Author Topic: GPL issues with ML post processing software  (Read 74003 times)

Sc0Bee

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #150 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
Canon 500D, 7D | Lightroom 5 | Photoshop CS5 | Premiere Pro CS4 | After Effects CS4

Audionut

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3584
  • Blunt and to the point
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #151 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.

dyfid

  • Freshman
  • **
  • Posts: 69
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #152 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.

chmee

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1031
  • raw2cdng
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #153 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.

g3gg0

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3154
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #154 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)?
Help us with datasheets - Help us with register dumps
magic lantern: 1Magic9991E1eWbGvrsx186GovYCXFbppY, server expenses: paypal@g3gg0.de
ONLY donate for things we have done, not for things you expect!

Sc0Bee

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #155 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!   ::)
Canon 500D, 7D | Lightroom 5 | Photoshop CS5 | Premiere Pro CS4 | After Effects CS4

Phil Rhodes

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #156 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

1%

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5936
  • 600D/6D/50D/EOSM/7D
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #157 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

Sc0Bee

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #158 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?    ::)

Canon 500D, 7D | Lightroom 5 | Photoshop CS5 | Premiere Pro CS4 | After Effects CS4

Stedda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 504
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #159 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.
5D Mark III -- 7D   SOLD -- EOS M 22mm 18-55mm STM -- Fuji X-T1 18-55 F2.8-F4 & 35 F1.4
Canon Glass   100L F2.8 IS -- 70-200L F4 -- 135L F2 -- 85 F1.8 -- 17-40L --  40 F2.8 -- 35 F2 IS  Sigma Glass  120-300 F2.8 OS -- 50 F1.4 -- 85 F1.4  Tamron Glass   24-70 2.8 VC   600EX-RT X3

Phil Rhodes

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #160 on: September 25, 2014, 07:53:38 PM »
Sorry - what's he admitted to doing, now?

P

Sc0Bee

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #161 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.
Canon 500D, 7D | Lightroom 5 | Photoshop CS5 | Premiere Pro CS4 | After Effects CS4

LRF

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 34
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #162 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


Phil Rhodes

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #163 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

Audionut

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3584
  • Blunt and to the point
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #164 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.