Sigma Designs Accused of Copyright Infringement

Cygnus v1 writes "The XVID team has ceased development of the XVID video codec for the time being because they say that Sigma Designs' REALmagic MPEG-4 Video Codec software includes their code and has claimed it as Sigma Designs' own work. The current XVID homepage includes some binary-level comparisons." Update: 08/23 03:14 GMT by T : Apparently the folks at Sigma have seen that no good is likely to come from this; an anonymous reader submits a link to this release on Yahoo! which says "complete source code will be available for download starting August 23, free of charge, through Sigma's website."

Comments

Why stop coding?

[DigitalCH]

Why did they stop coding though? So what someone is stealing your stuff... Sue them.. ignore them... but don't stop...

Re:Why stop coding?

[ethereal]

The only reason that I could think of would be if they thought Sigma was dependent enough on their code that stopping coding would leave Sigma high and dry. But that's a pretty roundabout way to get back at somebody. I'm going to guess that there are other legal machinations going on right now that they haven't mentioned that contributed to the decision to stop (publicly) coding at the moment.

If these guys are real hackers, they have their own private copy that they're still working on. Whenever this is resolved, expect a huge jump in Xvid functionality :)

Re:Why stop coding?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

...When there are enough KIDS on /. to hack 'em off the planet?

Re:Why stop coding?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say it's equally likely to expect Xvid to tank completely. This is the bane of open sorce. Companies and coders come and go by the dozens weekly. Was that something you were using? Well it's gone now. (Or you can take over all 250,000 lines of code and all 5000 bugs yourself, horray!)

Re:Why stop coding?

[mcfiddish]

So what someone is stealing your stuff.

Then why bother putting your code under any kind of license at all?

The XVID guys used the GPL for a reason, and they should expect others to abide by it.

Re:Why stop coding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, so someone doesn't have a free lunch off your code? These folks released the code under the GPL, not BSD, license. If code was taken, it should be called on.

Ignoring them won't help (not sure why you suggested that--if MS used GPL code, say, the kernal, instead of developing their own idea, you'd say ignore them?). You mention sue them--sorry, but copyright infringment usually falls into civil, not criminal (there are exceptions, e.g. DMCA, the other one Ashcroft is using that Clinton signed into law in '97) court. Civil court cases are darn expensive. And if you lose, you're liable for the other parties legal bill.

btw, project development stopped; that's not necessarily all coding.

It's probably the best solution for them.

Re:Why stop coding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Separating religion from state has the consequence of a MUCH better country. Look at those shitholes in the middle east and then compare them to real countries that allow freedom of religion (USA, England, Australia, France, etc). I'd kill myself before I moved to the middle east, but I'd gladly move to other real countries.

Re:Why stop coding?

[fixxx]

Because it`s their only weapon, they do not have the resources to sue a big corp.
The only way to pressure them is to (hopefully temporary) stop development of xvid. By ignoring & continueing development you would give them a free ride.
"Hey now we can use GPL source from other projects too, they don`t sue anyway ! And those code monkeys keep improving it for free ;p "

Re:Why stop coding?

[Eccles]

Then why bother putting your code under any kind of license at all?

At one point, I thought this was a bit of a weakness in the GPL. After all, if you're giving the code away, you can't be economically damaged by having someone copy it. But you can. You could be coding to support another product, and the code thief might be a competitor. You can also gain reputation from GPL code. And just because you released it GPL, doesn't mean you can't re-release your stuff under another license.

So yeah, XVID should be able to get a lawyer to subpeona records from Sigma, and collect damages.

Re:Why stop coding?

[klparrot]

I'm not sure why they stopped coding, but I can understand (possibly) why they stopped distributing the codec. If you look at the project website, you'll see that they advise you to contact Sigma Designs, who will be legally required to give you a copy. This puts more pressure on Sigma Designs, and if they refuse to give out copies of the codec, it provides the XVID team even more ammunition to use against Sigma Designs in a lawsuit.

Re:Why stop coding?

[nutshell42]

But wouldn't be the FSF the first in line to sue Sigma to defend the credibility and enforceability of the GPL?

Re:Why stop coding?

[ethereal]

But it's not just my right, right? How about your right to not be stuck supporting a religion that you disagree with? Just because you agree with the current state-sponsored religion doesn't mean that you always will, nor are there any guarantees that such a religion won't morph into something you find objectionable in the future. Unless you uncategorically accept as your God the gods of anyone who might end up in power, you should be concerned right along with me. Being offended is the least of my worries, really (and I don't necessarily agree that I even have a right "not to be offended" - that concept seems to have caused more harm than good in the last 20 years of jurisprudence). Supporting someone else's genocidal or psychotic idea of a Higher Being is much closer to the top of my worrying list.

Frankly, if the U.S. appeared to be less over-the-top fundamentalist Christian in our dealings with the world, and just based our foreign policy on secular concerns like more enlightened nations do, we would probably be better respected throughout the world. I imagine we would decrease our exposure to Islamic fundamentalism if it were less clear to the world that the U.S. is a bastion of Protestant Christian fundamentalism.

Sure, there's going to be some USA hatred one way or the other, based on other issues like power and money. But it's one less argument against us if our President George "Cowboy" Bush doesn't go around calling things a crusade. We don't have to make it any easier for religious leaders of the Middle East to incite hatred of U.S. citizens. Heck, they don't have state-sponsored religious schools in Pakistan, unlike in the USA.

Re:Why stop coding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you uncategorically accept as your God the gods of anyone who might end up in power, you should be concerned right along with me

I do. Allah is all-knowing. It is not for us to speculate as to His motives, but if someone is in power it is by the grace of Allah, and if someone is not in power that too is by the will of Allah.

Re:Why stop coding?

[Sancho]

Ignoring them won't help (not sure why you suggested that--if MS used GPL code, say, the kernal, instead of developing their own idea, you'd say ignore them?).

Actually, I would say yes. They have way too much money to try to sue them. It's a lost cause for just about anyone unless their lawyer is willing to work pro bono.

You mention sue them--sorry, but copyright infringment usually falls into civil, not criminal (there are exceptions, e.g. DMCA, the other one Ashcroft is using that Clinton signed into law in '97) court. Civil court cases are darn expensive. And if you lose, you're liable for the other parties legal bill.

Not in the US. In fact, nearly every statement you made doesn't apply to the US. Filing criminal charges falls into criminal. Filing a lawsuit almost always falls into civil. Also, in the US you are not, by default, liable for the other parties legal fees. This is one of the problems some people have with the system here. Civil court cases are indeed expensive, but if the loser was required to pay the winner's legal fees, you'd see a lot more lawyers willing to work on a loan, particularly when they're sure they can win given enough time.

Re:Why stop coding?

[Chad Page]

The XVID team left the last stable, trusted, and last snapshot up on their site for everyone to get. So it's quite possible someone will pick up the work, but remember coding video codecs is not easy.

Re:Why stop coding?

[Znork]

Willful copyright infringement for commercial advantage or private financial gain is always criminal infringment, punishable by up to five years inprisonment if the retail value is no less than $2500.

License violations may fall into civil court, since they may or may not be actual copyright violations. Copyright violations for profit fall into criminal court.

Re:Why stop coding?

[fishbowl]

"After all, if you're giving the code away, you can't be economically damaged by having someone copy it. "

I am not convinced that the $0 price tag even has
to be admitted into the case.

This is a copyright violation. The unit price of
the product is irrelevant.

If the XVID software were something else, say a film
that was not yet ready for distribution. XVID hasn't
sold it to anyone yet, and they haven't even decided
whether they intend to sell it at all. Sigma takes
that film and starts screening it at theatres.

Is it relevant that XVID never sold, or never intended
to sell that film, or that they meant to broadcast it
for free? In terms of copyright infringement, it
is not at all relevant.

If I were the plaintiff in this case, I would try
to ensure that the fact that my product was distributed
for no charge was not even presented to the jury,
because it is irrelevant and because it is easily
misconstrued and distracts from the matter being judged.

The only thing that needs to be judged is whether
copyright is infringed. Before that judgement can
be made, it must be decided that Sigma was subject
to the GPL, and to US copyright law, and that they
have violated this license, or, if the license is
not valid for Sigma, that they have violated US copyright
law.

It is not clear to me at all that this German corporation
is subject to US law to any degree.

Re:Why stop coding?

[LinuxGeek]

Why stop releasing new code? Did you think about this question before asking?

Sigma Boss: We got a letter from some Xvid guy that says we are using their code; are we?

Sigma coder: Uhh, no. Hell no! I am the genius behind our priducts.

Sigma Boss: Those damn freeloaders, well, make them happy and do what we can to shut them up.

Sigma coder: Secretly recompile with loop unrooling and restructure project files.

Xvid group then stops publishing codec updates. ...Time passes...

Sigma Boss: Those Xvid guys stopped complaining, good work. Now about those product updates, when will the B-frame updates be finished?

Sigma coder: Well, that is taking a lot more time than we originally scheduled, but should be ready Real Soon Now.

Sigma coder: Busily prepares his resume.

The real point is that Sigma will have to put-up or shut-up. Sigma Designs is a publicly traded company that will have to answer to shareholders and courts if they have been stealing code. This move will expose the truth about what really went on fairly quickly.

Re:Why stop coding?

[innocent_white_lamb]

they advise you to contact Sigma Designs, who will be legally required to give you a copy

But they aren't legally required to give you a copy. They are required to give you the source code and the right to re-sell or give it away if you got the product from them. If you didn't get the product from them they are under no obligation to provide it to you.

If you're working on a GPL project you don't have to give the source code to all and sundry (though that is indeed the common practice). You just have to give it to those who have obtained the binary from you.

Re:Why stop coding?

[Stephen Samuel]

After all, if you're giving the code away, you can't be economically damaged by having someone copy it.

This is a mistake often made by people who grow up in our society. We all to often mistake priceless for valueless.
The two words are not the same.

Re:Why stop coding?

[Stephen Samuel]

I am not convinced that the $0 price tag even has to be admitted into the case.

I was originally of the opinion that ot would be pretty hard not to mention the $0 price tag, but it turns out that you really don't have to mention the GPL.

All you have to do is accuse them of violating copyright for your source code. You can easily prove that they have access to it, and they seem to have done the analysis to show, with reasonable certainty, that the object code is probably based on the same source.

For someone who was following the spirit (if not the letter) of the GPL, the normal defence would have been that the GPL gave them The right to make those copies. Since Sigma is refusing to release the source code, they can't use the GPL as a defence. (If the GPL doesn't apply, this becomes a simple copyright violation case.)

As a simple copyright case, the questions would be:

• Did the defendants distribute copies of the code in question?
• Did the defendants refuse distribute true copies of the source code in question?
• Did the defendants have permission to distribute the code in question (a simple assertion to the negative would be sufficient -- they would have to produce prove (or at least raise a reasonable question) that they did have permission).

I don't think that lack of price is an issue. There are many things that are distributed to the public free of charge. Radio is without cost. So are television and the many weeklies distributed on street corners The Georgia Straight that I pick up on Vancouver's streets have copyright (syndicated, even!) articles in them. If I was to plagiarise and resell them, I'd be up sh*t creek. FUD about OSers being anarchists aside -- GPL code should not be judged on a different basis.

Re:Why stop coding?

[flonker]

License violations may fall into civil court, since they may or may not be actual copyright violations.

Ah, but they're distributing it without license to distribute it. That definitely is a copyright violation.

Copyright law gives you certain rights with respect to computer software. The GPL gives you additional rights. If you don't agree to the GPL, you can still use the code, without a license, but you don't gain any of the additional rights the GPL grants you.

Re:Why stop coding?

[dossen]

What would the FSF sue Sigma for? It is not their code that has been infringeded upon (AFAIK).
The FSF might assist, but they can't just sue anybody for copyright violation (which is what a GPL violation is - unless the violator acknowledges the GPL, and then it would be contract violation, and still not the FSFs business). Sueing or not is an option for the owner of the copyright, in this case the XVID team.

Re:Why stop coding?

[ethereal]

Riiiiight.

So why is there so much fighting in the West Bank? Isn't the Zionist occupation the Will of Allah? Shouldn't the upright man submit to the Will of Allah, and cease resistance immediately?

I think you're very carefully picking and choosing what your god is saying in order to justify your own beliefs and actions. Which is normal; millions of people do this every day. But I don't want to live in a society where I have to justify everything I do to someone else's god.

Re:Why stop coding?

[ajcpi]

Actually, I think the courts have ruled that using software inherently involves copying it, e.g. from disk to memory. Therefore, without the license you can not use it at all. The GPL gives you the right to use software (without conditions attached) as well as the right to distribute it under certain conditions.

Re:Why stop coding?

[flonker]

It was rather difficult finding this. Everything I found was either not specifically relevant, or conflicting. This reference seems to be the most clear description.

Basically, it says that only the owner of the program is allowed to make a temporary copy, but a licensor is not. link. Google's PDF to HTML of the link

And, a link on software copyright that I thought was interesting, but doesn't specifically relate to anything. link

There are lots of evil things out there...

[Anonymous Coward]

But, geez, this really tops the list. Talk about adding insult to injury.

press release text

[Anonymous Coward]

XVID TEAM REQUESTS SIGMA DESIGNS' TO HALT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

ERLANGEN, GERMANY -- August 22nd, 2002 -- The XVID development team, author of the popular XVID MPEG-4 video codec, claims that Sigma Designs' REALmagic MPEG-4 Video Codec is an illegal copy of the XVID software and publicly requests the company to stop violating their software license and copyrights.

XVID is a leading open source MPEG-4 video research project: software distributed by XVID is covered by a Free Software license, the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL). The XVID team announced that Sigma Designs' REALmagic MPEG-4 Video Codec includes wide portions of XVIDcodec software. By not offering a corresponding source code distribution and by claiming sole authorship on the product, Sigma Designs' Inc. is violating the GNU General Public License and the copyrights of the XVID authors.

XVID learned about the license violation in early July, soon after the initial release of the REALmagic software (version 1.0). Sigma Designs' were immediately contacted, and replied confirming the violation and promising to replace all violating code.

Version 1.1 of the REALmagic software was released on the 9th of August. After examining the new version, XVID developers concluded that the violating code was not replaced, but disguised by programming and compiling tricks. Sigma Designs' were again contacted and asked to remove the REALmagic download link from their website. Thus far, they have not shown any sign of cooperation.

In a statement to the XVID development team, project founder Michael Militzer showed his disappointment regarding Sigma Designs' behaviour: "We have been quite reasonable and have given Sigma Designs' ample opportunity to resolve this issue. Apparently none of our demands have been taken seriously. Nearly two months after the initial release of the REALmagic MPEG-4 Video Codec, Sigma Designs' is still knowingly infringing the GNU General Public License."

Militzer believes this infringement might be of high general interest: "This is an unfortunate event, not only for us but for the whole Free Software movement. Therefore we hope to receive wide support from the Free Software community in our efforts to convince Sigma Designs' to respect the terms of the GPL."

Evidence supporting the claim has been published on the XVID website.

http://www.xvid.org/v1_0_comparison.pdf
http:// www.xvid.org/v1_1_comparison.pdf

About XVID (http://www.xvid.org/)
XVID is a leading open source MPEG-4 video research project, founded by the German student Michael Militzer in August 2001 to continue the efforts of DivXNetworks' former OpenDivX project. Today, the XVID project consists of users and developers from all over the world. XVID publishes all its software under the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL).

About Sigma Designs Inc. (http://www.sigmadesigns.com/)
Sigma Designs' headquarters are located in Milpitas, California. The company specializes in MPEG based video hardware for encoding and decoding. Recently Sigma Designs' introduced the Xcard, the first consumer hardware MPEG-4 decoder in the form of a personal computer add-on card.

About GNU GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html)
The GNU General Public License is the most frequently used software license for Free Software development and is supported by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). Software distributed under the GNU GPL grants everyone modification and redistribution rights, on the condition that derived or redistributed software carries the same license.

Contacts

For contacting the XVID team please use the e-mail addresses contact@xvid.org or contact@xvid.de

Please address your request to one of the following persons:

Daniel Smith (USA)
Michael Militzer (Germany and international)
Christoph Lampert (Germany and international)
Edouard Gomez (France)

Re:press release text

[Albanach]

It should be noted that those producing GPL software in the UK could simply call the police in such circumstances. Here copyright is a criminal as well as civil offence, so if you're less concerned about punitive damages and more concerned about protecting the copyright license you have chosen to protect your work, you can ask the police to do it on your behalf.

yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

zzzz.

copyright is slavery anyway.

As someone who once worked for Sigma Designs...

[StevenMaurer]

...all I can say is that I'm not one bit surprised. Many companies are morally flawed somehow, but not all of them revel in it quite so obviously.

Re:As someone who once worked for Sigma Designs...

[SanLouBlues]

Be a huge friend. Email the XVid folks and offer your testimony on the character of said company.

Re:As someone who once worked for Sigma Designs...

[StevenMaurer]

It wouldn't work. This is a case of civil copyright infringement, not the penalty phase of a felony conviction.

What the XVid folks really need is some sugar-daddy corporation (FSF, IBM, anyone?) to fund their legal costs going after SD.

But before they do even that, I'd suggest the XVid people just tell Sigma Designs that if they don't conform to the GNU Public License, they'll start contacting their distributors to tell them about the situation - and that they're selling products in violation of someone's copyright.

Believe me when I say that Sigma Designs will fold like a house of cards if they do that. At one time they had such a bad reputation with distributors, they had a terrible time just getting their products out on the shelves. Assuming little has changed (and this episode convinces me it hasn't) it wouldn't take much to have them get dropped completely. And that would hurt them where it hurts the most - in the pocketbook.

Re:As someone who once worked for Sigma Designs...

[JoeShmoe]

I agree. My first experience with Sigma Designs was consulting for a company and finding out they were purchasing MPEG-1 decoder cards for $200 a pop to play training videos.

This was in 1998. Well after software-based codecs were freely available (Microsoft shipped ActiveMovie with MPEG-1 playback support back when it released Internet Explorer 3.0 somewhere around 1995? 96?)

I did a demo for the deparment head showing two systems side-by-side, one with Signa's REALMagic card and their codec, and the other with Windows Media Player installed. Ironically, the guy picked the software based solution as the "higher quality" solution and said it was worth the extra $200.

Needless to say, when the labels were revealed, they immediately cancelled the pending order for 6000 REALMagic cards, a savings of $300,000.

Sigma Designs seems like a bunch of snakeoil salesmen to me.

- JoeShmoe

.

Re:As someone who once worked for Sigma Designs...

[JoeShmoe]

Er, the first purchase was for 1500 systems, the eventual rollout was 6000 systems, so in theory savings were much higher but I seriously doubt it would have gone unnoticed three or four years.

- JoeShmoe

.

Re:As someone who once worked for Sigma Designs...

[spacefrog]

6,000 cards @ $200/pop = $300,000 ?

Was your next consulting gig with Enron?

Re:As someone who once worked for Sigma Designs...

[Znork]

Exactly how is this civil copyright infringement? As far as I can tell from USC Title 17 Chapter 5 Section 506a:

--
a) Criminal Infringement. -

Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -

(1)

for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
--
blah blah
--
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code.
--

Sounds to me like a clearcut case of criminal copyright violation. Call the friendly neighborhood cops and file a complaint. I dont believe you need deep pockets to notify the police about a crime. Yet.

Of course, IANAL.

Re:As someone who once worked for Sigma Designs...

[iCEBaLM]

No, a SAVINGS of $300,000, you still need computers, damnit.

-- iCEBaLM

Re:As someone who once worked for Sigma Designs...

[Anonymous Coward]

"No, a SAVINGS of $300,000, you still need computers, damnit."

Yes, and you saved them having to buy the cards.

The cards cost $200. There were 6000 cards they didn't have to buy and as Mr Shmoe pointed out 6000x$200 != $300,000

The computers don't enter into the savings calculation ( unless you work for Enron, in which case you owe me $450,000 ).

Re:As someone who once worked for Sigma Designs...

[DNS-and-BIND]

Can't call the local cops to investigate a federal crime. Calling the FBI will result in a laugh from the agent answering the phone, as the FBI refuses to assign resources to investigate such trivial infractions.

