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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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

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)

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...

[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...

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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.)

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

[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

[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

[(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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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.

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

[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

[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

[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: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: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.

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.

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

[be-fan]

That would be hippocracy. n00b...

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.

[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.

Re:"napsterize" the shit out of it!

[GutBomb]

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

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?

[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.

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

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

[prizog]

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

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.

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

[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.

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.

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]

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!?

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)!

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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

[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: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.

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.

Re:Lets not jump the gun here...

[fava]

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

Is there...

[garf]

...a lawyer in the house...

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

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

[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

[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: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: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: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.

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.

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?

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

[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.

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!!!!

[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

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
}

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.

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.)

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).

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.

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

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?

[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?

[j-turkey]

Thanks y'all...

That was informative.

--Turkey

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

[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...

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

[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

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: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: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: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.

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