Slashdot Mirror
Sigma Designs/XVid Update
Reagen Ward and many other people have written in with updates to the Sigma Designs/XVid situation, reported a few days ago. Sigma has replied in email and a press release that they intend to make the source code available, however, they seem to be paying lip service at best to the terms of the GNU Public License. Grant Gross from Newsforge has been pursuing the story and in a story yesterday and another today lays out the current situation.
Give me 30 min alone with the machine that was used to compile the binary, and I'll find and release the source code.
While it's reprehensible that a programmer there (at SD) apparently copy/pasted some GPL code in, Sigma made the codec a free product, and of course the existence of the Sigma codec in no way diminishes the availability or quality of the xvid codec (which, I admit, is the same redundant argument used to shoot down the bizarre logic of GPL crusaders when they admonish the BSD license). I just don't get how they're the evil villains in this case: All they're trying to do is proliferate the MPEG-4 standard.
On a sidenote: Anyone have any experience with the XCard? I'm thinking of building my own media convergence device, and this will be central for DVD playback. Any opinions?
The kernel drivers appear to be little more than marshelling/unmarshelling stubs to let the user space library communicate with the card. While register-level documentation is available, it isn't developer friendly, as there is no designers' guide that would help a non-hard-core video hardware embedded developer to write their own code: maybe it's just me, but I find the lack of context establishment in the register-only documentation limiting.
People have found Sigma's proprieteray user-space code somewhat buggy, and the present situation makes it difficult for the community to write its own. While I can sympathize with Sigma Designs' predicament following the apparent mistake of a rogue programmer, one way they can "make it up" to the community would be to go beyond the minimal legal GPL requirements and release more source and documentation for their other fine products.
You could've hired me.
I'm so tired of hearing the 'evil loner' excuse from companies. Make someone responsible. Fire their asses or have someone resign. Show the world this crap won't be tolerated. Instead what we get is this lame excuse that we're not to blame because of some rogue employee. When employees fail, it's management's responsibility.
Sigma Designs did not publish their source in accordance with the GPL, that's what they did wrong. /Janne
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
They do appear to have made the source code available anyways. Much ado about nothing. That'll teach them to allow their employees to have any interactions with GPL code in the future, as now their own code has been infected. :-) Okay, that was just a troll, but there is a kernel of truth in it.
Oh the code theft was carried out by a lone programmer without our managers knowing about it. ROFL, so this guy cuts and pastes a years worth of work, then goes on a year's vacation and your managers are STILL clueless? Yes, please, I'll buy all your products now that I know how competent you are (/sarchasm).
Liberty.
Releasing the affected code under the GPL is lip service?
No, it's exactly what is supposed to happen.
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Note that Sigma Designs runs an NNTP server discussion board for its users and developers at news.sigmadesigns.com. To see what they think, go over there and read the "realmagic" or "realmagic.questions" groups.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Apart from that, they did release the source code, and though it was "in wide parts identical or near identical to XVID source code," there are obviously some differences.
Well, if any of you XVID guys have a bit of time, instead of sitting on your hands in protest, maybe you could try out this new code and see if the jerks actually improved anything.
And it would take no skill at all to just take the SigmaDesigs code, overwrite their stupid copyright notices with the appropriate ones, and release the result as GPL. This is totally legal and someone can even do it this weekend (not necessarily the XVID developers, who have better things to do). I can't see how such a move could be legally contested. Or put it this way, if what I described is illegal, then the GPL means nothing--and I sure hope it's not come to that.
It's about time the GPL had its day in court. It would settle this issue once and for all. Certain people have stated that the GPL is all but unenforcable in an American court. I disagree, but I think the EFF and the GNU foundation need to put up some $$$s and hire some elite legal muscle to set an example, after all that's the only language the capitalists understand.
... is for XVID to withdraw consent for Sigma to use that code which is copyrighted by XVID members.
And, importantly, don't ever re-grant Sigma rights to use that code regardless of how much they correct their position and comply with GPL in future.
That would be an effective penalty and deterrent for other similar companies who think that lack of code audits and a lax attitude to GPL can be fixed up retroactively.
