GPL issues with ML post processing software

[Audionut]

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!

[g3gg0]

@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?

[peoplemerge]

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.

[peoplemerge]

@Audionut - you make some good points.  I gotta run but I'll think about what you have to say.

[dmilligan]

http://readwrite.com/2011/01/09/as_vlc_for_iphone_ipad_pulled_from_app_store_whats

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/

[1%]

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.

[Midphase]

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).

[g3gg0]

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.

[surami]

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!

[nikfreak]

...
I will do these changes myself after the GPL issues from the forum will be fixed.

 The GPL issues make me feel

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

did someone already fill out this form?

[kichetof]

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!

[LRF]

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?!

[Audionut]

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. 

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.

[peoplemerge]

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.

[dmilligan]

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 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

[peoplemerge]

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.

[peoplemerge]

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

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 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.

[g3gg0]

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?

[Midphase]

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.   

[g3gg0]

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

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.

[peoplemerge]

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

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.

[a1ex]

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.

[peoplemerge]

@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.

[a1ex]

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.

[vertigopix]

=> 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' !