-source schoolchildren in a never-ending thread.  It'll be a win-win for everyone.
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: LRF on September 25, 2014, 08:34:25 PM
Discussing GPL nuances with Mr. Rhodes seems to be rather... fatuous:

"GPL is all about showing off how clever you've been then spitefully forcing people to re-invent said circular rotary object unless they're capable of living on fresh air and sleeping in a cardboard box. Which is so fatuous it makes me weep."

Post #2:
http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?p=2145159#post2145159

Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Phil Rhodes on September 26, 2014, 01:11:31 AM
Because I very strongly suspect I know what the answer to the question is.

What I'm trying to do here, which seems to have gone flying over everyone's heads, is to emphasise that nobody, as far as we're aware, is actually doing anything wrong.

My opinion of GPL is pretty poor exactly because of this sort of thing. You've got a bit of code you've forced someone to package up in an external executable so as to fulfil some arbitrary set of rules. All GPL is doing in this situation is making software work less well. Very clever, guys, keep it up. It's a stupid set of rules. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't help anyone. But I still wouldn't necessarily encourage anyone to infringe a license and as far as I can tell nobody has. You may not like what's being done, but that's not anyone's problem but yours.

I reiterate. What's he admitted to doing? Where?

P
Title: Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
Post by: Audionut on September 26, 2014, 01:31:22 AM
GPL violations, even though that's been specifically denied by the developer concerned and there's no reason to believe it's taken place.

Really?  Lets explore that shall we.


RAWMagic does not contain any GPL code. This is a misconception.

It relies on my GPL code to do its basic functionality. You may have found an workaround that bypasses the GPL (like using two separate binaries), but you are still profiting from my code without permission.

If one converts RAW or MLV files with RAWMagic that don't suffer from the vertical stripes issue, no GPL code is employed whatsoever (external binary or otherwise) since vertical stripes correction isn't needed. So no, basic functionaity does not rely on GPL code. I assume that's the code you are referring to.

If it were true, you would have little or no reason to rely on the GPL code, right?

Only for vertical stripes correction, and only to stay consistent with other ML tools. So, only four GPL functions which are related to stripes correction.


We may be childish, but at least we have developed basic skills such as reading.   ::)


What I'm trying to do here, which seems to have gone flying over everyone's heads, is to emphasise that nobody, as far as we're aware, is actually doing anything wrong.

GPL issues aside, the manner in which Thomas has acted regarding this issue (explained by g3gg0, numerous times), is not anywhere within the bounds of what Magic Lantern considers appropriate.

You may disagree with this statement, and that is fine.  The door is over there, you won't be missed.



This issue was discussed by the parties involved for some time, and no resolution was found.
Rehashing already discussed topics to simply share your opinion, is not conductive to useful discussion.  Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.'


Since this thread is going around in circles, it is now locked.  If you would like to have a conversation that helps all parties involved, or any other useful information regarding GPL, please feel free to PM me and I will reopen it.