Also, Sigma have now admitted that XVID are the copyright holders. XVID are therefore in a strong position to get a restraining order against Sigma to prevent further shipping of Sigma products containing that code.
This kind of GPL violation happens a lot. A company I used to work for did exactly the same thing, using GPL source as a 'shortcut' in proprietary software. I was successful in making enough noise to management to get the GPL violations corrected before product actually shipped.
I got an XCard a few weeks ago courtesy of CDW (NewEgg didn't/don't sell them).
I stuck it in a crappy Compaq K6-2/500, and it works OK. The system is attached to the TV, and will play Media mapped of our house file server.
Opinion, the Media player software itself is complete shite... and you really ought to look at the kind of formats it cannot play. Plus I had some self encoded TV episodes using DivX 5, and they had a VBR MP3 audio stream, the XCard plays the audio, and the video is completely out of sync (speeding up, slowing down - as though it is using the VBR timings)... and the player crashes after 5 mins.
I am now in the process of getting a fast computer that can sit behind the TV, with a standard (well I'll use one recommended with TVTool - an excellent program for video out) TV out video card, and a wireless keyboard/trackball combo (Globalink) that I got for the current setup.
It would be preferable if the XCard can just output everything to the TV (i.e. windows display itself), because I have to have a monitor to control everything. So no the XCard doesn't fit my needs at all. And with all this legal shit, I wouldn't bother with it at all (due to the lack of formats it can't play), unless it addresses some of these fundamental concerns.
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
You might be wondering why I'm standing next to your car -- yeah, the one with the smashed window right here -- with a slim-jim in one hand and your stereo in the other. I swear it's not what it looks like.
Here's the deal -- I thought it was my car. I've got one just like this.
Okay, so maybe I knew it was your car, but I was... um... just borrowing it. I'm all done, see? Here, you can have it back now. No harm, no foul.
Tell you the truth, I wasn't even planning on keeping your crummy car. We were just gonna use it as the getaway vehicle in this bank job we're doing next week, see?
Wait, wait, ignore everything I just said. It was really some other guy that was trying to steal your car -- this shady looking punk in a leather jacket. You're lucky I got here when I did. I think he ran that way. If you hurry you can still catch him.
OW! OW! Stop kicking me! Alright, here's your damn stereo back! Jeez!
But if you don't mind me saying so, sir, you've got great taste in stereo equipment. I got a good luck at that puppy as I was prying her out of the dash and yours is a beaut!
So we're cool, right? No one needs to call the cops or anything. I'll just grab my stuff and -- look over there! The Pope!
*sound of running footsteps in the other direction*
On one had we have fought many battles against companies weilding the copyright over users, but now the tables are turned and the public is going after a company (Sigma Designs). This action by them (releasing the code) is NOT enough. They still claim their copyright over almost exact duplicates of XviD code. I'd hate to see the day when an enterprising young lawyer thinks that Sigma wrote the code first and then XviD copied it--the legal battle would have been nasty. Regardless, Sigma still needs to fess up to their screw up. Remember, management is always responsible for those below them. If a "lone ranger programmer" made the mistake, then the higher ups are just as responsible.
PS... what the hell is up with those stupid "in your mouth", "in your a**" posts? Go away trolls.
This time, to sound super 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.
While I never get the priviledge of moderating anymore, if I did (and hadn't already have posted), I would mode you up.
Apart from the fact that you have that pig penis fetish.
Read the GPL, clause 4:
Therefore, even if Sigma has released the code, they are still violating the GPL, and have lost all rights under the license in the future. Sigma has to remove all the GPL code from their product!
"First an update on the XviD situation. The release of the Sigma source code does not mean it's all over, it's far from being over. The license agreement which you have to agree to before you can download, and install the codec is not compatible with the GPL. Furthermore, it can now clearly be seen (download the source code and have a look for yourself) that the Sigma codec is pretty much a copy of the XviD codec, but all the copyright notices of the original developers have been removed and replaced. This does not only violate the GPL but copyright laws - you can't just take a program, change a few lines and change the copyright statements, you only have copyright protection for the parts you wrote on your own. And related to this the Sigma codec also contains code taken from the OpenDivX project, the files were outfitted with 2 different copyright notices which is quite funny."