How retarded.

[inteller]

So this is how you enforce a GNU license....you stop coding? Wow....that's really gonna hurt them. Now that they have most of the code they don't need them anymore. They'll just make a few tweaks to make it proprietary and call it version 2 and be done with it.

Re:How retarded.

[MadAhab]

Apparently they already tried this. But they didn't change enough to fool xvid. That's illegal: they have to replace ALL the code to make it legal. The next step is legal action. That's how you enforce a GNU license.

Sue them

[RailGunner]

This is a good opportunity to show just how enforcable the GPL is. If Sigma is using GPL'd code, and not giving proper credit and opening the source, then civil action should be taken.

This sucks.. I've had people claim my code as their own and it just deflates your morale. Looks like it deflated XVID to the point where they pulled a Cartman*.

*"Screw you guys, I'm going home."

Re:Sue them

[Quasar1999]

And Where is the money for this lawsuit going to be coming from?

Re:Sue them

[Anonymous Coward]

Or how unenforceable. If I were a GPL supporter, the last thing I would want is a court challenge. The contract will probably not stand up. The distribution of the contract is already know to not be legally binding. Untill all GPLed software comes in shrinkwrapped GPL boxes or from websites that require "signing" when DLing GPLed software, it won't stand for a second.

Re:Sue them

[Dark Paladin]

Us.

There should be a donation system to finance a lawsuit for the GPL - perhaps with the EFF or the Free Software Foundation being the collector.

We are the GPL. We are the ones who use it, live it breath it - and if we are truly a community that believes that the sharing of ideas is more powerful then the hording of them, then we must be the ones to pay for its support.

Re:Sue them

[sgifford]

This probably isn't true.

If it were a license to *use* the software, then the contract perhaps wouldn't be legally binding (even with a shrink-wrap license), since the user has downloaded the software legally and is only using it.

But the GPL is a license to *copy* the software and incorporate it into your own work. If Sigma didn't read the license, they might assume that they had the normal rights that copyright grants them under the law, which do not include incorporating the software into your own code (or even making a copy of it, for that matter). If they don't agree to the terms of the GPL, they cannot copy the software at all, and if they do they have to abide by its terms.

I think that the GPL would stand up just fine in court, particularly in a clear-cut case such as this (assuming XVID's allegations are true).

Re:Sue them

[Jason Earl]

Depending on how big and solvent Sigma is and how straightforward the case then it should be possible to get a lawyer to work on it for a share of the award. The XVID folks are almost certainly going to be able to get damages (if they win).

Lawyers are more than happy to work for a percentage on cases that have the potential for large damages.

Re:Sue them

[Darren Winsper]

Then the code would revert to bog standard copyright law and Sigma would have no right to distribute the code. Either they GPL the code, or they must stop distributing it immediately.

Re:Sue them

[twistedcubic]

This is a good opportunity to show just how enforcable the GPL is.

People say this a lot. Actually, one never gets to steal someone else's works just because the copyright is flawed or illegal. That would be absurd, even in the USA. The GPL is as "enforcable" as any other copyright license. At worst, if a judge has a serious problem with the GPL, the authors of GPL code just have to rewrite their licenses. Plagiarism is plagiarism, regardless of copyright, and theft is theft.

Re:Sue them

[John Hasler]

I expect that the FSF will be able to arrange for Lawrence Lessig or some of his colleagues to work on this case for free. There _are_ lawyers out there who believe in Free Software.

Re:Sue them

[sallen]

Depending on how big and solvent Sigma is and how straightforward the case then it should be possible to get a lawyer to work on it for a share of the award. ...stuff deleted... Lawyers are more than happy to work for a percentage on cases that have the potential for large damages.

They're a public company, so I'm guessing no matter how 'big' or 'solvent', they'll have sufficient insurance to make a lawyer at least interested, especially if it is fairly cut and dried. IANAL, but I would guess it'd get settled fairly quickly if filed. Again, being public, these days, there's a lot of scrutiny.. they'd either have to disclose quickly or the once yawning press might go heavy covering it. If so, their stock could drop faster than Martha can make an omelet.. or a judge might just permit an injunction against any distribution until the case goes to trial, again, if he thinks it's fairly cut and dried. Again, IANAL, but I'd like to see this one go forward. (Interestingly, it seems the only way to truly get them back to a closed product would be hire new folks and require it be developed in a clean room. Simply saying they'll take out the GPL code shouldn't suffice. That'd get REAL costly, possibly nudging them to open their source and follow GPL as it was intended.)

Re:Sue them

[martyn s]

I know you weren't saying otherwise, but I'd just like to point out that case is settled only if both sides agree to settle. If you'd really like to test the enforcibility of the GPL you can take them to court and just not settle and see what happens

Re:Sue them

[martyn s]

Copyright infringement is not "STEALING"!

Re:Sue them

[shaunbaker]

care to explain how?

translation: in order to justify my continued theft, i will deem that it is not stealing even though i am depriving someone (record companies/etc) of money which they would be otherwise entitled (regardless of how you feel about them or their prices) had i not "infringed"

grow up

Re:Sue them

[Anonymous Coward]

the distinction ppl here intend to make between stealing and copying is that when music is stolen, the previous owner no longer has it. example, stealing a cd.

if one person copies music, and never did or never will intend to buy it, the record company is not potentially losing money. (unless perhaps they freely distribute the music to others who may have otherwise bought the music) yes, it's still illegal. i don't think people use the term copyright infringement to justify their acts.

Re:Sue them

[martyn s]

Especially when you consider people who download ten times the amount they can possibly afford. Often if I hear a song I like from a movie or something I might download it to hear the whole song. I'm still not gonna buy the album for every song I hear in a movie. So that's why I believe we should have shorter copyrights.

Re:Sue them

[Bloater]

If I don't buy a record, I am depriving the record company of money to which they would be otherwise (if I hadn't refused to buy) entitled. Is walking past HMV on your way work without going in therefore theft of the record company's money? No. If they never had the money, you haven't *necessarily* stolen it from them.

You are arguing that X cannot be defined as A, because it is defined as B - even though it is clearly not defined as B. If it were, then every act or refusal to act by anybody would be burglary because if circumstances were different someone could have had more money. I could have more money if I killed both my parents, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't stop me if I try.

Plagiarism is only even close to theft when you are preventing the author or licencees from receiving money or other benefit that they would otherwise have a *right* to have. That is why plagiarism is not precisely equivalent to theft, because theft requires that a person has a right to the goods that are stolen, and not *all* plagiarism falls under that restriction. Also theft itself even requires that the person actually had the goods - if they didn't then you are infringing on their economic rights but not stealing.

As the previous poster tried to point out, "plagiarism" describes one set of actions, and "theft" describes another *different* set.

To more clearly illustrate the difference. If a courier is on his way to deliver a parcel to my brother and I jump him and take the parcel, did I steal the parcel from my brother or from the courier. Does the courier apologise to his boss saying "I'm sorry but I couldn't deliver the parcel to the intended recipient because it was stolen from him," or does he say "I couldn't ... because it was stolen from *me*" ? He says the latter because I didn't steal it from my brother because my brother didn't have it.

Re:Sue them

[shaunbaker]

this is getting pedantic to say the least, i appricate the effort at a logical argument, although before making such an argument you are assuming that i define physical property as the only source of "stealing". Plagerism is stealing in any form even if no physical property was touched because you are depriving another of what was theirs, by passing off the words as your own you have prevented that person from getting the recognition they deserve, such is stealing. By copying a music file you are not stealing anything physical but the net effect remains, infringement is stealing. And as for your parcel remark, yes it was stolen by you. The post man says it was stolen from "me" because he had the physical control over it because he was intrusted from delivery. You stole not only the package from the reciever but the businees from the courier service who now cannot be payed b/c the package wasn't deliveried. Stop being pedantic and pretending you have some sort of sophmoric realization of your superior ideas.

GPL Powerless

[Skuto]

This is why I avoid using the GPL as much as possible for my own work: if someone infringes upon it, they can just ignore your complaints and take an 'so sue me' attitude.

If you're a small developer and they're as resonably sized company, the prospect of shelling out bucks to stop them from copying something you don't make money off anyway is no good.

Being closed source doesn't protect your work from being copied, but it's at least a lot harder to rip it off and stick your name on it.

--
GCP

Re:GPL Powerless

[gorilla]

if someone infringes upon it, they can just ignore your complaints and take an 'so sue me' attitude.

They can do this for any license, including one where you only release binaries (I've seen at least one instance where the only difference between two programs is that one had the startup messages patched to display a different message).

Re:GPL Powerless

[Anonymous Coward]

XVID is based in Germany. In Germany the loser pays the legal fees, so if they win a hypothetical trial theyre shelling out zero money.

Re:GPL Powerless

[Anonymous Coward]

you are funny! as if your puny ass with it's fully closed copyrighted code can be any different.

If MS or a big company wanted to steal your work and not give you credit, they can sue you out of oblivion over your own stuff..

Clueless morons like you are a prime example as to why shareware DOESN'T and WILL NEVER work.

Re:GPL Powerless

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the FSF won't step up and take legal actions for the developers of the GPL'd software.

Re:GPL Powerless

[TheAwfulTruth]

But given the nearly random outcome of all "trials" in any country. You have to be willing to shell out the money yourself, no matter how right you know you are.

Re:GPL Powerless

[puff-d-dwaggie]

nope, shareware wont work, never has, never will. RIIIIGHT. I still play Castle Wolfenstein and I actually PAID for it via the shareware system, along with a lot of other shareware. If it didnt work, why has it lasted so long? Yea, Yea, I know, obvious troll, but I couldnt resist.

Ray Moore
Puff D Dwaggie

Re:GPL Powerless

[Bonker]

Tell that to Avery Lee who got his code stolen. The FSF was very helpful in forcing the individuals who stole it to comply with GNU terms.

Being that Xvid is a larger project than Virtual Dub, I would be highly surprised to not see the FSF step in at some point.

Re:GPL Powerless

[Anonymous Coward]

I would write the companies legal department about this, I assure you they will not be pleased. Include proof, if possible.

Re:GPL Powerless

[Skuto]

>They can do this for any license, including one
>where you only release binaries (I've seen at
>least one instance where the only difference
>between two programs is that one had the startup
>messages patched to display a different message).

Doing the binary patch at least takes some effort. Changing a printf anyone can do.

--
GCP

Re:GPL Powerless

[(startx)]

when was virtualdub ripped off? I haven't seen that one.

Re:GPL Powerless

[kuroth]

The best legal advice I ever recieved was from my father. It was, simply "I don't need a lawyer. I'm right." It's a philosophy that's been working for him for decades as a small business owner. It's worked equally well for me, also as a small business owner, for six years.

If someone plagarizes your work, sue them. The only information the judge is going to need is a copy of their source, and yours. Are they the same? Judgement for plaintiff.

Finding a couple of pro-bono expert witnesses in this case should be a snap, if that's even necessary. Hell, ask Stallman, he's always looking for a pulpit.

Over the years, I've had three or four clients who didn't want to pay for work I had performed. A couple of them even said "We're ready to be the 800 pound gorilla on this matter." (That's a direct quote from one, BTW).

Ok, you be an 800 pound gorilla. I have all my notes, all the specifications, all the correspondence related to the project ready to go. I have notes on every phone call, every meeting, every conversation. It costs me $40 to file, and all I have is time. If you want to tie up your $150 an hour lawyers for six months fighting an angry badger about a $20K project, go right ahead.

Funny, the check always shows up after that.

Don't let people push you around because you're a small operation, or because they think having more money guarantees them victory through intimidation.

K.

Re:GPL Powerless

[BrookHarty]

Maybe if someone who had experience could write a quick howto on howto file a case against someone. I'm no laywer, and I have no idea what forms to fill out, where to file, whats required of me in terms of paperwork/evidence.

If people knew what it took, 40 dollars and some time would be worth it. I think the "800 pound Gorilla" idea has people thinking it would cost too much time and money.

Re:GPL Powerless

[gorilla]

I disagree. I think it can be easier to do a binary patch than changing a printf. Anyone can use a binary editor. Compiling a program seems to be more difficult, hence the popularlity of RPM and other packaging systems.

Re:GPL Powerless

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont quite agree VirtualDub is smaller than XviD. Its more unique than XviD and AFAIK more widely used, also its actually legal to use and distribute (XviD is unusable in any country where software patents apply, and because it does not put country restrictions in the license to exclude those countries it is not distributable according to the GPL itself ... legally XviD's licensing is a bad joke).

Re:GPL Powerless

[orkysoft]

Read Google Cache of VirtualDub's Vidomi News Page or Vidomi.com itself.

Re: GPL Powerless

[Black Parrot]

> This is why I avoid using the GPL as much as possible for my own work: if someone infringes upon it, they can just ignore your complaints and take an 'so sue me' attitude

The same applies to code obtained via an NDA.

Unfortunately, sometimes suing is necessary.

Re:GPL Powerless

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for saying that K.

Too many people seem to believe that litigation
is necessarily expensive, and they believe this
so deeply that even the threat of a lawsuit is
enough to modify their behavior. The truth is,
beyond the costs associated with moving documents,
and the few things that really do need to be handled
by a licensed attorney, the costs of a civil court
case are usually quite trivial.

Granted, sometimes the stakes are pretty high, and
those cases probably are better off with the expensive
litigators, but that is mostly because you want to
keep them OUT of court for as long as possible.

Like your dad said, if you're right, then you DO
want your case to go to court.

The problem is when you're wrong, and you want to
abuse the system. You find ways to use every
trick in the book to force your opponent to do expensive,
time consuming actions, at the same time as you exercise
any and every option available to limit your opponent's
ability to do business, and using every means to
delay the trial, hoping your opponent settles in
your favor. And that is why a small business or an
individual is in a lot of trouble if he has the attention
of the legal department of a large corporation, and
they have a grievance with even the slightest credibility.
If the little guy doesn't know the basic rules of civil
procedure and a firm understanding of his rights in
the matter, he's fuxord.

Re:GPL Powerless

[Anonymous Coward]

Doing the binary patch at least takes some effort

It takes a hex editor and a vague understanding of the executable format you're dealing with. Most modern formats (ELF, PE) have seperate data and text sections, which makes it the easiest job in the world to find the string and change it.

Re:GPL Powerless

[tortap-0]

You told them you saved notes on every phone call, every meeting, every conversation. Yet you estimate the number of times this happened to tree or four?

You were lucky they didn't call your bluff.

(sorry I just had to)

I'm not surprised

[IamTheRealMike]

If this is true, it doesn't surprise me at all. It was only ever going to be a matter of time before a corp violated the GPL. I mean, there's a huge amount of free code out there - if you're looking at what would be for your project 6 months work right in front of you, ready to use, the temptation just to "accidentally" include it must be tremendous.

It's easy to think, who would ever know? Comparing binary compiles is a good way of testing, but it's not 100% proof. It's damn close, but would a judge know that?

Most interesting of all, will the FSF actually do what it always said it'd do, and protect this GPLd software? And will the GPL stand up in court? IANAL, but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't. This sort of thing needs to be dealt with swiftly however, lest other companies get the idea that it's OK.

Re:I'm not surprised

[Rick the Red]

Unfortunately, the FSF has no legal standing to bring suit because they are not the copyright holders. I hate to say it, but in this case the bully just chased XVID off the playground, and kept their ball. If the XVID guys won't stand up to the bullies, the bullies win.

Re:I'm not surprised

[LMCBoy]

Has the FSF stated that it will defend any GPL'd code in court? IIRC, they said they would defend any software for which they hold the copyright, although they would probably provide legal assistance to others (and it is certainly in their interest to do so). Can anyone correct or confirm this?

Re:I'm not surprised

[Eric Seppanen]

Most interesting of all, will the FSF actually do what it always said it'd do, and protect this GPLd software?

The FSF never said that. They said that they'll protect GPLed software on which they own the copyright. On any other code, they have no legal standing to do anything even if they wanted to. That's why the FSF asks for copyright assignment from contributors.

Re:I'm not surprised

[karmawarrior]

Legal standing be damned. The FSF can provide lawyers, money, and witnesses that will ensure XVID can fight back. And that's the kind of thing the FSF are good at and have done before, the VirtualDub case being the most famous.

So, yeah, the bully is in the playground, but the XVID has a big brother he can call on.

Re:I'm not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

What he should do is assign his copyrights to FSF and then do the MySQL vs. Progress thing --- that is let FSF get an temporary injunction against Sigma Designs from distributing their product and then have a trial to shut Sigma Designs' particular product permanently by revoking their GPL license.

That what mysql vs. progress --- mysql wants to shut down progress' mysql product permanently even if progress coughs up their codes back to the community.

Re:I'm not surprised

[Florian Weimer]

Most interesting of all, will the FSF actually do what it always said it'd do, and protect this GPLd software?

I don't think the FSF owns the copyright, so it cannot enforce it.

Re:I'm not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

if the GPL doesnt stand up, oh well, all rights associated with the GPL are gone too then.
ie the company therefore has zero right to use the code.

Re:I'm not surprised

[John Hasler]

> Comparing binary compiles is a good way of
> testing, but it's not 100% proof. It's damn
> close, but would a judge know that?

He doesn't need to. He just needs to be convinced that there is a reasonable possibility of infringement (expert witnesses can convince him of that) and he will grant dsicovery, forcing Sigma to make their source available for examination.

Re:I'm not surprised

[John Hasler]

They can supply XVID with money and lawyers.

It's also not too late for XVID to assign the copyright to the FSF if they want to.

Re:I'm not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

And to get legal standing, become a Sigma Designs customer. When you don't receive source code to the *GPL*ed product, sue to obtain it and a proper copy of the GPL license. It'll be the last copy sold, but that's not such a bad thing.

Re:I'm not surprised

[Sivar]

It's easy to think, who would ever know? Comparing binary compiles is a good way of testing, but it's not 100% proof. It's damn close, but would a judge know that?

I looked at some of the PDFs and there were parts that were written in pure assembler that no compiler would produce. That, to me, is 100% proof.

Re:I'm not surprised

[flonker]

Actually, it may be too late. If there are a significant number of contributoes, each with their own copyright on a portion of the code, you need to get everyone to agree to assign their individual copyrights away. Convincing them to do so is the easy part. But first you need to track them down.

MOD Parent Post up!

[Linuxathome]

I know it's posted anonymously, but this news release is important background that is not attainable through the links of the original post.

Re:MOD Parent Post up!

[gimpboy]

I know it's posted anonymously, but this news release is important background that is not attainable through the links of the original post.

if by not attainable you mean that clicking on the link to xvid.org then clicking on the press releases in the files section is an impossible feat, then yes the information is not attainable throught the links in the original post. it is indeed a harsh reality.

how about the unattainable information in pdf format.

for more unattainable information i would goto this oracle of truth

Re:MOD Parent Post up!

[ethereal]

Well, it's unattainable if they get slashdotted, though. Which is often the case when /. links to a small group's web site.

Re:MOD Parent Post up!

[Anonymous Coward]

so i got in before the whores, so what

you know how lazy people are, they might as well post uneducatedly because they're stupid, not because they're lazy

being lazy is just a cop out

let your inner moron out, everyone

Re:MOD Parent Post up!

[gimpboy]

while it would not be attainable if they did get slasdotted, this is not the case. this website is still very responsive hardly slashdotted.

you can chuck the post up to: i was unable to follow those deep (two deep) links. it was far too complicated for to read all the way to the second paragraph, where it points to the press release.

Re:MOD Parent Post up!

[Thenomain]

for more unattainable information i would goto this oracle of truth

I'd use a procedure call, but that's just me.

Re:MOD Parent Post up!

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the deal with moderators not modding messages up if they are anonymous?

Moderation is SUPPOSED to reflect how interesting and on-topic a post is. Slashdot mods seem to think modding up an AC post is "wasted karma" but not all of us need or want another website account.

- AC

Re:MOD Parent Post up!

[Anonymous Coward]

did you ever consider that maybe posting the press release here early on helps to keep the site FROM being slashdotted? or is it better just to find out the other way?

Any Questions?

