Slashdot Mirror
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."
Why did they stop coding though? So what someone is stealing your stuff... Sue them.. ignore them... but don't stop...
But, geez, this really tops the list. Talk about adding insult to injury.
XVID TEAM REQUESTS SIGMA DESIGNS' TO HALT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
/ www.xvid.org/v1_1_comparison.pdf
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:/
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)
...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.
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."
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
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.
I know it's posted anonymously, but this news release is important background that is not attainable through the links of the original post.
Linux at home
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.
It's pretty damning.
.. 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?
Makes you wonder how often companies silently steal code
"Old man yells at systemd"
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.
Mmmm......sacrelicious.
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?"
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.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
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.)
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.
-- john
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....
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.
... that XVID is DIVX backwards?
I'm a minister!
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.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
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.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
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 ?
it's available as a free (beer) download from thier website.
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.
... DO SOMETHING.
/.ing.
RMP4@sdesigns.com is the email address for the Mpeg-4 codec. I suggest you write them.
and their site needs a
Qualifications:
- Advanced knowledge of the C-c and C-v hotkeys in Windows
Work Experience/<en
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.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
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.
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?
What is your Slash Rating?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
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.
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...
Because only Big Patriotic Capitalist American Corporations(tm) are allowed to do that. Anyone else is an Evil Terrorist Commie Content Pirate(tm)!
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Maybe the XVID guys should pull another Cartman:
"Respect my Authoritaii!!!"
and sue their asses.
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.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
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.
No it doesn't. Stop spreading FUD (and getting modded up for it!)
The ocean parts and the meteors come down
Laid out in amber, baby.
Well, there is atleast one difference: it's done professionally. Which means for profit.
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 :)
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.
For technical questions and suggestions regarding RMP4, please send an email to RMP4@sdesigns.com.
etc
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.
fencepost
just a little off
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.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
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.
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?
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.
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.
...a lawyer in the house...
H&Ks Garf
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.
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
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?
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
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
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.
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
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.
(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.
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???
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
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.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
From the homepage:
If you ask me, that's pretty damning evidence of binary-level code stealing!
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
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.
-- john
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?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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?
tcboo
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
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
Is the GPL enforcable at all in Germany?
Does the license even apply?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Building up xiph.org's patent-free Tarkin codec is a better long-term solution to all this mess.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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.
I said "largely the same" which implies a large intersection, not equivalence. I'm glad you are proud to be outside that group.
Check this thread out , though:& threadid= 32015
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=
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
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.
1: Create cool open source stuff
2: Get ripped off by a for-profit outfit
3: Prove it, and sue
4: Profit!
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.
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.
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:
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-(
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
If (0 != substr(argv[0], "sigma")) { // random crash
}
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
Mod parent up!
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
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.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
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)
It's been a long time.
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.)
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
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...
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...
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.
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...
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
*LICK* Let's see if the BSA really protects the licenses of all software makers...
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
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:
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
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
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. :)
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.
My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!
divx
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
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. .pdf and seeing that it is indeed a virtual carbon-copy, I'm blown away.
But looking at the
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*
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/.
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
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
09:33 PM | Sigma Makes Source Code Available for Its MPEG-4 Video CODEC
c gi ?day0/222340286&ticker=sigm
http://www.businesswire.com/headlines.shtml
http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/f_headline.
Odd the press release isn't on sigma's website.
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.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
that thought of lenses when they saw Sigma in the header.
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
Bram Stolk http://stolk.org/tlctc/
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
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
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.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
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."
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:
-
-
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.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
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.
Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
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
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.
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
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.