I hope that Sigma will respect GPL licences. I will for sure stop every purchase of Sigma stuff where I work.
The issue is not just GPL violation but also copyright infringement. Check the code comparision PDF at XVid, then look through the source code on both sites. Sigma's entire MPEG-4 core, both encoder and decoder, is pretty much straight from XVid and then obfuscated by loop unrolling and variable renaming. There are no XVid copyright notices and only a few haphazard comments like "INSPIRED BY XVID VIDEO CODEC" scattered through the source.
Now that they've published the source under GPL, they are (mostly) complying with the license requirements. But they are still promoting this as their own code, claiming that they developed it, when in reality it is only a few diffs away from the XVid sources. So don't apologize for just them.
Rather than the pretend to be free but really isn't GPL license, we should encourage companies to free source under the BSD license.
Does anyone get the feeling that the only reason they're doing this is because the XVid team weren't going to continue developing XVid?
I mean, it must be pretty convenient to be able to save thousands of dollars by getting people to develop for you, for free.. and if all you had to do was release some code that was _already_ available to the public (modified slightly).. would it be more than worth it to do so?
If a rogue programmer did this, then why haven't they quit using the XVid code, and developed their own?
If releasing code at a later date was their plan, why didn't they just state this when XVid intitially complained?
of the GPL is to get as many individuals/companies/organizations as possible using GPL code. I think it's a really good sign that a media company saw that using the GPL code was advantageous. Too bad they had to steal the code in the first place, but as long as the code base is opened and credit is given to XVid (and any other group(s) that may be involved), I think it's a very good thing.
Having companies using GPL code benefits us ALL.
Remember why we're doing this.
Well, if you can take the portion of the code they took from XdiV, compile it, and have a workable product, then there is legitimate complaint. But the RMP4 codec includes code developed by Sigma, even if the core of the codec is mostly XdiV, Sigma still has claim over the rest of the code.
Take Linux, a company builds an OS around the Linux kernel developed by Linus and turn it into a marketable operating system and sell it under their own name. There are a scattering of messages during boot that gives credit to Linus for the kernel, but the rest of the OS are "inspired" by the Linus kernel. Isn't that enough? Or do you insist that they have to give Linus credit for portions of the code they developed themselves?
as it would mean [that Sigma would] have to GPL all the software which is aggregated with it as well).
Wrong. The GNU General Public License "infects" only other code that runs in the same process space, not code that's merely aggregated onto a storage medium with GPL code or code that interacts with GPL code through message-based interprocess communication such as a pipe or socket using a well-defined interface. Read more in this section of the GPL FAQ.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:05:24 -0700
To: kal@sdesigns.com, stephanie.porter@edelman.com, RMP4@sdesigns.com, tech_support@sdesigns.com
Subject: MPEG-4 Video Codec Source Code
To whom it may concern:
Thank you for making the source code to the REALmagic MPEG-4 codec available. As you are now aware, this is a required term of the GNU General Public License (GPL). I have downloaded the source code release (RMP4V1_1.zip) from your website, and have concerns pertaining to the notices that appear at the top of the source files.
In the top of the source files, there is a vague assertion that they are related to the XVID MPEG-4 video codec with the following statement: "This code inspired by the XVID MPEG-4 VIDEO CODEC".
I have performed a side-by-side comparison between the above-mentioned REALmagic MPEG-4 codec and the XVID (xvid_snapshot_20020822.tar.gz) source code, and it is clear to me that the source files you published are not merely "inspired by" the XVID MPEG-4 codec, but are in fact derivative works.
If this is true, then your source distribution appears on its face to be in violation of the GPL. Section 2(a) states: "You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change." I could find no such notices of changes in the source files you released.
I request you remedy this problem by ammending the source code files in accordance with section 2(a), so that this apparent violation can be corrected. Doing so is a legal requirement of the license you accepted by creating a derivative work of the XVID MPEG-4 video codec. Failure to adhere to the terms of the GPL constitutes a copyright infringment by Sigma Designs.
You are clearly using and benefiting from the work of the authors of the XVID MPEG-4 video codec, yet you have hardly credited the development team for making this possible. I strongly urge you to consider to properly acknowledge the XVID development team. Please, give credit where credit is due.