[SloWave]

SIGMA DESIGNS TO HOLD SECOND QUARTER CONFERENCE CALL

MILPITAS, CA, (August 12, 2002) - Sigma Designs (NASDAQ: SIGM), a leader in digital decoder solutions, announced today that the Company will be discussing second quarter results during a conference call on Tuesday, August 27, 2002, at 4:45 p.m. Eastern time. The dial-in number is (612) 332-0226. A question and answer period will take place at the end of the discussion. The earnings release will cross the wire at the close of market on the same day.

The call will be webcast live from www.vcall.com. An audio replay of the call will be available shortly thereafter the same day and will remain on-line for 30 days. For further information, please see the link to this site on our website at www.sigmadesigns.com or email investor relations at IR@sdesigns.com.

Re:Any Questions?

[Otterley]

No sense wasting your time; I can all but guarantee you the conversation will go something like this:

Q: "Does Sigma Designs have any comment on the recent accusation from the XVID team that their MPEG-4 codec infringes on XVID's copyright?"

A: "We're not aware of any court filings pertaining to the matter, so no, we have no comment."

Re:Any Questions?

[SeanTobin]

I'd love for this confrence to get slashdotted, unfortunately I think most of the people would be of the attitude that was so prevalent when the last group of OS advocates walked in on a private meeting ;)

Even so, I think it would be good for /. to post this info again a few hours before the meeting.

Re:Any Questions?

[doconnor]

Perhaps you will get that answer, but you may make other shareholders aware of it and start thinking about if they should still own stock.

That will get the company's attention better then anything.

Re:Any Questions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Find out which banks cover Sigma's stock and contact the research analyst and let them know about this pending liability that could dramatically affect Sigma's ability to enter the MPEG-4 market.

Sue the bastards!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't sue to uphold the GPL, then the GPL loses its force!

If you quit, then Sigma wins, and every other GPL piece of software loses.

Re:Sue the bastards!

[sir99]

No it doesn't. Stop spreading FUD (and getting modded up for it!)

Re:Sue the bastards!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true, you generally do not lose Copyright just because you did not defend it. However you might loose a Trademark if not defended. This is actually an important difference.

Plz: do not mod parent post as Informative since it's really not.

Re:Sue the bastards!

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot. GPL is in fact a "you may use my code if you do this" - under the laws of Cpoyright. You may give others the right to use your code under Copyright under your conditions or just plain refuse. There is no need to defend the GPL, simply because it is simply a copyright and under that cpoyright, you simply say hey, use the code under THESE circumstances.

I dont think people see that. All you need to do is simply prove you have cpoyright and that they did not comply with your conditions. GPL does not need to be tested cause it's basis, copyright, has been as well as conditional usage.

I always put a clause of use onto my writing - I do not give the Govt right to use my work. It's quite legal and enforceable too.

Read the diassembler output

[SirSlud]

It's pretty damning.

Makes you wonder how often companies silently steal code .. any famous examples from the past that never received widespread attention? I'm asking about GPL'd source specifically. I'm aware there is tons of BSD licence'd code in commercial projects, but the licence, being Bill Gates' wet dream, allows for this, right?

Re:Read the diassembler output

[randombit]

but the licence, being Bill Gates' wet dream, allows for this, right?

IF you include the original license along with your software. I was looking at some page (IIRC linked off the zlib website) showing products using zlib. Often (mostly on commercial Windows apps) there is an additional note: (copyright notice removed). They don't explain exactly what this means, but I suspect removing such a notice violates the license.

ISTR back when W2K was released there were allegations that it used OpenBSD's TCP/IP stack without attribution. I can't remember how that ever turned out, though.

Re:Read the diassembler output

[electroniceric]

but the licence, being Bill Gates' wet dream, allows for this, right?

Well, the BSD license says that the license/attribution notice must stay with the code and its derivatives, but since you don't necessarily have a right to look at BSD-derived code, and there's nothing about using preprocessor directives to eliminate the comments from the binary, there's no way to know.

ISTR back when W2K was released there were
allegations that it used OpenBSD's TCP/IP
stack without attribution. I can't remember
how that ever turned out, though.

A friend and I were discussing this a while back - he recalls seeing some files working at MS that were BSD-licensed code, and IIRC the license notice wasn't actually stripped out, but it had been taken out of context and slapped down at the bottom of the file, in a not-likely-to-be-read place. He was of the opinion that it was a sleazy but legal move. No idea whether it was the OpenBSD TCP/IP stack.

Re:Read the diassembler output

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it damning? The disassembler output is similar but not identical. And consider that multiple implementations of the same algorithm are likely to have similar code..

Re:Read the diassembler output

[randombit]

Well, the BSD license says that the license/attribution notice must stay with the code and its derivatives, but since you don't necessarily have a right to look at BSD-derived code, and there's nothing about using preprocessor directives to eliminate the comments from the binary, there's no way to know.

But the license says:

* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
* copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
* disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials
* provided with the distribution.

Roughly, at least. (I just copied this out of a header at work I'm supposed to be working on.) If it's a binary only distribution, and they don't include the copyright notices and a copy of the license, they're violating the license.

I'm sure it happens a lot, but it's just as illegal as selling GPLed software without giving out the source (or making copies of Windows XP).

he recalls seeing some files working at MS that were BSD-licensed code, and IIRC the license notice wasn't actually stripped out, but it had been taken out of context and slapped down at the bottom of the file, in a not-likely-to-be-read place.

Yeah, some of the headers included with Visual C++ have BSD copyrights on them as well (usually down at the end). They do the same when they're using a third-party library. IIRC much of their ANSI C/C++ library was done by P.J. Plauger (sp?), they moved all his (C)'s to the end of the file and put a (C) Microsoft up at the top.

It doesn't seem very polite, but OTOH it does comply with the license. Much preferable to removing the notices.

Re:Read the diassembler output

[Totally_Lost]

The choice of data structures, register assignments, and instruction sequences for the yv12_to_rgb24 routine are VERY damning - unless someone can find the very same routine published in a text book or other open source application.

Re:Read the diassembler output

[Fulcrum of Evil]

ISTR back when W2K was released there were allegations that it used OpenBSD's TCP/IP stack without attribution.

What happened is that microsoft used some ported bsd utilities, such as ftp and telnet, which spit out the copyright message on startup. Somehow somebody got confused and thought that this meant that the TCP stack was from BSD, when it's a complete custom job.

Re:Read the diassembler output

[Anonymous Coward]

stealing GPL code? no.

using, and modifying GPLed code, then distributing it to people who are guaranteed never to ask for the source, yes.

Re:Read the diassembler output

[randombit]

Somehow somebody got confused and thought that this meant that the TCP stack was from BSD, when it's a complete custom job.

OK. That makes more sense. It always seemed to me to be a rather dangerous game to play -- if someone found out MS was using OBSD's TCP stack (and proved it), OpenBSD could do some pretty amusing press releases (OpenBSD powers next generation of Windows servers!).

Re:Read the diassembler output

[dusanv]

ISTR back when W2K was released there were allegations that it used OpenBSD's TCP/IP stack without attribution. I can't remember how that ever turned out, though.

BSD license allows you to use the code as you see fit as long as you include the original author's notice. So as long as they did that they're fine. They don't even have to tell anyone they did it....

Re:Read the diassembler output

[bovinewasteproduct]

Ah, no...

What came up after analysis was that the MS stack had the same EXACT characteristics (including bugs) as the BSD stack. This is what caused people to take a closer look to begin with.
The chances of two people coding a TCP/IP stack that close are out of this world.

Plus it depends on which version of the BSD license is at question, with the first you would have to mention that your product includes code developed by whoever if you mentioned that feature in ads or such. The second version drops this. Sometime look at some of the ads from the early 90's that contained BSD code..:)

BWP

I think...

[mhore]

that any fair court would (provided XVID had the funds for a legal battle....doubtful...) see that there is obviously something bad going on here. I think (as others have mentioned) that this would be a good time to really test the GPL in court. Is the FSF interested?

Look at those comparisons between the two DLLs... the assembly is identical between the two. It'd be a damn coinkadink that two independent code bases would be compiled into an identical DLL.

Mike.

Re:I think...

[garett_spencley]

It'd be a damn coinkadink that two independent code bases would be compiled into an identical DLL.

I'd say it's certainly possible but what XVID has demostrated has me in awe. That's damn near impossible.

As long as they can demostrate large and complex blocks of assembly which are identicle then you're right: there's almost no way that could happen with two independant code blocks.

However, it is possible, just not to this extent. An exmaple would be if two blocks of code independantly implemented quick sort or Euler's algorithm. In that case I would expect those two peices of assembly (provided that they were compiled with the same compiler) to most likely be identicle beacause those are algorithms that are so popular and refined that almost every developer implements them in the same way.

But in this case XVID has certainly demonstrated the large and complex blocks of identicle assembly to prove that they were ripped off. And not only that but that the pieces of identicle code occur at almost the same offsets in the dll!! That's a very good indication that Sigma has extended on, or simply modified, XVID's original code base.

I sure hope they can somehow find the resources to sue Sigma's pants off. I will certainly make a donation if they go that route.

--
Garett

Re:I think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if a "perfect" compiler is ever created then two independent codebases should create almost the same binary if they'll end up doing the same thing. =)

Re:I think...

[Spooky Possum]

It'd be a damn coinkadink that two independent code bases would be compiled into an identical DLL

Even more damning is that the original XVID code is hand-coded assembly language.

Re:I think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Spell it with me now...

"Identical"
I..d..e..n..t..i..c..a..l...

wow

[Anonymous Coward]

What would happen if I had stolen Microsoft code and released it for a free software project. Would they have kindly asked me over and over and over again to stop? Would they say, "please?"

Re:wow

[nutshell42]

Is the XVID project the biggest software company with about $40 billion for an army of lawyers and buying out Congress?

You stop asking and start demanding when you got at least 10 times more money than your adversary

and when you have 100 times more money, you don't even say "please" =)

Re:wow

[Wolfier]

It does not matter.

If the law is by my side, I can have all kinds of attitude and the company will still have to comply with the law.

I highly doubt the situation would be the same now if the XVID team had sent a Cease & Desist letter. I think it is a good time to do so.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

> If the law is by my side, I can have all kinds of attitude and the company will still have to comply with the law.

What do you mean, "it does not matter"?!? You think you've got bigger pockets than a corporation? You think that if you were XVID you'd fare any better in a legal battle? You might win, ...eventually,... but you might have to sell your house in the meantime.

The phrase "Pyhrric Victory" was coined for these kinds of situations. Sometimes you lose by winning, or even just by fighting.

Re:wow

[Wolfier]

ever heard of suing for monetary damage?

"napsterize" the shit out of it!

[fz00]

why not just promote pirating the shit out of their software?

Re:"napsterize" the shit out of it!

[GutBomb]

it's available as a free (beer) download from thier website.

In other news..

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux advocates and GNU supporters around the world lined up to cut off their noses to spite their face.

They also urge the open source community to throw the baby out with the bathwater..

Sigma sure looks like some nasty canastas, but it seems to me the solution would be to just PUBLICIZE the hell out of their actions, and code their codec out of existence. Sue shmoo.

I'll post AC since everything a mod didnt post gets modded down.

Story incomplete without answer to this question:

[njdj]

Are they going to sue the b*st*rds?

(If they need a donation to help them do that - they have only to ask, as far as I'm concerned.)

What is the remedy

[i_luv_linux]

I am wondering, what is the phunishment for violating GPL. The problem in my mind is that, can the developers claim moneytary damages, because clearly Sigma Designs make money out of this. But on the other hand, how come a free product can claim a moneytary damage, if that's the case who gets the money?

sign your copyright over to ...

[gimpboy]

i cannot remember where i read it but if you sign over your copyright to either the fsf or gnu they will defend such cases. i believe this is the case, but i cannot remember for sure.

Lets not jump the gun here...

[CrackerJackz]

I mean come-on! Its soooo likely that the, um, 12 pages of asm in this PDF http://www.xvid.org/v1_0_comparison.pdf are purely by coincidence, right? right?? I mean my god, how *stupid* do you have to be to not even change *one byte* of code in that many lines of code, at least make a few new variables....

Re:Lets not jump the gun here...

[dwdyer]

The problem is that compilers like to optimize, and it is possible to end up with the same asm generated from different source.

They also need to show (ahem: I'm not a laywer)that what they're doing in the source is non-obvious. For example, if you have a routine that calculates the sum of values in an array and you just iterate through the array and keep a total going, well yeah, it's copyrightable, but it's nothing you could sue over.

Re:Lets not jump the gun here...

[Malc]

You have to use those variables or else the compiler will optimise them out. You have to use them significantly, or else whole chunks of assembly will stay the same. That's gonna affect performance. You might as well write your own version if you're going to do that.

I guess both teams used the same compiler.

Re:Lets not jump the gun here...

[fava]

But much of the samples given were hand written in assembly, there is no compiler involved.

Re:Lets not jump the gun here...

[Breakfast Pants]

Does the GPL even apply to hand-written assembly? I mean the machine code itself is the source...

Re:Lets not jump the gun here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Assembly isn't machine code, dumbass.

Re:Lets not jump the gun here...

[Kindaian]

Simply answer: yes.

If the original work was GPL, regardless of the language/macro/script language it was writhen... it is GPLed...

cheers...

Re:Lets not jump the gun here...

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess both teams used the same compiler.

s/compiler/programmer

HTH

Re:No, use corporation speak instead

[marcop]

Why not just call them a bunch of pirates, as Disney, RIAA, MPAA, etc. call individuals who allegedly are involved in copyright infringement. Then the developers can claim "X" dollars lost and say how their children, pets, etc. are starving because of piracy.

Anybody else notice...

[Jeffv323]

... that XVID is DIVX backwards?

Re:Anybody else notice...

[NanoGator]

"Anybody else notice...that XVID is DIVX backwards?"

Nice DMCA violation there. Heh.

Re:Anybody else notice...

[agallagh42]

Well duhhh. It's an mpeg-4 encoder/decoder, that competes with divx. Probably started when divx tried to go commercial.

Re:Anybody else notice...

[balloonhead]

How do you know it isn't in fact DIVX which is XVID backwards, eh?

Re:Anybody else notice...

[Anonymous Coward]

Xvid is divx backwards because it started based on opensource code from OpenDivX and when DivxNetworks stoped working on OpenDivx they tool this source and started a new project.. but i belive all the source from OpenDivX has been replaced with there own code so there is none left of OpenDivX

Re:Anybody else notice...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is derived from the base code of OpenDivX or aka Projecy Mayo, as was DivX 4 and 5. OpenDivX was an opensource project working to create a codec that could rival the DivX 3.11 microsoft hack. Therefore the code as well as the name are free to use under the GPL

Re:Anybody else notice...

[lunatik17]

XVID and Divx4 are both branches from Project Maya's OpenDivx codec. When OpenDivx stopped being GPL software and was relicensed as a proprietary codec, non-Maya people who were helping developement got mad about that and created XVID from the latest GPL OpenDivx code. Divx4/5 and XVID have been developed in parallel since then.

Have any of you actually read the comparisons?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod me down if you want, but I'm going to say this: They don't have a smoking gun.

Now, there's a LOT of stuff in there that seems to indicate, if nothing else, a large bit of 'inspiration' from XVID's code, but a large portion of what looks like line-by-line asm similarities are just stack pushes and cleanup related to C-style function calls. That means that the argument numbers to the functions are the same.

I'd need to do further analysis, but they should be SURE to prove that the algorithms/functions are exactly the same in a very obvious way before anyone decides to take it to court to get a subpoena.

Innocent until proven guilty... I'm not sure if their analysis constitutes 'proof'.

Re:Have any of you actually read the comparisons?

[GutBomb]

sigma actually initially admitted to having thier code in there, and stated they would be removing it with the new 1.1 version. the 1.1 version is still based on the same codebase apparantly. now i do not know assembly, however it looks pretty similar to not only the xvid code, but the old 1.0 code that they supposedly were going to remove. optimizers can't be THAT accurate to create almost identical code.

Re:Have any of you actually read the comparisons?

[ShadowFlyP]

If you look at the 1.1 comparison, there is a section that claims to have been handwritten ASM. Those two are practically the same. I doubt any two ASM programmers would write a function that is that similar.

Tempting

[be-fan]

I was tempted to do a sarcastic post about Sigma being a genuine American company bringing real dollars into the US economy, but decided that it had been done already :) Still, I'd like to vent about what I perceive as a giant hipocracy on the part of corporate America. They define "stealing" to include making backup copies, but feel perfectly free to actually infringe on other people's copyrights.

Re:Tempting

[Software]

Call me guilty of feeding the trolls, but to make generalizations like "giant hipocracy [sic] on the part of corporate America" is completely asinine. Individuals can be guilty of hypocrisy, as can groups with a defined mission, but "Corporate America" is neither of these. You might as well say that homo sapiens are hypocritical because some are opposed to murder and some are murderers. Grow up, learn the meaning of hypocrisy, or both.

Re:Tempting

[MrHanky]

From WordNet (r) 1.7.1 (July 2002) [wn]:

hipocracy
n : rule by hippopotamus, a massive thick-skinned herbivorous animal living in or around rivers of tropical Africa.

Sorry, couldn't resist. Yes, as you said, tempting. :-)

Re:Tempting

[be-fan]

And I'd remind you that, outside the technical definition of hypocracy, it is entirely legitimate to accuse a group of hypocracy. Groups have certain ideas, goals, and viewpoints. Belonging to a group associates an individual with those ideas, goals, and viewpoints. Unless the individual points out otherwise, it is often valid to attribute the afformentioned ideas, goals to him. Sometimes it can get you in trouble, such as attributing unsupportable claims on racial groups, but often it works. For example, if certain European companies where illegally dumping waste in rivers, at the same time when the EU was making a big deal about environmental protection, that would be hypocritical of the given European country. Note, that a country is neither an individual nor a group with a defined mission, but it is an entity with cleary defined bounderies, and can legitimately be accused of hypocracy.

Re:Tempting

[Gerald]

What's a hypocracy? Some new form of government? Maybe you guys are thinking of hypocrisy .

Re:Tempting

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong definition -

hipocracy
(n) rule by the cool, no squares allowed

Re:Tempting

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Sigma Designs is a Gook company.

Re:Tempting

[Anonymous Coward]

"Score:4, Insightful"?!? Jesus CHRIST. A GIANT lumping of every corporation in America into the same mindset of Sigma rates "Insightful".

Re:Tempting

[be-fan]

That would be hippocracy. n00b...

Re:Tempting

[Anonymous Coward]

You are mistaken if you believe that corporate America is a single entity with a canonical set of ethics.

At least these ppl have courage of convictions.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike Linus T. and the rest of the Linux kernel and some of the userspace world.

The Virgin WebPlayer used Linux and never released source. Linus and his ball-less ilk did nothing.

Re:At least these ppl have courage of convictions.

[Anonymous Coward]

you're right.. They should have just cancelled the linux project altogether, that'd teach those bastards.

Seriously, what *can* you do? I've always seen the fundamental problem with the GPL as its inability to be enforced by anyone.

Its more a code of ethics than a legally binding contract.

modding this down is a violation the DMCA

Re:At least these ppl have courage of convictions.

[Hrothgar The Great]

You can't know what you can or can't do unless you actually try to do something. If XVID simply stops developing and never even bothers to actually stand up for themselves, then they are cowards, plain and simple.

I'm not going to listen to this crap about them being helpless. They can file a lawsuit, just like anyone else, and they can let it be settled in a court. As it is, they're just bending over.

Count me in.

[Angst Badger]

Unfortunately, since the string of dot-bombs I worked for are no more, I don't have any big chunks of change lying around, but I am willing to contribute $25 to a fund for the XVID team to sue the holy living crap out of Sigma. I suspect I'm not alone.

Of course this presumes some sort of reputable arrangement so I know I'm not sending $25 to some wise-ass AC with a Paypal account, but if it comes to pass, let me know at eodell@sfront.net, and I'll pony up right away.

Incidentally (and IANAL), while it is hard to sue for damages when you're not actually selling something, I'd be surprised if the XVID team weren't entitled to a substantial chunk of any profits Sigma has been making with their work.

Re:Count me in.