-----
From: Tech Support
Subject:
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:59:09 -0700
Interested Parties concerning Sigma's MPEG-4 CODEC
Thank you for contacting Sigma Designs and requesting information that relates to our MPEG-4 CODEC and the availability of its source code. We would like to take this opportunity to address the relevant issues that have been raised.
To begin with, Sigma developed an MPEG-4 CODEC to assist in the proliferation of MPEG-4 content and to ensure that users can create content libraries compatible with the ISO MPEG-4 video specifications and its implementation in silicon. Fulfilling this goal was carried out in two steps. The first was the introduction of an MPEG-4 CODEC, provided free of charge, so that worldwide users could begin encoding new content. The second was the release of source code, so that the development community could continue with technical improvements. Sigma never intended in making, nor realized, any profits from this code base.
Several weeks after the CODEC was first released, Sigma was contacted by the XVID development team regarding the use of certain portions of their code. Upon examination, it was determined that one of our programmers, unbeknownst to management and contrary to Sigma's policy, had utilized some routines posted by XVID as open source. During the past four weeks, Sigma had communicated with XVID to resolve the situation. As a result, Sigma has decided to make the current version of the MPEG-4 CODEC available under the GPL license.
Sigma is a supporter of the Linux operating system, appreciates the work being done by the open source community, and continues to issue certain other code under open source arrangements. Though we believe that we have reacted as expediently as possible, Sigma Designs sincerely apologizes to the open source community for this inadvertent use of GPL code and for the several weeks it took to resolve the situation.
Sincerely,
Ken Lowe
Vice President of Business Development
-----
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 21:42:33 -0700
To: Tech Support
Subject: Re: (no subject)
Dear Mr. Lowe:
Thank you for your prompt response to my message regarding the Sigma Designs REALmagic MPEG-4 video codec. I URGE YOU TO READ THIS MESSAGE CAREFULLY.
In your response, you indicated that Sigma has decided to make the current version of the MPEG-4 video codec available under the GNU General Public License (GPL). This is indeed great news.
You also alluded to the fact that the situation is now resolved. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS NOT TRUE.
As I mentioned in my previous message, it appears that Sigma Designs is presently in violation of section 2(a) of the GPL. This section stipulates that any modifications to source code carry a prominant notice stating that you made changes and the date of the change. I can find no such notices in the REALmagic MPEG-4 codec source code.
If true, then SIGMA DESIGNS IS STILL VIOLATING THE COPYRIGHT OF THE AUTHORS OF XVID. I strongly urge you to take action, by either ammending the REALmagic MPEG-4 video codec source code to adhere to section 2(a) of the GPL, or else stop distributing the REALmagic codec altogher. Either action will remedy your current violation of the GPL.
Also, I urge you to give proper credit to the XVID development team in your source code. My comparison of REALmagic and XVID reveals that the Sigma source code is much more than "inspired by the XVID MPEG-4 VIDEO CODEC"; it is clearly derivative of XVID and as such deserves proper acknowledgement to the original authors.
Please, give credit where credit is due.
My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!
Ok, if a company falsely represents copyright or ownership of material (a crime), what are the implications for customers or other companies with which they have partnerships?
Would any licences or contracts made under these assumptions be valid or enforceable?
Who audits these companies anyway? How does anybody know that they actually do own the material in the first place?
There are some good experts here, why doesn't someone check and see just how much of xvid's stuff is in the sigma designs? Putting up source code is not an admission of guilt, especially since they only technically have to give it away to people who've bought their software.
- Sigma took the XVid code, modified it, and then released a binary-only version with an absolutely non-GPL EULA.
- they got caught red handed.
- They mumbled something along the lines of "I'll get right back to you" and then stopped answering calles.
-
The XVid served a 'notice of intent to declare war'.
- Sigma declares that one of their programmers 'accidently' copied 'a bit' of the XVid code, but that management really didn't know
-
sigma 'graciously' decided to release a version of their software under GPL, but continue to claim copyright.
- Now having access to the code, there seems to be
-
Wholesale copying of XVid code
- copying of other projects' code as well
- sophmore attempts to cover up some of the plagiarism.