[shaldannon]

I'd actually be surprised if they were entitled to a chunk of change beyond someone's $0.02. Think about it. The GPL is all about encouraging code sharing, not making a profit off someone's business plan that happens to involve reselling your code. Cases in point? Red Hat. IBM. Dell. All legit, all involved in the sale of GPL'd code. None forking huge handfuls of cash to Linus, Alan, or Joe programmer (with the obvious exception of Red Hat and Alan, but that's a job).

I rather suspect this is a matter of principle and fairness. If Sigma was handing the modified code back to XVID I suspect they'd be happily merging it back into their tree and we wouldn't be having this discussion. We'll see how things pan out, but I for one hope that Sigma gets sued into compliance.

Re:Count me in.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it legal to "invest" in a suit to where those who invest can see a percentage return of the settlement? Might be helpfull if there was a way to return on a settlement - if it ever gets paid.

Re:Count me in.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I have a surprise for you.

17 USC 504(b)

The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages.

Even if your actual damages are zero (because you aren't selling anything), you can still sue for the infringer's profits.

Re:Count me in.

[fishbowl]

"The GPL is all about encouraging code sharing, not making a profit off someone's business plan that happens to involve reselling your code."

The GPL is supposed to encourage code development
through sharing, and the way it encourages this is
to raise the possibility of whopping huge-ass bankrupting
fines for failure to comply with copyright law. Just
like the big media companies with their licenses.

It's supposed to encourage sharing WHILE PROTECTING
THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER.

The Microsoft Way

[RavenZ]

I was just wondering:

Sigma did acknowledge the inital (1.0) claim by xvid, so they had the code and they used it.

Then they removed the code and reimplemented it.
However, I assume they read the xvid code and when they try to replace it, they also thought about the way xvid did it.

At this point, I smell MS with their community license. They claimed, that after you reviewed the idea (hey!), your code would be based on theirs, so MS would get it

Now, simply transfer this to GPL ! In every case, they have to release the source code !

Any comments ?

ehmmm... why the shouting?

[__aahlyu4518]

I see posts with a +5 insightful here that are just saying that they are evil and should be burned for violating the GPL. Ehmm... whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty' ? I thought we had courts for that. They say they have proof, and put in on their web. So it is true then because someone with software that has a GPL license says so ? c'mon people... I agree that it is news, but it is not a conviction.

Re:ehmmm... why the shouting?

[tempest303]

And you, instead, should get "-1, RTFA"

the proof is RIGHT ON THE FRONT PAGE

And while this isn't a court ruling, I think one would have a hard time finding a programmer worth his/her salt that would say that the evidence doesn't look incredibly incriminating.

Re:ehmmm... why the shouting?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I see posts with a +5 insightful here"

Interestingly, your post was the first to hit +5. Lying fuck.

Re:ehmmm... why the shouting?

[DeeKayWon]

Copyright infringement is a civil offense, thus "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply. Besides, the evidence the xvid people gives is quite enough for many people here to make a judgement.

Re:ehmmm... why the shouting?

[mcelrath]

From their press release:

Sigma Designs' were immediately contacted, and replied confirming the violation and promising to replace all violating code.

Dood, they admitted it. Qwitcherkarmawhoring.

-- Bob

Re:ehmmm... why the shouting?

[realgone]

Ehmm... whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?

This only applies if people tend to say things like "All rise" or "The Honorable <YOUR NAME HERE> presiding" whenenver you walk in a room. Otherwise, your average citizen* has every right to form an opinion of culpability based on the available evidence and respond accordingly (within the limits of the law). Lacking this, the whole concept of citizen activism would be pointless.

All briefs may be filed via the clerk at The Court of Public Opinion.

*May not apply in some countries. Please check the label on the back of your government for democracy content.

Re:ehmmm... why the shouting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well its simple, nowadays all you do is scream TERRORISTS! and you have the right to toss people in jail for months, without providing any evidence of their guilt. Heck, its even totaly legal to kill off lots of civilians, if you manage to kill a few of the peopel you claim to be terrorists in the process.

So i think this is very much in line with the new world order, guilty until proven innocent, and if you cant convict people with your own national law, just prosecute them outside your country where there is no law, so you can be sure of convicting them !

Re:ehmmm... why the shouting?

[nutshell42]

Hey, this is /. - you get a "+5 insightful" for stating that bill gates is evil and an "interesting" for the discovery that XviD is DivX spelled backwards.

Perhaps someone mods me funny for "25 billion dollars more and we have a new m$" as comparisons of the current topic with m$ (notice the spelling) are always popular

Re:ehmmm... why the shouting?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing "reasonable doubt" (criminal law) vs "a preponderence of evidence" (civil law).

They ARE indeed innocent until proven guilty, at least in legal terms.

Don't stand here idly...

[octalc0de]

... DO SOMETHING.
RMP4@sdesigns.com is the email address for the Mpeg-4 codec. I suggest you write them.

and their site needs a /.ing.

Re:Don't stand here idly...

[puff-d-dwaggie]

No Worries Mate.

Just downloaded their codec and in their comments line asked where the source code and acknowledgements were for the gpl portion of the software.

"Get Moose and Squirrel!"

Sigma Design Resumes

[Clipper]

Here's some snippets from resumes recently submitted to Sigma Design's HR department

Qualifications:

• Advanced knowledge of the C-c and C-v hotkeys in Windows

Work Experience

• NVidia

Re:Sigma Design Resumes

[shaldannon]

You forgot the C-r hotkey...man I love that one ;)

Comment from the FSF

[prizog]

We at the FSF are saddened by this GPL violation. Because we do not hold copyright on Xvid, we can't act directly. We support the Xvid developers' effort to get full GPL compliance from Sigma. If you're interested in how we enforce the GPL when we hold copyright, please see our attorney Eben Moglen's essay, Enforcing the GPL.

Re:Comment from the FSF

[fixxx]

Just wondering, would it be too late to sign over xvid copyright to the fsf ? I think we should set an example here. if it`s easy to violate the GPL other companies would be less reluctant to violate it ...

Re:Comment from the FSF

[nutshell42]

Hmm, XviD is a mpeg4 codec so you got patents, license fees and other big no-no's for the FSF

Re:Comment from the FSF

[prizog]

Yes, that is correct. But they could assign copyright to FSF Europe, which doesn't have software patents.

Investor Notice Anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just in case the XVID group can't sue (due to lack of funds), why not let their investors know what is going on? They are a publically traded stock and the SEC would just LOVE to eat them up, esp. with all the fraud going on.

Trading Symbol: SIGM (http://quote.yahoo.com/q?h=1&s=SIGM&d=v1)

Re:Investor Notice Anyone?

[dbcowboy]

Another approach is to inform the competion. Let the competors display SIGM dirty laundry. After all it is an illegal advantage. Google searching... maybe cirrus logic ? xilinx ? divio ? and inform partners... like metrolink. Perhaps they don't want to associated with such tactics...

Not a GPL Legal test?

[RevRigel]

This doesn't even seem to me to necessitate a test in court of the GPL. Unauthorized redistribution is a violation of copyright, regardless of the license (if any). If you want to force them to open their whole application's source, then I suppose it could be interpreted that way. Any lawyer worth his salt would probably go after the much more clear cut copyright infringement case, along with all the damages implied therein.

YOU CAN SWEAR HERE

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they going to sue the b*st*rds?

It's "BASTARDS". No need to be afraid. Swear away.

FUCK

SHIT

COCK

etc.

It's educational and FUN!

Re:YOU CAN SWEAR HERE

[Anonymous Coward]

I juat want to say that I am outraged by this scocking abrasive language. You should be ashamed, pottymouth. It looks like everything that I heard about the internet is true, after all: it is just a bunch of foul-mouthed blasphemers using offensively naughty words.

I demand that the Internet Moderators immediately TOS the above poster off.

Lots of similarities

[shaldannon]

I gave the v1_1_comparison.pdf a cursory look (that awful smuddgy grey font in xpdf was killing my eyes) and there are certainly large amounts of code that look similar, and the code tree listings look similar. There are places where names have been changed and byte offsets are a tad difference, but that's no big deal. It looks like the Sigma code has removed a few lines here and there (for performance?) from the XVID code and added some very lengthy routines.

My question is, why can't XVID enforce the GPL by taking the code they've decompiled, diff it, and keep what they want?

Re:Lots of similarities

[Breakfast Pants]

Decompiled? Wtf are you talking about.. it is possible to look at some ASM and build source out of it but in general.. especially in a large application, it is nearly impossible.

Re:Lots of similarities

[Accelerated Joe]

My question is, why can't XVID enforce the GPL by taking the code they've decompiled, diff it, and keep what they want?

From the GPL:

Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.

Unless you assert that the preferred way of making modifications to the codec is to alter the machine language of the program, then decompile it, etc., then XVID cannot "enforce" the GPL in that way.

You see, in order to "enforce" the GPL, you have to make sure that those who use your work also comply with your copyright notice. Any amount of extra work will not fix whether or not the jackasses at Sigma are complying with the GPL.

Where's the DMCA when you need it?

[dnoyeb]

Comparing binaries is a good start. It should be reason enough for a grand Jury to decide its worth a trial. At which time the lawyers should be able to demand source code to see the truth.

Here's to hoping they smack these hoes with the DMCA.

Re:Where's the DMCA when you need it?

[Anonymous Coward]

DMCA doesn't enter into this...
Also, there is no grand jury for this kind of case,
it is simply a civil suit. If someone actually files
a suit, that is. Chances are good that nobody outside
a few thousand /. readers and a few dozen XVID developers
really care at all.

There is bound to be much complexity in suing a German
company in a US court, if it is even possible. Pity
there is no caselaw establishing precedents for the GPL
specifically, because that would help enormously.

But "nobody" cares. Not enough to actually put their
money where their mouth is.

They need some big guns

[Admiral Llama]

Let's face it, they're little pipsqueeks going up against a foreign corporation.... fat chance. They need to rile up someone who is big enough to give Sigma hell, and make mend their ways.

Just think of what happens to IBM if the GPL is crap. They've invested how many billions of dollars on stuff that's built on the GPL? Granted, their swing on things is from the services perspective, but still they have a large vested interest in seeing the GPL stand on its own, or else Sun or HP or Microsoft could steal JFS, incorporate it into their OS and they couldn't do jack.

Yes, IBM is someone the xvid folks might do well to poke with a stick.

What I like...

[crawdaddy]

is how in the second pdf file http://www.xvid.org/v1_1_comparison.pdf there is a 16-iteration loop in the XVID code and the code for the loop is simply copied 16 times in the Sigma code. That doesn't sound like something a compiler would do on purpose.

This seems like such blatant plagiarism it's disgusting.

Re:What I like...

[Whispers_in_the_dark]

Actually unwrapping small loops is a common compiler optimization when the bounds are known to be small. The branching operation takes a cycles and keeps the pipeline from being able to load the next instruction. Not to say that I think Sigma's in the clear - I can't really tell for sure but it looks bad for the Sig from where I sit.

Re:What I like...

[sgifford]

From gcc(1):

-funroll-loops: Perform the optimization of loop unrolling. This is only done for loops whose number of iterations can be determined at compile time or run time.

-funroll-all-loops: Perform the optimization of loop unrolling. This is done for all loops. This usually makes programs run more slowly.

Re:What I like...

[minkwe]

On the contrary, I think they just used a crappy compiler on that one, or made some changes that prevented optimization in that case

Re:What I like...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually a compiler *might* unroll a loop into 16 iterations of the body of the loop. In some cases where a request is made to optomize for speed this is a valid optomization (especially if the loop conditions are static and complex). I know because I worked on a compiler that did just this thing ...

Re:What I like...

[darkwiz]

Near the end of the comparison document is a section that was hand optimized in assembly. The only differences are the names of the registers, and a few things are reversed.

That, to me, is the most damning of all the evidence. Directory structure: oh, we were inspired by their structure. Compiled code: optimization conincidence. But coming up with a hand optimized assembly code of that length, and having it accidentally that close - not in a million years.

Re:What I like...

[Anonymous Coward]

hmm... what about the -funroll-loops option for gcc?

Dirty programmers

[ToasterTester]

I was involved in a product dispute like this and the way the lawyers explained it was the Clean Programmer vs. Dirty Programmer. If a programmer has seen the product in question and writes a similar program he is a Dirty Programmer. It can be in a different language if the programs are similar he copied the other program and violated copyright. Now if the programmer didn't ever see the program being copied and was working from descriptions being supplied he is a Clean programmer and no violation. Stupid, but there is no consistency in the laws.

In our case a competitor heard we were working on a program with some features similar to theirs. So to try and create the Dirty Programmer situation our competitor sent copies of their program to our developers trying to get them to look at it. Lucky for us the developers went to management and they went to legal department. Legal collected all the copies of the program and had a hell of a chat with our competitor.

Re:Dirty programmers

[Anonymous Coward]

> It can be in a different language if the programs are similar he copied the other program and violated copyright. Now if the programmer didn't ever see the program being copied and was working from descriptions being supplied he is a Clean programmer and no violation. Stupid, but there is no consistency in the laws.

There sure as hell is. What you've described is the so-called "Chinese Wall" or "Cleanroom" approach to building software in a manner designed to avoid infringing on copyrights, patents, etc. Not stupid at all - ask one of the original developers of the IBM BIOS clone why they were able to do so despite IBM's rage.

Re:Dirty programmers

[PaulBu]

... designed to avoid infringing on copyrights, patents, etc.


Would not help you about patents: even if you make the same "invention" entirely independently an the clean room, the patent holder can still sue you.

Paul B.

Re:Dirty programmers

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe there is any legal distinction of Clean v. Dirty. It is, at best, one wad in the mud fight of a lawsuit.

A programmer can see code and write a different solution, just as some one can read a love novel and still be allowed to write a another.

"Clean room" programming is best when the results of two efforts will likely end up similar. For example, BIOS type code. The interface is documented, the hardware is documented, the BIOS moves data from one interface to the other, presumably in the most effective way. That's leaves a high probability the outcomes may have major similarities. If you can prove a clean room, you can end up with the exact same code and retain your own copyright.

For larger projects the answer grows more simple. For copyright violation to be, meaningful portions of the two copies must end up the same. Nothing more, nothing less. Clean, or dirty, a different code base simply is not a violation.

Now, MS would love to have everyone believe in the concept of "tainted" programmers. But, by definition, copyright doesn't cover design (informational) elements -- that's patent. So, you can, very much, read a program to learn "how its done" then write something along that same (love) story line -- you just can't copy it as it was presented.

Re:Dirty programmers

[BollocksToThis]

Now if the programmer didn't ever see the program being copied and was working from descriptions being supplied he is a Clean programmer and no violation. Stupid, but there is no consistency in the laws.

That's not stupid at all.

Programming is solving a problem. Once a program is written, you have a particular person/team's solution to that problem. If you view someone else's solution, it affects the way you see the problem - your mind has been 'tainted' or 'impressed' by someone else's work.

If someone describes the problem to you, and you haven't seen another solution, then your solution is your own work - regardless of how similar it MAY be to an existing one. If you can prove a clean programmer, you can prove no copyright violation, because he never saw what was supposedly copied, even if the compiled bytes ended up close to identical.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Statutory damages for willful infringement

[phr2]

If the infringement is willful, which the XVID case almost certainly is, the infringer can be liable for up to $100,000 in statutory damages per infringement even if there are no actual damages. That actually happened to Keith Henson, who got stuck with $75K of statutory damages for posting a couple of pages of Scientology crap on a newsgroup. This XVID thing on the other hand is what statutory damages were intended and make sense for.

So suing Sigma Designs is not necessarily a futile effort, though of course it will take some resources and I don't know if it will happen. As for me, when I use the GPL on something interesting, I generally assign it to the FSF, so the FSF can then take action if necessary against infringers.

YES! I read it carefully - it's a smoking gun!!

[Totally_Lost]

I've been coding in asm since 1967 on two dozen different architectures. The asm routines that were disassembled are instruction sequence, register assignment and structure offset identical for dozens upon dozens of lines that are not simply C interface code. The probablility of two programmers choosing exactly the same data structures, exactly the same manual register assignments, and exactly the same instruction sequences is about the same as being struck by the planet venus in our lifetimes.

Re:YES! I read it carefully - it's a smoking gun!!

[Anonymous Coward]

dude, you are so cool.

Re:YES! I read it carefully - it's a smoking gun!!

[Anonymous Coward]

and exactly the same instruction sequences is about the same as being struck by the planet venus in our lifetimes.

Ah hah, so you're saying that Sigma is mostly Vellikovsky fans?

Re:YES! I read it carefully - it's a smoking gun!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been coding in asm since 1967 on two dozen different architectures.

YES! So YOU'RE the one working on Duke Nukem Forever! When will you be done!?

No

[Anonymous Coward]

They're going to sue the motherfuckers.

Code similarities

[fudgefactor7]

I'm not a programmer (so sue me), but I do wonder about this... If you have two people, say one on Mars, and the other on Earth, and they have identical desire to produce code both doing the same thing, functioning on the same hardware (a requirement) eventually won't there be some code that is identical? The problem lies with at what point does "some" code similarities become "copying" or just plain "theft if Intellectual Property"?

I didn't do the math (sue me again!) but what percentage of the code between them is identical? And what percent is acceptible. These are questions that need to be addressed by someone.

Like I said, I was just wondering about that...

Re:Code similarities

[Anonymous Coward]

its more difficult to do that, different styles, data structures, etc would be slightly different.

but in this case, they admitted to theiving the first time around, then they just rewrote the variables and a few things to make it look unique.

Re:Code similarities

[demastri]

actually, there are so many individual choices that happen to a design before it becomes binary code (algorithm, data structure, language, platform, compiler, etc), that the odds of similar code for any non-trivial task are pretty low.

One way to think of it is that code is the expression of an idea. Give two people the same task, and even if they solve the problem in similar ways, the manner they use to describe the solution is likely to be SIGNIFICANTLY different.

...unless, of course, one simply cribs the other's work...

- John

Re:Code similarities

[amitola]

I'm not a programmer (so sue me), but I do wonder about this... If you have two people, say one on Mars, and the other on Earth, and they have identical desire to produce code both doing the same thing, functioning on the same hardware (a requirement) eventually won't there be some code that is identical?

Coding is much more creative than many people realize. This argument is like saying, "William Shakespeare and Neil Simon both wrote plays, to be performed on stage, in the same language, with the purpose of being funny, so it should be no surprise if Neil Simon's latest script has 16 pages which are identical to A Midsummer Night's Dream."

Re:Code similarities

[Weasel Boy]

Of course there will be *some* identical code. A couple of lines here, a couple of lines there. But for nearly any function beyond the most absolutely trivial, the differences will greatly outweigh the similarities. I was once a TA for an introductory programming class, and graded student assignments. The tasks assigned were typically quite simple (e.g., "Write a program that determines whether or not a year is a leap year"). Even at this level of simplicity, cheaters (plagiarizers) tend to stick out immediately and conspicuously. Imagine how much worse it is with software that actually does something.

Re:Code similarities

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have two people, say one on Mars, and the other on Earth, and they have identical desire to produce code both doing the same thing

now lets say these two people were given the task of writing an essay on thier favorite fruit and they both likes apples.

both esssays would be diffrent but the idea would be the same "I like apples". The way they start finish and order their essays would be diffrent.
diffrent reasons as to why they like apples would pop into their heads at diffrent times. one person might not even think up a point the other had.

programming is like writing a poem, there are many diffrent ways to do a single task/express an idea. But two people would never express the same thought/task the same way, word for word.

look up any two post on slash dot, show me a post thats word for word by 2 diffrent people.

Re:No, use corporation speak instead

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Because only Big Patriotic Capitalist American Corporations(tm) are allowed to do that. Anyone else is an Evil Terrorist Commie Content Pirate(tm)!

"Respect my Authoritaii!!!"

[chrisbord]

Maybe the XVID guys should pull another Cartman:

"Respect my Authoritaii!!!"

and sue their asses.

Re:Sue them - I agree, for all copyright violation

[Totally_Lost]

Including the copyright violations in the P2P community (which is largely the same as the open source community). It's pretty damn sick to be totally arrogant about other peoples copyright violations of GPL'd works while completely ignoring the IP rights of other copyrighted works.