It seems to me that the best thing to do is to demand that Sigma simply turn over copyright to the entirety of the code to the XVid people (except for stuff stolen from other people). This would save a future fight over what was stolen and what wasn't. It also makes up for the disruption caused by their criminal acts. They would, however, be allowed to pretty up the spin on this 'gracious' act in some way that made them look like reasonably good guys.If this goes to court, then I would expect that any decent judge/jury would do the same thing (along with a nice spoonful of monetary relief. The assignment of ownership would be part declaratory relief and part punitive damages. It would save the court from the trouble of figuring out what was stolen and what was genuinely created by Sigma.
( If you take Sigma's declaration at face value this really wouldn't hurt Sigma much, anyways, because they're now claiming that they originally intended to give away the whole project anyways. )
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Fair point. I suppose the real complaint is the manner in which they did this - first denying any accusations of code theft, then admitting to GPL violations and releasing a "pure" version 1.1, then admitting that the "pure" version was simply obfuscated and blaming it on a rogue employee.
Now that they have released the source, there might not be any legal recourse (unless someone wants to try to prove willful infringement). But from an ethical standpoint, the company is guilty as sin. I suppose the ultimate dilemma is that you can't sue for unethical conduct.
Would that this lone programmer had taken the users into account! Everyone who's ever owned a Sigma product knows it takes them years to get stable software out. Whoops. :)
That Sigma Designs would acknowledge that code was stolen, and instead of retracting their program and rewriting the offending portions, they just disclosed the source to the program? I think they were anticipating this well beforehand and decided that if the worst situation happened they would just disclose the source.
?-|||-----x<*))))><
OK. Let's consider a counter-argument to this.
Companies using GPL code only benefits everyone IF the company adheres to the GPL. If a company simply takes code and uses it as a platform to jumpstart their development, they are the only ones that bennefit. And more importantly, the community that collaberated to bring value to the code in question looses.
And there is definately value to be found in a lot of these GPL projects. GPL code is being used more and more often by business not only to support their infrastructure, but to provide a boost to their development. Unfortanely there also seems to be an increase in businesses that attempt to simply take code in violation of its license.
In most cases we've been reading about, when a GPL violation is discovered, it usually ends up with a sheepish excuse and promise to release code in accordance with the GPL license. The problem is this is beginning to look like a standard tactic. Steal code, hope nobody figures it out... and if you do get caught, then cough up some code. In the end, you still have access to the code you needed to boost your project at the "expense" of having to give up modifications you had hoped to keep to yourself.
It seems to be strategy with little overall risk. And if so, it suggests the community is setting itself up to be constantly ripped off.
A punitive strategy for the community... and one that the origional poster suggests exists within the workings of the GPL license... is to make the entire code base a part of the risk. If you attempt to steal GPL code and are caught, you forfeit access to that code. This would increase the risk from not only releaseing code you would prefer to keep secret (but would have to anyway if you complied with the GPL), but also puts the entire code base you wish to use at risk. Being caught would mean returning to square one - a major hit to any development project or product. And it may be a risk that fewer will be willing to accept. Hopefully it will keep honest people honest.
Could the community benefit from more companies using its code? Sure. But those companies must understand the requirements of using that code and, ultimately, being a part of the community.
One final note. The GPL may seem strange to the hardcore competative business developer. But one familiar aspect of the GPL is that it is a license. I find it hard to believe anybody working within the IT industry is not familiar with having to deal with licenses. When you use applications and code that include a license, it should be second nature to review that license and decide if one wishes to comply with it - as strange as those requirements might be.
Its almost certain they are selling their codec under non GPL licenses. Its not about contributing back their improvements ... its nice if they do that, but it doesn't solve the main problem.
There will probably always be some debate over whether this is the simple truth or simply a coverup. But the point is moot. In any case, they are responsible for the actions of their employees. It doesn't matter who said what when... in the end, they violated a license - the GPL.
If I was selling a piece of hardware or an application and, to facilitate the use of my product, offered a free copy of Windows XX what would happen? After all... giving away Windows isn't diminishing the availablity of Windows, or its quality. And considering Windows is already given away with the purchase of other products, I'm not really affecting the value of Windows either. And I'm helping proliferate Windows as a standard!