Standard optimization trick

[coyote-san]

Actually, that's a standard optimization trick called "loop unrolling." Branches are expensive - it blows your pipeline and cache, and loops are even more so since you must explicitly check whether to continue iterating.

So compilers will often unroll a loop and add a jump to the correct starting point at the start. Even unrolling a loop once (duplicating the code once) can have a noticeable impact, and I think 4x and 8x are most common. 16x seems unusual, but it could be a high optimization level.

Re:Sue them - I agree, for all copyright violation

[flux]

Well, there is atleast one difference: it's done professionally. Which means for profit.

Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

What this country needs is a good old fashioned ISLAMIC THEOCRACY! We will always be the Great Satan until get back with Allah!

Understanding GPL is not trivial.

[jukal]

I don't have anything against the GPL license, it surely has it's own (maybe even big) place in the software universe.

However, I don't think that even the majority of the software companies, used to deal with closed source, know what GPL means.

BSD license is VERY clear and simple. LGPL is somewhat clear. GPL then...well... I have not yet seen a good and BRIEF explanation on for example : what in practise - makes the GPL spread to new code - when does your software become automagically governed by GPL? Where's the magic line. I think I can somewhat imagine myself where the magic line is but I am not able to express this in one simple sentence which would not leave any exceptions. Can you? If yes, please post it here. It would make it much easier for many.

I can very much understand even the feelings of those who think "GPL is a virus" before someone can express it's meaning without sounding like a hippie, if you know what I mean :)

Re:Understanding GPL is not trivial.

[morn]

It's not quite a sentence, but it's quite trivial:

1) The software is copyright of the author. You cannot distribute it without their permission.
2) The author gives you permossion to distribute the software /only/ if you agree to the terms of the GPL.

so:

If you distribute the software, you're implicitly agreeing to the terms of the GPL. If you're distributing it and not following the GPL then either:

1) You haven't agreed to the author's terms, in which case you're distributing copyrighted software without permission

or

2) You're violating the GPL, which is a contract you've agreed to.

Either way, you're breaking the law.

Re:Understanding GPL is not trivial.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you use GPL code in your software, then it is covered by the GPL, as per the original author's intent.

Think of it as licensing fee. The fee being that you must release your source code.

Re:Understanding GPL is not trivial.

[jas79]

that is a easy one:
when you distribute software under the GPL. If you do not except the terms of the GPL, you aren't allowed to distribute it because of copyright law.

Re:Understanding GPL is not trivial.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's so hard to understand? The short version is, if you incorporate GPL code into your own program (creating what the license calls a derivative work), then your code must also be released under the GPL. There are a few other details, but on the whole, it's a pretty clear and easy to understand license.

Re:Understanding GPL is not trivial.

[jukal]

Thanks for the replies, but none of these quite answer the question in my opinion. "How to explain the meaning of GPL in short" - what does it mean to a company for example, who wishes to sell a software product commercially: in projects x,y and z which utilize GPL'ed programs or sources in different, in which of the cases does their project-results get governed by GPL. You cannot explain what GPL by saying GPL is GPL and you must obey it.

The question is, can we explain the GPL FAQ in a short, clear and understandable way. In other words (or ironically) the problem is that we need the huge FAQ which just confuses people. Imagine showing that FAQ to your boss, who doesn't know anything about GPL before. After he/she has read it, and got confused, how do you summarize it so that he can use the information in his business.

Re:Understanding GPL is not trivial.

[Anonymous Coward]

The same place it happens with microsoft code, SUN code, etc. There's really nothing different about the GPL except that there are cases where it's OK to use the code in certain ways than is the case with "commercial" source code and cases where it isn't OK in either setting.

Re:Understanding GPL is not trivial.

[jukal]

> The short version is, if you incorporate GPL code into your own program (creating what the license calls a derivative work), then your code must also be released under the GPL.

Yup, this is the definition everyone has in their heads. Even of those people, who don't understand it's meaning - I believe you do but....

Assuming person x knows what you stated, then let's take a couple of cases:

- "program" X is a big system for processing, delivering and transcoding media (video, sound, whatever). It uses one GPL'ed codec. Does (and when) the whole system X get governed by GPL.
- operating system X is tailored for an embedded device, it utilizes the linux code base heavily. Some GPLed code needs to be tailored to make the operating system X work in that embedded device. How should the project be done, to avoid the need to reveal code that might reveal "business secrets" about the embedded device X hardware.

Well, actually, let's begin with these two. :)

Re:Understanding GPL is not trivial.

[John Hasler]

> what in practise - makes the GPL spread to new
> code - when does your software become
> automagically governed by GPL?

Never.

Re:Understanding GPL is not trivial.

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect anyone with an 8th grade education to
be able to read and fully comprehend the GPL as
written. It is clear, concise, and utterly focused
on purpose. No treatment is needed to make it
"clear and understandable." The problem is that
people seem to want it to mean something that it
does not. They want an explanation that tells them
something other than the meaning of the license.
I think they would like some of the clauses to go
away or be revocable. That won't happen no matter
how many times you read it. If the copyright holder
is someone other than yourself, you don't have a
weasel clause out of the license, unless you can
negotiate one directly.

Either that, or they lack the reading comprehension
skills of a high school freshman. If the person is
in a position of authority in your business, then
I would suggest that, not the GPL, is your problem.

Re:Understanding GPL is not trivial.

[cburley]

what in practise - makes the GPL spread to new code - when does your software become automagically governed by GPL?

IANAL, but I believe the answer is: when your software is considered a derived work of GPL'ed code, according to the copyright law of the land.

There is, as far as I can tell, no "bright line" between when this does and does not happen, nor can one be made to exist, short of "everything infringes" or, more practically, "nothing infringes".

I've written about this principle in length on USENET's gnu.misc.discuss group in the past, if you want to search for my posts from years ago.

But the main thing to remember is: just because we're dealing with technology here doesn't mean we can expect to, or expect the law to, draw us a nice, technologically clean "line" between infringing copyright and not infringing it.

So, the question being "does my program derived from GPL'ed code?", two things, at least, must be answered:

1. What actually constitutes your program, which, in copyright terms, is the "work"?

2. Does that work contain a substantial portion of someone else's GPL'ed code?

As you should be able to infer from the above, these questions cannot be trivially answered by resorting to redefining "work" as "single linked executable", since a court might reasonable rule that the work actually consists of two or more executables (or binaries generally) cooperating so closely as to consistute a single work, making that collective work a derivation of GPL'ed software if any one of its components is.

Anyway, since the GPL "protects" code no further than copyright law defines "derived work", it cannot definitely answer the question.

Instead, all it can do is limit the degree to which copyright law's view of a "derived work" might extend beyond what the GPL intended to protect.

Hence things like the "mere aggregation" clause.

Re:Understanding GPL is not trivial.

[BollocksToThis]

- "program" X is a big system for processing, delivering and transcoding media (video, sound, whatever). It uses one GPL'ed codec. Does (and when) the whole system X get governed by GPL.

Using a codec is not using source code. In the same way you can create proprietary applications using freely available software like GCC and such, you can also interoperate with self-contained GPL software. Only when you attempt to intermingle someone else's work (their solution to a problem - their code) with your own do the terms of the GPL affect you.

- operating system X is tailored for an embedded device, it utilizes the linux code base heavily. Some GPLed code needs to be tailored to make the operating system X work in that embedded device. How should the project be done, to avoid the need to reveal code that might reveal "business secrets" about the embedded device X hardware.

The project should be done without linux code. That code was worked on by many people, whose only requirements are that you continue to make their work available under their terms. If you aren't willing to share the code for OS X (heh!) with your customers (note: not necessarily the world), then don't use any GPLd code in it.

Re:Understanding GPL is not trivial.

[BollocksToThis]

Sorry, additional to the second point - if you can in any way separate your code from the original GPL code, you should be fine - it's when you take GPL code and modify it that you become subject to the terms of the GPL.

In other words, I could write a copy of Redhat to a CD and include a binary under another license on the disk as well, providing that one binary had no GPL code in it.

Re:Understanding GPL is not trivial.

[bwt]

What is to not get? It's pretty simple: if you modify it distribute the source code and offer others the same deal. This is acheived with an absolutely trivial applicaiton of copyright law.

Copyright law, specificially 17 USC 106 provides the owner of a copyright "exclusive rights to do and to authorize" certain activities, including "to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work". Software source code is such a copyrighted work, as is object code. When somebody prepares any form of software whose source or object code is a derivitive work of some other software, then that person has violated 17 USC 106 unless the creation was authorized. The GPL offers such authorization to software protected by it, so long as, among other things, that source code to the derivitive work be made available to anyone that the derivitive work is distributed to, and that modifications to the original, to the extent that they receive separate copyright protection per 17 USC 103(b) must be licenced under the GPL. It's a quid-pro-quo you may make a derivitive of my work if I can choose your licence. If you don't accept and comply with the requirements, you are violating 17 USC 106, and may be subject to civil remedies, injunctions, actual or statutory damages (up to $150K for willful infringement), attourneys fees, loss of profits attributable to infringement, and possibly criminal penalties, all as defined in 17 USC 501-509.

Re:Understanding GPL is not trivial.

[jukal]

Thank you, this was exactly what I wanted to say, but in a clear and understandable way.

Just to sound redundant:

" I still believe that even many developers, who choose to use GPL, do not know what it means, and what it means especially outside the borders of his own country."

The problem is same with many other licensing methods, probably even most of them. GPL is just so common nowadays, that I believe every developer should try to comprehend it thoroughly to not do serious mistakes or damage to for example his/her company or to a GPL developers rights.

Re:Understanding GPL is not trivial.

[kesuki]

The former is actually a workaround on the GPL. Say you have a rather large code based mp3 player (winamp for instance) and you have a plug-in model, and there is a GPL visialization for XMMS that you want to work with winamp's plugin's. You can simply modify the GPLed code to make a new plug-in, but any modifications to that plug-in have to be released under GPL, however, your mp3 player product (in this case, winamp) can remain closed source. GPL software can interact with non GPL software, and there is nothing in the GPL preventing that.
The second case is pretty clear too, just look at how Sony released linux for the PS2. They provided all the GPL source open, including the modifications they made, but they made the modifications in such a way that linux became dependant on propritary PS2 software that sony doesn't offer the source code to. GPL doesn't require that you disclose secret information on specialized hardware -- it requires you to release GPLed code as GPLed code. So if you have secrets that need to be kept, they need to be kept outside the GPLed portion of the code, and it might not be a pretty or elegant solution. It also helps when you can design the hardware with the goal in mind too, like sony could.

Re:Understanding GPL is not trivial.

[Anonymous Coward]

No. 1) The codec would most likely be considered a "plug in" library, which exposes its API's in the same way that any other plugin would I.e. the API to the GPL codec is not specific to only that codec. The codec would be GPL entirely, but the code would not be explitly linked to the GPL code, and therefore, the GPL would not apply outside of the codec.

Note that this is still a grey area. Stallman will tell you it is a clear GPL violation, but many will tell you it is not. In these cases, you are better to use the LGPL.

No 2.) Unless you write all of your modifications as loadable modules, your code is intermingled with GPL code, and therefore constitutes a derivitive work. You must GPL your modifications.

Note that in this case, Linux is actually not licenced under the "pure" GPL, but does in fact have specific clauses incorporated which allow binary modules to be linked with the kernel. If it did not have this clause, all modules and modifications made to the kernel must be licenced under the GPL.

NET act? Criminal prosecution?

[FredGray]

Since Sigma Designs is a U.S. company, they should be subject to criminal prosecution under the No Electronic Theft (NET) act. The summary (copied from the linked page) is

The reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies of 1 or more copyrighted works which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more constitutes a felony, with a maximum sentence of three years imprisonment and a fine of $250,000. The reproduction or distribution of 1 or more copies of 1 or more copyrighted works which have a total retail value of more than $1,000 constitutes a misdemeanor, with a one-year maximum sentence and a fine of up to $100,000.

The XVID developers should file a complaint with the U.S. FBI.

Uh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does masturbating bitterly count?

Another approach . . .

[HoldenCaulfield]

You could always send them an email asking for the source . . . from the RealMagic codec page

For technical questions and suggestions regarding RMP4, please send an email to RMP4@sdesigns.com.

etc

Re:Another approach . . .

[nadaou]

You could always send them an email asking for the source . . . from the RealMagic codec page

As I understand it, the GPL only requires them to give out the source (with original GPL copyright intact) to their customers to whom they have already given a binary copy to, and who request it. They may charge a nominal fee for the cost of the media.

I'm just watching the NASDAQ daily chart (SIGM) for how their stock does in the morning. May be more effective than any C&D letter XviD could write with pro bono help..

Hot tip:
Could be a good time to invest in the Pitch forks and torch co.
*Note- guilt has not yet been proven, even if it smells really really bad*

tee hee. burn baby burn!

Or don't

[Fencepost]

Hell, ask Stallman, he's always looking for a pulpit.

Or don't ask Stallman, because he's always looking for a pulpit. Find someone whose credentials are as good, but who's less likely to offend the judge by getting preachy.

Ok, I read it.. let's talk base rates

[xant]

I've disassembled my own C code and even written a tiny bit of asm code, so I'm no stranger, to this topic but I don't feel qualified looking at the asm dumps to answer this crucial question:

How likely is it for the two dumps to have that much similarity by chance, or by convergence?

This is the 'base rates' problem. Taking an example from My Cousin Vinny, you can say "wow, that's amazing, those two car tires make exactly the same tracks" but it's meaningless if most cars have the same tires anyway. Could this be another such situation? If you compared two programs compiled on the same platform, you're bound to find identical code somewhere, and it becomes more likely the smaller the regions you look at. Comparing huge asm dumps is not likely to be compelling to a jury who knows nothing about asm, and comparing small asm dumps lacks statistical weight.

To really support their case, these guys need to get research data on the statistical similarity or dissimilarity of two programs written to do similar things.

Re:Ok, I read it.. let's talk base rates

[klparrot]

Sigma Designs even admitted, at least the first time they were contacted by XVID, that they were infringing. So they shouldn't have to prove asm similarity as closely as they would without this admission of guilt.

XVID could argue that Sigma Designs has now enough time to modify their code just enough to produce different asm, but that the code still infringes.

The actual source code should be brought into evidence, and if possible, Sigma's CVS (or other version-control) history. A judge should be able to force them to reveal source code in court, although perhaps not as part of the public record.

Re:Ok, I read it.. let's talk base rates

[msgmonkey]

It's not a matter of a few bits of code.. if you read the PDF it says they found over 120 identical functions inside the DLL.. I would hardly call that freak chance.

Re:Ok, I read it.. let's talk base rates

[Bruce Perens]

Large runs are identical, along with function names and file names. Two programmers writing from the same specification would not converge that way. The probability of this is so extremely low, it's not worth discussing.

Bruce

Re:Ok, I read it.. let's talk base rates

[Anonymous Coward]

although perhaps not as part of the public record.

They don't have a choice in wether it is public record or not. DeCSS, for example, is now Public Record as it was submitted in the court brief...

Re:Sue them - I agree, for all copyright violation

[Totally_Lost]

Many of my generation have a legal 150 CD and 100 DVD libary of original retail product with an investment of $2,500 or more ... the P2P croud typically have twice that in pirated works ... and you tell me that isn't about money?

Bit packing

[oneiric]

Looking at the copied code in the pdf files cited, a lot of it relates to bit packing, unpacking, and color transformations. Whilst this code may be copied, there are just so many ways to do these operations. Several of the examples include MMX instructions, but pipeline scheduling usually means there's a right way (speed-up) and a wrong way (slow down). If we were kind to Sigma Designs and assumed they wrote the routines independently then it wouldn't be surprising some of them were the same, ie only so many ways to do this stuff.

Very frustrating attitude.

[Hrothgar The Great]

But as it is, they have effectively done NOTHING whatsoever to the company in question. Why should Sigma give a crap if they stop developing it? I'm sure they are very capable of carrying on the work themselves.

XVID might as well just give them permission to steal the product, for all the good this gesture is doing.

Re:Very frustrating attitude.

[siskbc]

If they were so capable why were they stealing it in the first place?

Is there...

[garf]

...a lawyer in the house...

Re:seee

[Anonymous Coward]

GNU GPL isn't a sheild. Its a sword.

DivXNetworks also sad to hear about this

[L0g05]

http://forums.divx.com/viewtopic.php?topic=40040&f orum=5 We've had our own problems with Sigma, but I'm suprised it came to this. Xvid is a great project and we will try to help them get back on track. Lets see what can be done.

How would we know?

[mackman]

I wonder if any of the DNA/protein search algorithms (BLAST comes to mind) could be used to compare disassemblies.

Perhaps it would be worth collecting an archive of disassembled open source programs and then using it to compare against commercial products.

We'd need a wide spectrum of open source code compiled in different versions of GCC and other compilers, then disassembled and archived in a DB. We'd also need a modified search algorithm, and from what little I know about bioinformatics, BLAST does for nucleotides what we need for opcodes.

Anybody think this is feasable? Worthwhile? Intresting enough to work on?

-Ryan

Use the DMCA - contact their ISP

[agravaine]

So, if Sigma Designs is violating XVID.org's copyrighted code, then XVID should serve Sigma Design's (or their hosting company) with a DMCA ceas and desist, no?

Re:Use the DMCA - contact their ISP

[Anonymous Coward]

Eventually it would end up in court anyway ... and if found they did not commit copyright infringement (by buying better lawyers for instance) you would probably be liable for damages.

Sony and SN Systems copied GCC for PlayStation

[Myria]

In the early days of the original PlayStation, Sony and SN Systems took GCC and modified it to become a compiler for PlayStation. However, SN Systems made a number of additional modifications, such as by adding dongle-based copy protection to protect "their" work. This crap finally stopped a few years later when game developers complained and Richard Stallman got involved. This incident is rarely heard about because PSX game development was under NDA. However, an NDA that covers GCC is illegal, because it would restrict the rights of the next user to copy GCC (thus automatically revoking Sony's right to copy GCC). The PlayStation 2 compiler is now distributed with clear notice that the GCC and binutils portions are under GPL and not covered by the NDA. They also come with source code. They are in fact the same source tree for professional developers as the GCC used in PS2 Linux. myria

It's not a slam dunk

[btempleton]

Did the authors register their copyright? They need to do that to get statutory damages. If they did, the statutory damages could be extremely high, and so you would have a case for Sigma to fear.

If not, they should register it right away, while Sigma is still distributing the alleged infringement.

If not registered, you can only get actual damages. And it's easy to see a court saying that actual damages -- which are financial, not personal -- are zero in a case like this. How much money did the team lose? You might do better arguing how much Sigma made from the infringing code but they would of course make the argument that the money came from their proprietary additions, not the GPLd code which of course anybody can get for free.

To compel them to comply with GPL, you will have to get the court to agree with the implied licence. That's harder, though if they really have documents from Sigma admitting that they were aware of the GPL terms you might have a shot.

Otherwise, I don't think anybody has had a court rule that you would be bound by the GPL contract if you used GPLd code. They would rule you violated copyright, but will they rule more?

Think about it. If I put a licence in my code saying "Use this code without my permission and you must give me your whole corporation" no court would consider that enforceable.

Will they consider it enforceable if the licence says "use this code without my permission and you must give away all the source code to everything you bundled with it"? Also in doubt.

Could be. Could not be.

Re:It's not a slam dunk

[ZxCv]

Will they consider it enforceable if the licence says "use this code without my permission and you must give away all the source code to everything you bundled with it"? Also in doubt.

That is debateable, although, having studied contract law in the past, I personally believe the GPL would withstand that challenge--the GPL is a contract, and thusly, if one party breaks that contract, they are liable for whatever is stipulated in the contract or whatever the law stipulates, usually whichever is less. I also believe that the XViD folks would be OK with Sigma simply pulling their product until such time as they can write their own code, which would keep Sigma from having to release any code they didn't want to. IMHO, this seems to be the most plausible of any outcome.

Re:It's not a slam dunk

[Anonymous Coward]

"They would rule you violated copyright, but will they rule more?"

Do they need more? Willful copyright violation is
pretty serious, and might turn out to be multi-million-dollar-fine
serious.

If you can find that smoking gun document that shows
someone at Sigma *KNEW* what they were doing and ordered
it to be done, you might even see someone making license
plates for a few years on top of the whopping fines.

Re:It's not a slam dunk

[btempleton]

No, that strict interpretation would make Sigma liable for having distributed code they had no right to distribute in the past. Simply stopping shipping the code would not make the terms right.

That's the danger here. For example, we all click on clickwrap contracts every day, installing software. Including the GPL contract. But the law is not going to allow those contracts to bind you to anything at all. It's going to limit what those contracts can do.

And it will limit even more implicit contracts. It's not going to rule, I predict, that if Microsoft integrated some GPL code into Windows, that it is now bound to GPL all its code, even though that's what the GPL says.

It is more likely they would soften it as you say, just telling them to remove it, or pay some monetary damages.

Re:It's not a slam dunk

[evilpaul13]

"Will they consider it enforceable if the licence says "use this code without my permission and you must give away all the source code to everything you bundled with it"? Also in doubt."

That's not what they are saying. All they are laying claim to is the DLL file which contains the stolen GPLed code.

If you take my code, compile it, and sell it, that doesn't make it yours.

Re:It's not a slam dunk

[btempleton]

Of course not. But the GPL says, "If you take this GPLd code, and compile it and sell it, you must agree/are agreeing to licence the larger package containing the code under the GPL."

The difference is between "must licence under GPL" and "agree to licence under GPL"

You can indeed say that the price of using the code is to licence the package containing it under GPL, ie. publish source etc.

That's the price. The question is, can it be a compulsion, that no other remedy is allowed.

If it said, "If you use this code in your software and publish your software, you owe me 1 trillion dollars" do you think the courts would enforce that?

No, when you use somebody's code without permission it's a copyright infringement, and they tend to just look at what the penalty for that should be.

Re:It's not a slam dunk

[giminy]

Hm...couldn't they sue Sigma for whatever profit Sigma has made? After all, just because something is GPL doesn't mean it can't be sold. You just have to make the source code freely available. They could say that, had they sold those binary copies of their software (pre-compiled as a service to the customer), they could have received the same amount of money that Sigma received...

That might send a stronger message to Sigma.

Re:It's not a slam dunk

[phr2]

To compel them to comply with GPL, you will have to get the court to agree with the implied licence. That's harder, though if they really have documents from Sigma admitting that they were aware of the GPL terms you might have a shot.

That doesn't make any sense. The license spelled out in the GPL is the only thing giving anyone permission to copy the code in the first place. Without the GPL, copying the code is a copyright infringement pure and simple.

Will they consider it enforceable if the licence says "use this code without my permission and you must give away all the source code to everything you bundled with it"? Also in doubt.

If Sigma hasn't agreed to such a license, then of course the license terms are not enforceable. But if Sigma doesn't agree to the license, then while copying the code isn't a license violation, it is a copyright infringement.

Your point that Xvid should register the copyright to be able to claim statutory damages is very important. I hope they're aware of that and have registered the copyright already. If not, they should register it right away.

Re:It's not a slam dunk

[jfunk]

If it said, "If you use this code in your software and publish your software, you owe me 1 trillion dollars" do you think the courts would enforce that?

Yes they would. Why do you think they wouldn't? If I pirated software and the BSA goons caught me, they would make me pay the amount that the publisher licenses it for. (Remember that software isn't sold)

The courts would certainly enforce it.

Re:It's not a slam dunk

[John Hasler]

> Otherwise, I don't think anybody has had a court
> rule that you would be bound by the GPL contract
> if you used GPLd code. They would rule you
> violated copyright, but will they rule more?

They would rule that the copyright had been infringed and order Sigma to cease distribution of the infringing material immediately. They would also award damages: statutory, if the infringed work was registered. They would probably accept a settlement in which Sigma agreed to comply with the terms of the GPL.

Re:It's not a slam dunk

[Anonymous Coward]

registering copyright in germany? forget that, it's simply not possible....

not every country is as broken as the USA, not every country aims for that brokenness... unfortunately many try

Re:It's not a slam dunk

[rnturn]

I thought that only trademarks had to be registered. Isn't all that's necessary to have something copyrighted just the simple act of declaring it to be copyrighted? At one time (years ago) I thought there was some gotcha in that you were supposed to have the official copyright symbol (i.e., the ``circled-C'') but that all you need nowadays was ``(C)'' along with a date, name, etc..

Is this registration some special process that makes one copyright somehow stronger than another? Sure hope not lest the Web become a plagiarist's dream. (I can picture some Federal agency salivating over the possibility of collecting copyright registration fees for every Web page posted.)

Re:It's not a slam dunk

[dvdeug]

Is this registration some special process that makes one copyright somehow stronger than another?

Yes. Before you can bring a case to court, you must register your copyright with the Library of Congress, which costs about $35. I believe you could do the whole website in one bite, and it only matters if you're going to sue someone.

Re:It's not a slam dunk

[btempleton]

My point is that a copyright infringement only lets you get the damages that copyright law allows -- statutory damages for registered copyrights, and actual damages if greater, or actual damages only if unregistered.

Copyright infringement is not grounds to force people to do other things like putting their own source code under GPL. There are some interesting unexplored questions on ownership of derivative works which could produce possible results here, but this would not apply if somebody uses a GPL (not LGPL) library in a code base.

To be compelled to obey a contract you must agree to it. To use GPLed code in a closed source project is to infringe the copyright on the GPLed code. It is a bigger leap to say it is an implicit agreement to a contract.

Re:It's not a slam dunk

[Anonymous Coward]

There seems to be some confusion here... Sigma never made any profits from their distribution of the CODEC. It was a free download.

Contact the California Attorney General & the

[andrewski]

Sigma Designs is releasing their 2nd quarter earnings report this afternoon, and I made sure that the Attorney General in Cali and the SEC both know that this company is ripping people off and -GASP!- stealing Intellectual Property!

I suggest you do the same. Let's take some money out of the CEO's pocket by letting the world know that this corporation is crooked.

Criminal Infringement

[Anonymous Coward]

(IANAL)

If they can prove it was willfull infringement
for commercial gain (which seems obvious in this
case, especially given the cease-and-desist
orders), it is a criminal act (see below), and the responsible party can be imprisoned for up to
a year. (q.v. TITLE 18, sec 2319.)

Unfortunately, the "big penalties" would only
apply if XVID had retail value.

TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 506:
(a) Criminal Infringement. -

Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -

(1)

for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or

(2)

by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,

shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.

GPL Coders need GPL lawyers

[dbcowboy]

Is there any lawyers who would take up the cause to support the GPL without requiring fees ??? Really the GPL needs lawyers, politicians and voters. This seems to be a good case to start out on. Where is those legal experts who want to support a noble cause???

Re:GPL Coders need GPL lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

no, there is no money in it. And, besides, noone cares.

What are the chances...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that the stolen code only exists in the software codec and not in their hardware too?

Oh deary me, what a can of worms :\

Re:Contact the California Attorney General & t

[dbcowboy]

Don't forget to email them direct too. Im sure all the investors would like to here how honest this company is playing....

Sigma Designs, Inc.
Investor Relations:
ir@sdesigns.com

Re:Sue them - I agree, for all copyright violation

[John Hasler]

It's pretty damn sick to libel an entire community because of unauthorized copying by some college kids. I have never knowingly infringed a copyright. If you are claiming I did so you had damn well better be prepared to prove it in court.

Binary-Level Comparisons ring true!

[Kaz Riprock]

From the post:

The current XVID homepage includes some binary-level comparisons.

From the homepage:

XVID: 10010101101000100101000101111010010001001010001010 010101001010
Sigma: 10010101101000100101000101111010010001001010001010 010101001010

If you ask me, that's pretty damning evidence of binary-level code stealing!

Re:Binary-Level Comparisons ring true!

[Anonymous Coward]

Any two functions with the same interfaces, when compiled with the same compiler, will have a number of identical bytes in the beginning and in the end ( so-called prolog and epilog code ). The example above tells us nothing.
We won't see any true evidence of code stealing unless they open the code. Which they won't do unless someone proves that code stealing took place.

Re:Sue them - I agree, for all copyright violation

[gimpboy]

they are selling stuff on the p2p networks? i must admit that i have never used kaza, morphwhatever, etc, but the people i know who do have never mentioned paying for stuff. if people on the p2p networks are selling stuff, then sure the copyright holders should go after them.

i tried napster once, but never really liked it that much. i preferred to rip my own cd's since i could generally produce stuff with better quality.

FSF now has copyleft over XVID

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello,

This is Cygnus, I just had a nice chat with FSF's lawyer and we've agreeded to write off the software to FSF as of 6 pm today (August 22 2002 - Thur). Hopefully, this should help in a major way. I'm delighted by the number of people who wrote encouraging e-mails and good suggestions, hell, it feels good to know that the community is behind us.

Also, contrary to what some people have been thinking, closing the project is only temporary (till the issues are closed), we are not bending down for any corporation that has stolen our code. Also, I'd like to thank Darell Kruger of AMD for his and his company's generous donation, we are forwarding all this to our FSF council.

Also note, SIGMA Design's code is being used by a number of RIAA endosed hardware and software solutions (mainly DVD players from Panasonic and Daewoo), hopefully this would turn interesting, since the the most recent players are using their 1.1 code already. I would like to hear from people who own such players. Since we'd like to go at the harware manifacturars and possibly the cartel itself.

Please join our mailing list if you have any more suggestions (as my e-mail is completely full) and our little server might go foo-bar if we keep it at it.

Thank you.

Eric "Cygnus" Von Jane

Re:FSF now has copyleft over XVID

[Anonymous Coward]

just in case you didn't notice: what he writes is bullsh*t

Re:FSF now has copyleft over XVID

[SpaceLifeForm]

This should make for a very interesting conference call next Tuesday.

Mod parent up!

unanswered question

[Tom]

why have they ceased development? that's the part of the article I don't get. I guess they're pissed, but why stop working on the thing, is there a specific reason I missed?

Re:unanswered question

[fishbowl]

"why have they ceased development?"

If you were painting someone's house, and you
found out for certain that they had no intention
of ever paying you, would you keep painting the
house? Or would you take your ladder, your paint,
and your brush, and go elsewhere?

What if you were painting the house, and you found
out that not only were you not going to get paid,
but that the person was going to then take your ladder,
your paint, your brush, your truck, and call the police
to have you arrested for trespassing?

Would you stay and finish the job?

How would you feel about this story if the Sigma folks
had finished their product, and then turned around
and accused XVID of stealing THEIR work? Who's to
say they STILL won't try that?

Re:unanswered question

[EdMcMan]

So the primary purpose of Xvid developing their software is so that Sigma will GPL their codec? There's a flaw in your analogy.

Re:unanswered question

[Anonymous Coward]

xvid is freeware, nobody is gittin paid.
terrible analogy.
better would be xvid is painting their house a custom color and someone is using the same color and claiming it as their own original creation.

Re:unanswered question

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd paint 'wanker' on the side of the house, personally. I'm not sure how this applies to the metaphor though.

XCard motivation

[Quickening]

OK no one's mentioned this, but I jumped on XCard and quickly found not 1 frelling divx/mpeg4 file I downloaded from the web would work. It wasn't till I encoded my own file with their MPEG4 codec that I actually saw it working. Does this mean that the stolen codec made it into hardware?

Bastards! Nuke 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's bring their site down!

Sigma amended their EULA for the download

[charnov]

Looks like they have added (in bold type) this to the download license...

"You also expressly agree that you will not violate any copyright of a third party or Sigma in your use of the Software.

Infringement. You are hereby advised and you understand that your use of the Software may infringe existing patents. You understand that you are solely responsible for obtaining the necessary licenses from such patent owners and for paying all applicable fees and royalties. You agree that Sigma shall have no liability for use of this Software or any derivation thereof."

I don't know who their lawyers are, but saying "we are not responsible for product that we provide that violates law" does not make it so...Facilitation is a definite enforceable part of copyright law (and I believe they are violating federal wire fraud laws by knowingly transporting "stolen" goods)...but IANAL...heh

Re:Sigma amended their EULA for the download

[Kindaian]

So not only they use GPL without sharing the code, but they also incorporate patented materials without prior license to do it and shuffle the responsability to the users... Nice commercial move chummers... Why not add the a prison penalty automaticly in the EULA? About facilitation, that is a curious term and a dangerous legal detail of the copyright law, because it makes way to: a) arbitrariarity of judges and juris; b) rectro-liability; c) uncertainity of legal status; As it is, if P2P software is considered a facilitation program, then so should all OS arround the world and all "sharing" enabling software that sits over any OS. This kind of liability, tagged just in the software creation, is impossible to mesure and work with. Cheers... P.S.- The use of P2P doesn't mean that one is doing anything illegal, i for once intend to study P2P for use in my company... for allow file sharing thru the internet between our workers. Like a kind of unregulated cvs system... Does that make me or my company copyright offenders? I think not...

Breaking News

[Anonymous Coward]

This just in, Sigma Designs changes it's name to Stolen Designs.

Germany.

[fishbowl]

Is the GPL enforcable at all in Germany?

Does the license even apply?

Re:Germany.

[John Hasler]

The GPL grants rights not available to recipients of copies under bare copyright. Thus if the GPL is not enforceable recipients of copies of GPLd works have no right at all to create derivatives or distribute copies.

Re:Germany.

[fishbowl]

"Thus if the GPL is not enforceable recipients of copies of GPLd works have no right at all to create derivatives or distribute copies."

Okay, lets just say that Sigma is in violation of,
or rejects, the GPL. What laws prevent them from
shamelessly stealing the code? US copyright law?
German copyright law? If XVID prevails in this case,
will Sigma be allowed to continue their practice but
not allowed to distribute to the US market?

Re:Germany.

[John Hasler]

> Okay, lets just say that Sigma is in violation
> of, or rejects, the GPL.

If they reject the GPL they are left with only the rights they would have in the absence of any licens at all. Those rights do not include the right to create derivatives or to distribute copies.

> What laws prevent them from
> shamelessly stealing the code?

Copyright law, of course. What would you expect?

> If XVID prevails in this case, will Sigma be
> allowed to continue their practice but
> not allowed to distribute to the US market?

I assume that XVID would have to bring seperate suits in each jurisdiction.

Give it to xiph

[Sloppy]

Please consider sending the money to xiph.org instead. Xvid's work will always be a gray area because of patents. You may end up just defending the copyright (win the battle) on some code that in turn violates someone's patent (lose the war).

Building up xiph.org's patent-free Tarkin codec is a better long-term solution to all this mess.

Re:Sue them - I agree, for all copyright violation

[Totally_Lost]

Copyright laws don't talk about selling, they do talk about distribution and unauthrized replication that is beyound "fair use", which the P2P community is in violation of.

Good test case!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Xvid people have a very good case with this one. They have good proof, and can expect support from the community, the FSF and e.g. IBM.

DoS 'em Sigma bastards!

Re:Sue them - I agree, for all copyright violation

[Totally_Lost]

I said "largely the same" which implies a large intersection, not equivalence. I'm glad you are proud to be outside that group.

Re:Sue them - I agree, for all copyright violation

[Sancho]

Check this thread out , though:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=& threadid= 32015

Specifically:
I spoke to a manager at Sigma Designs over the phone a couple weeks ago, and he basically verified the accusation - a programmer "mistakenly" based their MPEG-4 codec around XviD, added a few patches, changed the interface (but not by much), then released it as their own. We were informed that they were replacing all GPL'ed code with their own, to avoid a licensing problem (even though copyright infringement had already occurred, of course).

After that, version 1.1 came out, which was a complete slap in the face. Supposedly "rewritten", it was nothing but a different checkout of XviD with a few registers changed and some code reordered.

Should be an interesting few days.

-h

Important point in Moglen's essay - shame them

[cmuncey]

Moglen makes an interesting point, especially in regard to the investor's conference call noted above -- shame Sigma. Out them to their customers and distributors, especially as they apparently have had problems before. Emphasis below is mine:

We have even, once or twice, faced enterprises which, under US copyright law, were engaged in deliberate, criminal copyright infringement: taking the source code of GPL'd software, recompiling it with an attempt to conceal its origin, and offering it for sale as a proprietary product. I have assisted free software developers other than the FSF to deal with such problems, which we have resolved--since the criminal infringer would not voluntarily desist and, in the cases I have in mind, legal technicalities prevented actual criminal prosecution of the violators--by talking to redistributors and potential customers. ``Why would you want to pay serious money,'' we have asked, ``for software that infringes our license and will bog you down in complex legal problems, when you can have the real thing for free?'' Customers have never failed to see the pertinence of the question. The stealing of free software is one place where, indeed, crime doesn't pay.

While it would be easy to deflect a direct question about this by deferring to one's lawyers or such, questions about having a major distributor dropping your product over such an allegation would be much more difficult to deflect, and would be of great interest to investors.

Re:Important point in Moglen's essay - shame them

[Anonymous Coward]

this whole thing is stupid. How do you steal something that is free? The GPL ranks in the top 10 stupidest computer gimicks of all time. If you want protection, sell it and licence under something real. You GPL programmers are hilarious - I steal your code all the time - most of it sucks, but some of it works ok that I can make bucks of your work in consulting fees.

Re:Important point in Moglen's essay - shame them

[Anonymous Coward]

If it sucked, you wouldn't steal it.

Unless, of course, you have no talent of your own. Seems quite likely, given the sub-par troll.

Re:Important point in Moglen's essay - shame them

[Anonymous Coward]

You steal code that sucks? Why, can't you even write your own sucky code? Fuck, you must be a seriously shit coder.

Re:Important point in Moglen's essay - shame them

[cduffy]

You realize that in doing that you put both you and your client at risk of getting your asses sued off, right?

What's particularly silly is that you could make consulting fees off reusing our code legally; in most cases, the GPL isn't really an impediment to such usage. You put yourself at risk, fine -- but if you lose your job and get your ass sued off (and if it's my code you're stealing I'll do it, too), don't come crying to me.

Finally the missing step!!!!

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

1: Create cool open source stuff
2: Get ripped off by a for-profit outfit
3: Prove it, and sue
4: Profit!

Re:Finally the missing step!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG, i think you found the missing link!

Re:Finally the missing step!!!!

[0x0d0a]

New Economy transition?

1. Make startup
2. Make product
3. Get purchased by Microsoft
4. Profit

becomes

1. Make startup
2. Make product
3. Get ripped off by Microsoft -- sue them
4. Profit

Next paragraph...

[srvivn21]

Version 1.1 of the REALmagic software was released on the 9th of August. After examining the new version, XVID developers concluded that the violating code was not replaced, but disguised by programming and compiling tricks. Sigma Designs' were again contacted and asked to remove the REALmagic download link from their website. Thus far, they have not shown any sign of cooperation.

They (ahem) might have fixed it. It's Sigma Designs assertion that they have, and the XVID team's claim that they haven't.

I have no opinion on the matter either way.

Re:Next paragraph...

[mcelrath]

I think that for any programmer, given that they have an existing codebase that works, writing a completely new implementation without using any of the old code would be damn near impossible. I mean, you'd look at the old code, "hmmm...that's a reasonable way to do it, and I know it works...why change it?" Even if the programmers retyped every character (no cut and paste) there would still be a large amount of code that is similar, maybe even entire functions that would have the same disassembly.

About the only way a company could reasonably pull off this kind of "removing GPL code" would be to forcibly remove the old codebase from the developers eyes. This is something that would cost them a lot of time and money in re-implementation. I don't think any company would do it. You'd also need a manager willing and able to find and remove the code. That must be hard to find...

Companies should realize if they get stuck in this situation, that it's better, in the long run, to contribute to the existing codebase and cooperate with the developers they're trying to steal from. The benefits of base of coders not employed by you improving your stuff for free far outweighs the benefits of having a closed-source implementation. I mean, what good does it to to have a proprietary implementation if there are 5 good open source ones out there? Closing the source doesn't buy you anything! It's not like they invented MPEG-4.!

-- Bob

industry & copyrights

[kharchenko]

Companies routinely infringe on each-other's patents, and then sort things out with law-suits if they think it's worth it. That's how many industries work - take biotech for example.
In that sense, open source projects are at a huge disadvantage, since they will never make profit from law-suits, and are very unlikely to have the money to even initiate a law suite.
So I say, unless something like FSF or EFF makes it their duty to pursue such cases, get used to companies using GPL code in their closed-source products.

Didn't Carmack try to enforce GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see few comments claiming that GPL has not been enforced but I remember somebody trying to distribute Quake mod. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/02/23/201420 5&mode=thread&tid=112

Was the case settled out of cour of what became out of it?

Can Xvid be sued by Sigma ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a thought, but can Xvid be sued by sigma instead ? Because their license agreement says users may not disassemble or reverse engineer their software and Xvid has posted disassembled informatio.

Conference calls are for analysts. B-)

[Ungrounded Lightning]

No sense wasting your time; I can all but guarantee you the conversation will go something like this:

Q: "Does Sigma Designs have any comment on the recent accusation from the XVID team that their MPEG-4 codec infringes on XVID's copyright?"

A: "We're not aware of any court filings pertaining to the matter, so no, we have no comment."

Perhaps you will get that answer, but you may make other shareholders aware of it and start thinking about if they should still own stock.

That will get the company's attention better then anything.

It's better than that.

Conference calls are for analysts, i.e. reporters for the financial media and stock brokers. ANYONE can call in. (But you'll be asked for your affiliation. I recommend one of our big guns be the questioner - like somebody from FSF.)

Ask that question and the whole financial media community will hear it as:

XVID says you stole your core technology from them. They're about to sue. Since it's a GPL case they may have a well-endowed foundation and several large companies that are dependent on GPL for their business models to front the fees and several law professors to do pro-bono work for them as they litigate the enforcability of the GPL, with you funding the anti-GPL side. They'll also have the entire software community spreading the word that your technology is stolen, to your customers and distributors.

What effect will this have on your stock price?

There IS no good answer. So:

The brokers will call their customers and tell 'em to dump ahead of the rush.

The funds will just dump right away and try to beat the brokers to the market.

The analysts will write scathing articles about the stock for the financial papers and shows.

And their stock tanks. Even if the company survives the executives' stock options turn into wallpaper.

And that's BEFORE you get around to actually filing a suit. B-)

I'd go out and short 'em right now (or buy puts) - except that the software codec is not their core product. So they can clean up their act by releasing the source to the software codec under GPL before the conference call.

And the news (including links to XVID's smoking gun and the fact that slashdot has this item already) is already on the Yahoo SIGM stock discussion board. So it will already be factored into the price by the time I could trade. B-(

Poison your own sourcecode

[Wolfier]

If (0 != substr(argv[0], "sigma")) { // random crash
}

Typical for Sigma Designs

[Anonymous Coward]

After having worked with Sigma Designs I am not entirely surprised by this. Even if you do pay out the nose for their stuff they still treat you as if you are dirt.

So ripping off open source sounds like it is just up their alley.

Great fortune

[Graspee_Leemoor]

Great fortune seen at the end of this story:

"An idealist is one who helps the other fellow to make a profit. -- Henry Ford"

graspee

While I agree --

[xant]

that you are in fact correct, it is worth discussing if you're bringing the case to trial. The opposition's lawyer might well ask the same question I just did. If you don't have the answer, you look bad to the jury, because the jury has no idea whether or not convergence is possible. I didn't mean to sound like I disbelieved their claim that the code was stolen, because I do believe it. My point is, they'd better address the base rates issue, because it may come up.

Re:While I agree --

[Issue9mm]

Maybe, maybe not. Honestly, I really doubt that people understand the processes involved in DNA analysis, but if you have an expert on the stand saying that it's identical, then twelve average persons believe it. Now, it becomes a bit different if you have two experts disputing each other, but even then, it doesn't necessarily come down to who is more accurate, but who is more likeable.

-9mm-

GPL and Intelectual property...

[Sj0]

Oh. Now I see how the GPL "gobbles up all your intelectual property", by being stolen outright! Of course! By being stolen outright, it becomes the property of the commercial interest, and when the real authors start raising a fuss about the outright theft of code, they LOSE their stolen IP!

Right? ...

Right?

What do you mean Bill Gates is a dirty rotten IP thief? When did he come into this conversation?

No, I don't think stealing code from Xerox dumpsters and using that as a baisis for his first product counts as gobbling up IP... Why are you looking at me that way? Why did Bill Gates come into the conversation?

Oh, right. FUD. the whole gobbling remark. Okay.

(I'm one insane motherf*cker)

Maybe if you understand asm this is obvious

[xant]

My point is, if you don't understand asm, this is NOT obvious. It looks like a bunch of gobbledygook to the non-programmers who will be evaluating the merits of the case. Some sort of explanation is necessary as to why the similarity of two bunches of gobbledygook is incriminating. Maybe base rates was the wrong question to ask.

This would matter if there wasn't already an admission of guilt. (Just read the next reply up.)

Re:Sue them - I agree, for all copyright violation

[Kindaian]

Please don't place use the term P2P community as violators of copyright, because that assessment is fundamentally incorrect.

P2P allows for people to share files.

It just happens that the files some people place on sharing are such that they don't have the legal rights to do it.

As that happens, the copyright holders should sue them and not the producer of P2P tools.

BECAUSE P2P IS A GOOD TOOL if anyone give it a break!

Cheers...

sigma email petition campaign

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say it's time to send off some questioning emails. Call it a legit use of spam (well maybe ham as it's not bulk emails to a publically available address.

Maybe they'll answer one. At the very least their tech support system will log them all. A bit of an online petition. You probably shouldn't send more than one though...let's try to be civil after all. Our goal is not DOS just letting them know the numbers of pissed off peopel out there.

May I suggest the following kill them with cluelessness approach...


To whom it may concern:

I have read recently that Sigma has been accused of copyright infringement and
code theft as outlined under the GNU Public License used by the XVID project.
This concerns me as I don't want to support someone who is engaged in such practices.

I'd like to find out what Sigma's position on this issue is. Specifically was
XVID code used and if so why was there a decision made to not release changes
and updates as per the GPL? If XVID code was used does this mean that your
codec will ceased to be distributed or will you be releasing source code for it
and continuing production?

Thanks,
XXXSIGNATUREXXX

Perhaps it'a pointless but I would like to see them pestered about it as they are clearly in the wrong.

Re:sigma email petition campaign

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that's putting the slashdot effect to good use. Kinda like proactive slashdotting.

Re:sigma email petition campaign

[EdMcMan]

Good idea! Here is where I sent my email:

kal@sdesigns.com; stephanie.porter@edelman.com; webmaster@sigmadesigns.com; ron_berti@sdesigns.com; steven_le@sdesigns.com; christopher_ince@sdesigns.com; ir@sdesigns.com; hr@sdesigns.com; tech_support@sdesigns.com; fulfillment@sdesigns.com

Re:A very bad day for the GPL

[turnstyle]

"Flamebait=1, Redundant=1"

Ouch, it was neither! I've been working full-time for 2 years on software that I've been giving away for free. I take this very personally, and very seriously.

I first tried a donationware approach, but far less than 1% ever helped out (and now I know that's fairly typical). So now I sell it instead.

If I had GPL'd my software, somebody else could just start selling it too, and give me nothing at all in return. Yes, they would have to publish it under the GPL too, but still they wouldn't have to give me anything.

And if they sell my code, but don't publish the software, I would need to take legal action. Everybody here seems to say "hire a lawyer, sue them, get rich" but that's not the way the world works.

If it seems questionable whether XVID will be able to attract a lawyer, how is a less known project to supposed to get so lucky?

Be careful about establishing a precedent!!!

[PaulBu]

IANAL, but as far as I know, in the US the law system is based on precedents. If one court finds (for whatever reason) that GPL is unenforceable it establishes a precedent, which can (and will) be referred to by "bad guys" in all subsequent cases.
Of course if you are dealing with small claims court matters you can as well do everything yourself, but for something like defending GPL it is soo much better to ask for help from EFF or FSF lawers: the stakes are just too high...
I guess I read this warning on one of "How to beat your traffic ticket" sites...
Paul B.

Re:Be careful about establishing a precedent!!!

[bovinewasteproduct]

It would have to at the state or federal appeals level for a precedent to be set. Local or district courts do not count for this. Until they get to a higher level, dececisions only count for the case at hand.

Even then, only the US supreame court talks for the nation as a whole. (or congress)

BWP

Re:Be careful about establishing a precedent!!!

[photon317]

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure case law is a fairly ambigious thing. I'm pretty sure that a lawyer can cite a decision in a state court in georgia as case-law backup in a court in california - it just doesn't hold as much weight as it would if you stayed in the same state - but it can be cited and used to bolster a case.

Re:Be careful about establishing a precedent!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, you can site a judge's decision in a case in another state -- but it doesn't set a precedent. You can appeal and have a judgement overthrown, because the judge ruled counter to precedent.
Also, precendent should already have been established at a federal court level for the GPL, considering the number of cases that have come up.
Precedent can only be overturned by a higher court ruling, and it can only be set once (unless it was overturned). The problem with the court system is that it's hard to get decisions overturned because there are so many laws, and thus so many precedents that it's hard even for the appellate courts to keep track of them all.

Re:Be careful about establishing a precedent!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

If one court finds (for whatever reason) that GPL is unenforceable it establishes a precedent

Thats fine, though. The best bit about the GPL is that if it is found to be unenforcable, copyright is still held by the original authors. Anyone using or distributing formally-GPL'd products would no longer have a license to do so. The FSF would promptly release GPL V3.0, which all the original software authors then apply in place of their GPL V2 code, and we carry on where we left off.

This could theoretically be continued ad anfinitum, too. So, bad guy GPL infringer looses either way.

addition to GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

How about adding to GPL

you may not distribute this code with any other code that you are aware is in violation of GPL

And then informing TUXIA and Metro Link as both are partners of Sigma and one certainly distributes GPL code (not too sure about metro link)

Copyright infringement

[deblau]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the proposed copyright bill allow XVID to DDoS Sigma Designs into utter submission? The Internet is, after all, a peer-to-peer file-trading network...

Report them to the BSA

[Lonath]

*LICK* Let's see if the BSA really protects the licenses of all software makers...

Rape Is still rape if you're not a hooker

[Stephen Samuel]

Just because I'm not charging cash for something doesn't mean that it's not valuable -- or that there isn't a 'price' associated with access.

Software distributed with the GPL is not without cost The 'price' of using GPL code is that if you make changes to the code, you can't distribute the modified object code without also distributing the modified source code.

(I.E. the price is your derivative code).

In any case, these people are stealing copyright code without permission. Since they're charging for it, then they are liable for both the price they're charging for this stolen code and any punitive damages (which can be quite hefty for copyright violation).

It looks like this might be a good time to call in the lawyers.
____________
And yes there IS damage to me from having someone steal my GPL code. When I put code under the GPL, my expectation is that, in return for making my source code freely available, I'll get back from the community that uses my code the work that they do to improve my code. When someone steals my code and puts it into a proprietary product, I loose in a few ways:

1. I don't get the 'payment' of the changes you made to my code.
2. If you make 'interesting' changes, I have to pay you to get access to my code (as modified by you).
3. If people start using your code instead of mine, then they may stop contributing GPL codebase.
4. I don't get the public exposure that comes from the acknowledgement that people are using my code. (this could cost me job opportunities).

Re:Conference calls are for analysts. B-)

[Anonymous Coward]

the news (including links to XVID's smoking gun and the fact that slashdot has this item already) is already on the Yahoo SIGM [yahoo.com] stock discussion board. So it will already be factored into the price by the time I could trade.

Indeed, but these people seem to have no clue whatsoever about the issues here... Anyone with a yahoo id want to ga and have some fun with people who post things like this:

Who can make better use of this code, a for-profit company like Sigma, or a bunch of hippy idealists who JUST HAPPEN to be computer programmers? Sigma should just blow off these socialist clowns. The so-called "GPL License" is completely unenforceable.

speech vs beer (oops)

[klparrot]

But they aren't legally required to give you a copy. They are required to give you the source code and the right to re-sell or give it away if you got the product from them. If you didn't get the product from them they are under no obligation to provide it to you.

Thanks for that correction. Sorry, I forgot that GPL software is free (as in speech), but not always free (as in beer). Moment of stupidity. :P

I took a look at The Free Software Definition to brush up after my mistake; have a read for yourself if you need. innocent_white_lamb, you seem to know your stuff already, though. :)

YES!

[Anonymous Coward]

en tea

--on by

My email to Sigma

[pbryan]

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:28:26 -0700
To: RMP4@sdesigns.com
Subject: REALmagic MPEG-4 Video Codec

It has come to my attention that your REALmagic MPEG-4 Video Codec contains portions of the XVID [http://www.xvid.org/] software. XVID is licensed under the General Public License (GPL), which requires you to make the source code available for any binary distributions that you release.

I have just downloaded the REALmagic MPEG-4 Video Codec for Windows 2000, XP (RMP4_v1.1_W2K1.zip) binary distribution. Under the terms of the GPL, you must make the source code available to me. Please indicate where I can download the source code, or provide instructions for me to request it via alternate methods.

divx.com backs up xvid

[daserver]

divx

Sue (for money) for GPL violations?

[j-turkey]

This brings up an interesting question...

Can the author/IP owner of a GPL'ed app sue somebody like Sigma for monetary damages?

For example, let's say I write an app copyleft it under the GPL. Jow Blow (that bastard guy) repackages it, obscures the code, and sells the binary and makes $50,000,000. Can I sue Jow Blow for a large amount of money (say up to $50,000,000)?

I mean -- I wasn't going to make any money from selling the software anyway, so its not like I could legitimately ask to be recupirated for damages. Where is the line drawn? Is there legal precedent for this? Anyone know what kind of lawsuits have been enacted over GPL violations historically?

--Turkey

Re:Sue (for money) for GPL violations?

[John Hasler]

You can sue for statutory damages if the work is registered even if you suffered no actual damages. IIRC the damages can run to six figures. Look it up.

Equally important is the fact that the infringer can be ordered to cease distributing the infringing work and seek out and destroy all the copies they can find. It would be pretty expensive for Sigma to be told that not only can they never sell their product again, but they must attempt to buy back and destroy all the copies they've sold so far.

Re:Sue (for money) for GPL violations?

[Anonymous Coward]

too late ?

Sigma Makes Source Code Available for Its MPEG-4 Video CODEC

Re:Sue (for money) for GPL violations?

[bwt]

Remedies for copyright infringement are defined in Title 17 Chapter 5 of the US Code.

Specifically, see 17 USC 504 (b): you choose between actual damages and statutory damages, and profits of the infringer due to the infringement count as actuals.

Re:Sue (for money) for GPL violations?

[Maniac]

They are still saying it is their own code, and not mentioning or crediting the Xvid people. And even if they did do that, they can still be sued for what they have done, eventhough they have somewhat corrected their error.

It's still copyright infringment (putting your name om someone else's work).

Re:Sue (for money) for GPL violations?

[j-turkey]

Thanks y'all...

That was informative.

--Turkey

No time for court, let's just lynch these clowns

[l0ungeb0y]

The actions described and documented are almost absurd, they seem so outlandish. If I hadn't opened the .pdf's, I'd be thinking that maybe there was some similarity, and maybe just enough to justify their claims and a potential suit.
But looking at the .pdf and seeing that it is indeed a virtual carbon-copy, I'm blown away.

To stoop so low to try to steal someone elses lunch because you can't pack your own and to be so damn [b]blatant[/b] about it as well.

Seems Sygma is counting on their lawyers ability to bury all this with years of extensions in filings and delayed litigation for "fact finding" and "internal auditing" etc etc etc ad nauseum. Hoping in the end to kill XVID with the legal fees and to continue with their practices, betting that the storm will be long forgotten by then.

Atleast that should be their strategy, but it *shouldn't* work... this needs to get out of slashdot and into the industry and consumer media at large. Scream this from the damn mountain tops, because who would want to buy stolen work?
Who would want to support this kind of crap?

I suspect it wont be the infringement suit that would kill Sygma, but the wrath of the market at large.

*looks for a pitchfork*

Sigma Makes Source Code Available for Its MPEG-4 V

[Anonymous Coward]

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/020822/220286_1.html

Sigma has released to code

[Nailer]

MILPITAS, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 22, 2002--Sigma Designs, Inc. (Nasdaq:SIGM - News), a leader in IP video streaming solutions, today announced the release of the source code behind its free MPEG-4 video CODEC that works as a plug-in under Windows and encodes digitized video content into fully compatible ISO MPEG-4 video files. The complete source code will be available for download starting August 23, free of charge, through Sigma's website (www.sigmadesigns.com), to support developers wishing to enhance the MPEG-4 encoding.

"We are pleased to provide the development community with an open source MPEG-4 CODEC, and anticipate that this will accelerate technical improvements and enhance the proliferation of MPEG-4 content," stated Ken Lowe, Sigma Designs' vice president of business development.

About Sigma Designs, Inc.

Sigma Designs specializes in silicon-based MPEG decoding for streaming video, progressive DVD playback, and advanced digital set-top boxes. The company's award-winning REALmagic Video Streaming Technology is used in both commercial and consumer applications providing highly integrated solutions for high-quality decoding of MPEG-1, MPEG-2, and MPEG-4. Headquartered in Milpitas, Calif., the company also has sales offices in China, Europe, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. For more information, please visit the company's web site at www.sigmadesigns.com/.

Re:Sigma has released to code

[Anonymous Coward]

This is sure a blow to DivX Networks...

Re:Sigma has released to code

[Artifex]

What really sucks is that this press release implies that Sigma created the software, and is now giving it away.

There is no notice that they are using previously GPLed code, or where it came from.

So they're still misleading their shareholders and the public.

Then again, if you look at the history if DivX;-), you'll see references to a hacked Microsoft codec, too, and that quite likely was not GPL =)

Re:Sigma has released to code

[TeddyR]

DivX;-) is not DivX

DivX;-) = Hacked MS codec

OpenDivX = Initial rewrite of the codec from scratch

DivX = Current "Commercial/free" version of the DivX codec {its roots from OpenDivX

Which is why DivX came about.

DivX is a "semi-clean room" codec written without reminents of the original microsoft codec.

from the original project page: http://www.projectmayo.com/about/faq.php
"How is OpenDivX better than DivX ;-)?
Our first goal with OpenDivX was to re-write it from the ground up to prepare the code for release as open source. "

Re:Sigma has released to code

[Artifex]

Okay, cool. Glad you cleared that up for me; I feel better now.

Oh, one more thing, though... the name DivX without the stupid smiley conjures up images of a certain failed DVD format. Isn't that name copyrighted? I haven't yet read your FAQ, so don't know...

Sigma Makes Source Code Available for Its MPEG-4 V

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigma Makes Source Code Available for Its MPEG-4 Video CODEC

Unfortunate abuse of noble intent

[Eric Damron]

Well this is not the first or the last time a company seeking a quick buck through the theft of IP will occur.

The XVID people suggested that we email Sigma Designs requesting the source code. This is a good idea as it will hammer down the point that they are in violation of the GNU license agreement. It doesn't take long. I drafted the email below in under ten minutes:

To whom it may concern.

After comparing the disassembled code of Sigma Designs REALmagic MPEG-4 Video Codec V1.0:rmp4.dll and XVID MPEG-4 Video Codec 01-May-2002:xvid.dll, there can be no doubt that the two libraries came from the same code base.

As you know, XVID was released under the GNU license and such being the case, your software developed, released and based on intellectual property covered by the GNU license must also be released under the same license.

The license under which XVID was released expressly requires that the source code based on XVID which is developed and released in binary form by any party other than the original copyright holder be made available.

Whereas you are selling a product which is indisputably derived from the XVID code base, I hereby request that you provide a means whereby I may obtain the modified source code.

Ignoring this email or refusing to comply will constitute a violation of the GNU licensing agreement that you willingly entered into when you modified the XVID code.

Please be advised that violating this licensing agreement will almost assuredly result in costly litigation and judgment against you.

Thank you.

Eric L. Damron

Re:Unfortunate abuse of noble intent

[Grail]

Don't make legal threats unless you are the one who is going to take action.

Your letter was good for a laugh though.

Re:Unfortunate abuse of noble intent

[Eric Damron]

I made no legal threats. Just stated the facts.

I cc'd the XviD people are got a reply:

Hi Eric,

It appears that the publicity has provoked a response from the chaps at Sigma - http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/020822/220286_1.html .

Of course, who knows whether the source they release will retain the GPL and original copyright holder list.

Thanks for your support - this has been a very interesting few days.

Daniel

Re:ehmmm... why the shouting? innocent?

[Anonymous Coward]

When the public clamors for the punishment of wrongdoers, it is a service to all of us.

"innocent until proven guilty"? Do you think for an instant that the prosecutor in a clear cut case of murder considers the accused innocent? How would you ever prosecute anyone if the public, the prosecutors and the police all assumed everyone was innocent? Why arrest someone?

Clearly there are only two parties who are required to presume the innocence of the accused in U.S. Law. Those two parties are the Judge, and the Jury. I am at present neither. Sue the bastards.

not so anonymous bfarwick@yahoo.com

Looks like they caved to the pressure.

[flyguy]

09:33 PM | Sigma Makes Source Code Available for Its MPEG-4 Video CODEC

http://www.businesswire.com/headlines.shtml

http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/f_headline.c gi ?day0/222340286&ticker=sigm

Odd the press release isn't on sigma's website.

Re:Conference calls are for analysts. B-)-I'm FREE

[Anonymous Coward]

http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&boar d=4687185&tid=sigm&sid=4687185&mid=621 86

"MILPITAS, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 22, 2002--Sigma Designs, Inc. (Nasdaq:SIGM - News), a leader in IP video streaming solutions, today announced the release of the source code behind its free MPEG-4 video CODEC that works as a plug-in under Windows® and encodes digitized video content into fully compatible ISO MPEG-4 video files. The complete source code will be available for download starting August 23, free of charge, through Sigma's website (www.sigmadesigns.com), to support developers wishing to enhance the MPEG-4 encoding.

"We are pleased to provide the development community with an open source MPEG-4 CODEC, and anticipate that this will accelerate technical improvements and enhance the proliferation of MPEG-4 content," stated Ken Lowe, Sigma Designs' vice president of business development.

About Sigma Designs, Inc.

Sigma Designs specializes in silicon-based MPEG decoding for streaming video, progressive DVD playback, and advanced digital set-top boxes. The company's award-winning REALmagic® Video Streaming Technology is used in both commercial and consumer applications providing highly integrated solutions for high-quality decoding of MPEG-1, MPEG-2, and MPEG-4. Headquartered in Milpitas, Calif., the company also has sales offices in China, Europe, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. For more information, please visit the company's web site at www.sigmadesigns.com/. "

Looks like they're going to release it.

Because they lied.

[Inoshiro]

They said they'd replace it, and the next release was the same thing. More stolen code. Just changed a bit because someone moved a few function calls around.

Re:wow-I'm FREE!!

[Anonymous Coward]

On a GPL project? Think about it.

He he...

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out this gem regarding Sigma:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/020822/220286_1.ht ml

Dirtballs. I'd eat 'em if I could.

Am I the only one....

[esper_child]

that thought of lenses when they saw Sigma in the header.

They Caved!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigma Makes Source Code Available for Its MPEG-4 Video CODEC
8/22/2002

MILPITAS, Calif., Aug 22, 2002 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Sigma Designs, Inc. (SIGM), a leader in IP video streaming solutions, today announced the release of the source code behind its free MPEG-4 video CODEC that works as a plug-in under Windows(R) and encodes digitized video content into fully compatible ISO MPEG-4 video files. The complete source code will be available for download starting August 23, free of charge, through Sigma's website (www.sigmadesigns.com), to support developers wishing to enhance the MPEG-4 encoding.

"We are pleased to provide the development community with an open source MPEG-4 CODEC, and anticipate that this will accelerate technical improvements and enhance the proliferation of MPEG-4 content," stated Ken Lowe, Sigma Designs' vice president of business development.

About Sigma Designs, Inc.

Sigma Designs specializes in silicon-based MPEG decoding for streaming video, progressive DVD playback, and advanced digital set-top boxes. The company's award-winning REALmagic(R) Video Streaming Technology is used in both commercial and consumer applications providing highly integrated solutions for high-quality decoding of MPEG-1, MPEG-2, and MPEG-4. Headquartered in Milpitas, Calif., the company also has sales offices in China, Europe, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. For more information, please visit the company's web site at www.sigmadesigns.com/.

CONTACT: Sigma Designs, Inc. Ken Lowe, 408/957-9850 kal@sdesigns.com or Edelman PR Worldwide Stephanie Porter, 650/968-4033 stephanie.porter@edelman.comURL: http://www.businesswire.comToday's News On The Net - Business Wire's full file on the Internetwith Hyperlinks to your home page.

Copyright (C) 2002 Business Wire. All rights reserved.

KEYWORD: CALIFORNIA CHINA HONG KONG JAPAN KOREA TAIWANINDUSTRY KEYWORD: ELECTRONIC GAMES/MULTIMEDIA HARDWARE SOFTWARE PRODUCT SOURCE: Sigma Designs, Inc.

Re:wow-I'm FREE!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you're not making money directly on the project, sueing for monetary damages is possible with good lawyers.

ANOTHER UPDATE!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Check www.DivX.com and see they have announced their support for XVid. Although Sigma has folded, it is good to know that the XVid and the GPL have received the support they needed to triumph.

Sigma still doesn't get it.

[Bram Stolk]

Read the press release on yahoo.
Sigma speaks of:
"free of charge"
and:
'open source'.

Only licensing it as GPL will set them 'FREE'.

Bram

Re:Sigma still doesn't get it.

[colinleroy]

There's a copy of the GPL in their source .zip, so I guess they put it GPL.

Re:Sigma still doesn't get it.

[dolmen.fr]

If this is true, I guess they would get better comments on this press release if they said it.

In any case, they didn't changed the licence for the binaries:

You may NOT modify, prepare derivative works of, rent, lease, distribute, sublicense, sell or transfer the Software or any part thereof

Re:Sigma still doesn't get it.

[grnbrg]

Yeah, they've released the source. Weeee! But there's still a nasty click through to get it --

License. This Software is licensed by Sigma, free of charge, to you as end user solely for the purpose of building ISO MPEG-4 compatible content for your own use. This license to you is personal, non-transferable, non-exclusive, and without right to sublicense the use of the Software. You may NOT modify, prepare derivative works of, rent, lease, distribute, sublicense, sell or transfer the Software or any part thereof.

And added to all (most?) of the source code files --

Copyright © 2002 Sigma Designs, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Source and object code (Copyright Sigma Designs 2002) may be covered by one or more pending patents.

(GPL header stuff)

Sigma Designs, Inc. www.sigmadesigns.com

This code inspired by the XVID MPEG-4 VIDEO CODEC

Although I think the best bit comes again from their Click-thru licence to get the source --

You also expressly agree that you will not violate any copyright of a third party or Sigma in your use of the Software.

Bwahahahaha. Do as I say, not as I do!

Idiots.

grnbrg

I just filed a report with the BSA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Including documentation and links to the distribution site for the stolen code and the source of the stolen code.

Let's see if they're willing to protect everyone's code, or just Microsoft's.

Re:Sue them - I agree, for all copyright violation

[Anonymous Coward]

Including the copyright violations in the P2P community (which is largely the same as the open source community).

No, they're not. I'm not claiming to be a saint when it comes to piracy (Arrrrr!), but I certainly don't use any sort of P2P network. Making such a stupid blanket statement is hateful, and just goes to show how poorly you understand the Free software community.

If someone ripped off my own code (Which is under the GPL or LGPL, depending on which project you're looking at) and tried to pass it off as a closed source product, I'd be just as pissed off as the XVID people are.

So where is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

On their website I see no press release, or source code. In the press release on Yahoo, they still infer that the source code is their own.

Perhaps they're running a day later than their press releases, we'll see.

Something I noticed on www.divx.com

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw a big ad on the main page on the www.divx.com site that was promoting these sigma video cards as "The first divx 5.02 capture card." Now if you go to www.divx.com they have a big notice on the top of the webpage that says we have no affiliation with sigma, we asked them many times to not use divx(tm) with their cards but we haven't had anymore luck than the xvid people. THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU HAVE A BIG "The first divx 5.02 capture card." AD ON YOUR MAIN FUCKING PAGE. DIVX people are hypocrites. (I read up on this supposed divx cards sigma was selling and it said they were software compressor cards IE it uses the codec to do the encoding to divx5 WELL NO SHIT ANY CAPTURE CARD CAN RECOMPRESS TO DIVX WITH THE FUCKING DIVX CODEC). Fuck sigma and fuck the divx team. What a bunch of weasels. DIVX TEAM LIES. They had the sigma ad ON THEIR MAIN PAGE. Oh we asked them many times not to use our trademark, then why the hell did you guys post it as divx 5 compatible on your main page. Now it says oh it's not compatible. Whatever.

Rusty Sheriffs Badge

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, Chocolate Starfish.

You got it all wrong

[tortap-0]

It's the other way around :P

Re:A very bad day (inform vs. evangelize)

[turnstyle]

"Offtopic"

I guess that makes it a hattrick ;)

This thread was about a GPL'd project that is in danger, in large part because of practical problems with the GPL itself.

I sympathize with the programmers because I am one, and it is entirely appropriate to continue to discuss when the GPL might be good, and when not.

I've seen plenty of guys say "what do you mean, they can sell my code?" or "they can put their name on my work?" and there's a lot of misunderstanding. And now there's a new question, "what practical legal measures do I take?"

You should sympathize with these guys, and want them to be informed - not evangelized. That's neither Flamebait, Redundant, nor Offtopic

Re:DMCA does apply here

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to forget that the DMCA not only outlaws circumvention devices, but also allows for notice and takedown procedures. So the DMCA notice and takedown provisions of the DMCA could be used here. This is completely seperate from the anti-circumvention provisions that outlaw DeCSS and probably even the 'ceasear' program in linux.

Re:A very bad day (inform vs. evangelize)

[Anonymous Coward]

Now shut up finally! Stop whining because you were modded down (downright correct). Your bitching about the GPL _IS_ offtopic here, get it. This story is not about the GPL, but about a breach of the GPL. If you don't like the GPL - fine, but don't hassle us.

Re:A very bad day (inform vs. evangelize)

[turnstyle]

I disagree - a story about a breach of the GPL is in fact a story about the GPL. Perhaps you understand all the implications of the license but I'd bet that a *majority* of younger programmers don't.

Before this thread, I had not thought about the legal defense issues. It's another thing to consider when deciding whether to GPL or not.

You might be a big fan of the GPL, but telling me to shut up and calling me a whiner doesn't make a very strong point.

Source code released, but license doesn't change !

[dolmen.fr]

According to the press release, source code should now be available. Did someone found it on the site ?

However the biggest problem is that it is probably not released under the GPL as requested. The licence for the binaries is still 100% proprietary: "You may NOT modify, prepare derivative works of, rent, lease, distribute, sublicense, sell or transfer the Software or any part thereof."
See http://www.sigmadesigns.com/products/RMP4_SLA.htm

I wonder what does this means: "You also expressly agree that you will not violate any copyright of a third party or Sigma in your use of the Software."

Understanding COPYRIGHT is not trivial!

[cburley]

The problem is same with many other licensing methods, probably even most of them. GPL is just so common nowadays

Indeed, and your points are well-taken. Even though they've been made countless times over the many years in many forums, there's plenty of evidence people still need to be reminded of not only the basic issues surrounding the GPL and copyright law (on which it's based), but of the need to study the issues further, roughly to the same degree they're considering the ways in which they want their own GPL'ed code to be legally used and/or in which they want to legally use someone else's GPL'ed code.

It also seems to take constant attention to remind people that it is not the GPL that is "viral" -- it's copyright law that defines a work as "derived" from all the substantial sources of which it is composed. Pretty much every license relies on this "viral" nature.

What distinguishes licenses like BSD from the GPL is that the GPL preserves certain copyright protections, in order to preserve certain freedoms, that the other licenses give up.

In practice, the BSD license gives up so many protections that inhere in copyright that it's probably the case that lots of works deriving from BSD'd code do not meet the strict legal requirements of the license plus copyright. Since the few remaining protections amount to so little, and, unlike the GPL, there doesn't seem to be a strong contingent willing to defend its terms, it's not surprising many people and organizations incorporating BSD'd code into their own works find little impetus to follow both the spirit and the letter of the remaining tatters, so to speak.

That, of course, greatly simplifies, for both the original and derived-work authors, the task of determining whether there's some kind of infringement: the answer is, almost always, "never mind; even if there is, what could it matter?". My impression is that, in practice, BSD'd code gets treated a lot like public domain code, by both sides of the fence (original and derived-work authors).

For those putting code under the GPL and holding onto their copyright (not signing it over to the FSF, for example), who are unprepared to defend the licensing terms they've chosen or, upon discovering infringement, sign over the rights to do so to someone else who will (like the FSF), the main advantage of the GPL over BSD/PD is the appearance of a sort of "white picket fence" around their code, over which only someone fairly intent on infringing is likely to jump.

In my view, about the only way in which the GPL can be said to be "uniquely viral" is in the sense that it uniquely protects the ability of people in possession of GPL-derived works to freely modify and distribute them, as long as they do so under the terms of the GPL.

But the fact that it "claims" to apply to derived works is not, in itself, uniquely viral. Such claims are inherent in all licenses based on copyright, including typical shrink-wrap and click-through EULAs, and matter except in the cases of licenses that disclaim so many copyright protections that few people treat code licensed under their terms as anything more protected than public-domain code.

So most other licenses fully employ the "viral" nature of copyright law, but do so either:

• To preserve the rights of the authors to be the only ones who can modify and distribute copies

• To disclaim so many of the rights of the authors so as to allow derived-work authors to preserve their own rights to their contributions to their works to be the only ones who can modify and distribute copies

Because the GPL steers so carefully between these extremes -- neither rejecting the freedom to modify and distribute copies outright, nor allowing someone else to do so in derived works -- it comes under attack, as a concept as well as a license, from both sides.

And considering only the issue of non-author redistribution and relicensing privileges, the GPL does indeed seem to be less than perfectly free, just as it's certainly less than proprietary (though certainly not "less free" than typical proprietary licenses, despite what some might claim).

Of course, there are larger issues than just that one that drove the creation of the GPL, explaining its placement in the "middle" of that "degree of freedom to redistribute someone else's code" vector. These issues include the importance of having source code to a complicated product, of allowing anyone to enjoy the examination, modification, and redistribution privileges for a body of code, and so on.

The GPL's construction to serve these larger issues has led many to conclude, and, in my opinion, correctly, that the GPL's placement in that vector is "just right", neither too cold (proprietary) or too warm (so free that derived works can themselves be proprietary).

As far as how to determine at what point a work derives from another, I personally find the Golden Rule (which perhaps has different names in faith traditions other than the one with which I'm most familiar) to be very helpful.

If I want to use a "short snippet" of someone else's code in my work, I ask myself how I would feel if a comparatively short snippet of my own work, over which I'd labored mightily and, say, expected to get paid by others to use, was similarly incorporated into someone else's.

If I'd feel their work derived from mine in such a case, then it's clear I should consider my use of their short snippet to be a case of deriving my work partly from theirs. (If I don't, that doesn't mean I'm not deriving it, just that I wouldn't, presumably, care if the roles were reversed.)

This approach clarifies oft-put examples such as "suppose only .01% of the code in a program is someone else's [GPL'ed, not that it matters] code; wouldn't such a small percentage mean it isn't derived from that code?".

After all, if your only claim to fame was to have composed a one-hour symphony, would you feel its direct incorporation into someone else's 10000-hour piece of musical drek constituted infringement? I sure would; so the percentage does not matter per se.

And given how much "excitement" there has been in the music industry over uses of incredibly short samples of someone else's music, it's much easier to see why focusing on how "tiny" an amount of someone else's [GPL'ed] code is not really the sole basis upon which to assess the issue of whether a work derives from someone else's code.

On the other hand, I wouldn't consider someone writing a novel in which the sole text that could be claimed to belong to someone else consisted of the proper name in a sentence like "He was a spy, but not the James Bond type of spy" to have derived from my work, if I was Ian Fleming or his heirs, though I don't know how the courts would rule.

Here's what you do...

[alexo]

From their Investor Relations Contact page:

Brenda Balingit
Manager, Investor Relations
Sigma Designs, Inc.
ir@sdesigns.com
Tel: 408.957.9891
Fax: 408.957.9729

Re:NET act? Criminal prosecution? - retail value?

[jmanning]

So, what's the retail value of something that's given away for free?

Is is the retail value of the derived product? Or can an approximate retail value of a similar commercial product be substituted?

Since it's based on the retail value of the copyrighted work, I suspect this doesn't apply, at least not on the surface. A lawyer could probably identify the appropriate means to make it apply though.

Sigma Designs' products are not DivX compatible

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigma Designs' products are not compatible with DivX video, but they continue to promote their products using our DivX(TM) trademark despite our repeated requests to stop

http://www.divx.com/

Re:Source code released, but license doesn't chang

[zufar]

I wrote to Sigma asking for source code and got the following reply,
which indicates they don't want further conflicts:

Interested Parties concerning Sigma's MPEG-4 CODEC

Thank you for contacting Sigma Designs and requesting information that
relates to our MPEG-4 CODEC and the availability of its source code. We
would like to take this opportunity to address the relevant issues that have
been raised.

To begin with, Sigma developed an MPEG-4 CODEC to assist in the
proliferation of MPEG-4 content and to ensure that users can create content
libraries compatible with the ISO MPEG-4 video specifications and its
implementation in silicon. Fulfilling this goal was carried out in two
steps. The first was the introduction of an MPEG-4 CODEC, provided free of
charge, so that worldwide users could begin encoding new content. The
second was the release of source code, so that the development community
could continue with technical improvements. Sigma never intended in making,
nor realized, any profits from this code base.

Several weeks after the CODEC was first released, Sigma was contacted by the
XVID development team regarding the use of certain portions of their code.
Upon examination, it was determined that one of our programmers, unbeknownst
to management and contrary to Sigma's policy, had utilized some routines
posted by XVID as open source. During the past four weeks, Sigma had
communicated with XVID to resolve the situation. As a result, Sigma has
decided to make the current version of the MPEG-4 CODEC available under the
GPL license.

Sigma is a supporter of the Linux operating system, appreciates the work
being done by the open source community, and continues to issue certain
other code under open source arrangements. Though we believe that we have
acted as expediently as possible, Sigma Designs sincerely apologizes to the
open source community for this inadvertent use of GPL code and for the
several weeks it took to resolve the situation.

Sincerely,

Ken Lowe
Vice President of Business Development

Re:Rape Is still rape if you're not a hooker

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wanted to clarify one thing. They did not charge for the RMP4 codec. It was a free download.

XVID and MPEG patents

[78Korea]

I am actually quite curious, but I was reading through the GPL license related to patents, and I am not sure whether XVID itself is itself breaking the GPL license. I am not an expert and maybe someone else is, but I am quite curious here. The reason is simple, unlike other codecs MPEG-4 visual is governed by several patents which are not royalty free (see M4IF and MPEGLA). Has XVID ever licensed these? GPL clearly states that if you have not, the software should have never been made available (see section 7 of GPL). I hope I am wrong, but also what is the intend of XVID people here? Is it to try and make money from this? If so, who are also the clear copyright owners? Does also implementing someone else's idea (finding an article from the internet, a paper, or whatever), make someone the copyright owner? And honesty speaking XVID is full of such things (see two pass, rate control, filtering, motion estimation etc). I think there were several people who have also contributed in the development of XVID (through code but also through ideas), and having just the moderators claiming ownership and requesting money, would also somehow be a bit bad as well. It would sound to me as if some people are saying to everyone, "Hey guys, come and work on this great software, it is for free at least for now, but when it works we will come and sell it and make profit out of it but you will make nothing". Is that what GPL license is for? I am certainly not trying to play the devil's advocate (SigmaDesigns was clearly wrong copying anyone's software and in one way or another they should feel the consequences), but I am not completely sure XVID is 100% right either. If the goal is for some people to make a profit out of this then this is truly wrong. I also quite fear that this (considering patent infringements) could come and hunt everyone involved as well.