We all know, as do a lot of small whitebox shops, Microsoft would nail me when they found out.
Why? Because I am violating Microsoft's license. I am infringing on their copyright. Sigma Designs attempted to infringe on both the GPL license and the various project developer's copyright. And they got caught.
The added twist to this is a GPL project is a community resource. Sigma Designs could have joined that community and in all likelyhood been welcomed. Instead they chose to steal. Not only from the xvid project... but the entire GPL community who's work repays all other community member's efforts on their own projects.
Sigma Designs completely deserves any ire they receive from this situation.
Now that they have released the source, there might not be any legal recourse (unless someone wants to try to prove willful infringement). But from an ethical standpoint, the company is guilty as sin. I suppose the ultimate dilemma is that you can't sue for unethical conduct.
Actually, they are still liable and can be sued.
If you rob a bank and are caught with all the money intact, you are STILL a bank robber. Doesn't matter that you didn't get away with the crime.
These guys are liars. Bad ones at that. They admitted the theft of code. If taken to court, these guys are toast.
No matter if Sigma is a "good company" or not, or whether they are a real bunch of nice guys, you have to take them to court and sue them. The world needs to know that you can't steal GPL'ed code and get away with it.
To date, Sigma has NOT restored the original copyright notices that were on this code that they had stripped out. This is a clear indication that they still are trying to play games.
You know, I wonder if I'm the only one who finds this whole thing remarkably ironic. I mean, given that DivX :) started out as a cracked-and-patched version of someone else's codec to begin with, it's almost like Sigma's just "carrying on the tradition."
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
1) a well-documented violation of the license
2) from a well-respected project
3) by a less-than-quadrillian-dollar/year company that
4) openly admitted to the violation.
My guess is that the FSF is advising the XviD folks to take it to court and nail Sigma to the wall with a big iron spike through the heart. They won't get a better chance than this to prove the GPL.
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
THe time it takes for slash to report stories is like drudgereport being 6 days late in reporting 9/11
Seriously, if its way past the date, or not with in 24hrs, dont bother... its a waste of 'add space'
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
If I was selling a piece of hardware or an application and, to facilitate the use of my product, offered a free copy of Windows XX what would happen? After all... giving away Windows isn't diminishing the availablity of Windows, or its quality. And considering Windows is already given away with the purchase of other products, I'm not really affecting the value of Windows either. And I'm helping proliferate Windows as a standard!
But they are not comparable situations. On the one hand you have the GPL community that surrounds itself in a aura of moral superiority (one need only read the laboured, several thousand words justifying-the-cause GPL), while Microsoft is very straightforward: We make software, you pay for it. It's very honest and forthright, whereas people like Stallman are busy talking about whether things are free as in beer, etc.
The GPL is a very selfish license. Note that I'm not saying that selfishness is bad (the whole idea of capitalism, a system I support, is based on selfishness), but it is something that, as a general premise, is not admitted to by most GPL advocates.
So if I understand your argument... its OK to voilate the GPL license because you disagree with it? But because you admire, or otherwise agree with Microsoft's license, then everbody should be legally required to follow that one.
Whether it is "selfish" or not is not the point. It is a license to be followed. If you wish to use GPL code, comply with the license. If you don't, move on.
I have been working with STB designs based on Sigma's RealMagic chip for some years now. During this period of time it has been a hazzle to get source code even under NDA, and even then some parts are still binaries.
We did the same as many other RealMagic developers I have come across, we wrote our own replacement for the standard driver binaries. A fraction of the size, much better performance AND source code! I will look into the NDA issues and try to make it open source, but really Sigma should do it at their own!
I think that Sigma is afraid because they have a history as PCI card manufacturer with killing competition, but who will steal their chip by looking at the source code? They are afraid of getting a load of requests for improvements and patches to take care of. They are afraid of getting too much to do maybe!? Why not donate a pile of RealMagic eval cards to the open source teams willing to support it?? My (not so) humble opinion is that they are ancient dinosaurs from the early PC ages where propriatery meant profitable.
Wake up Sigma you are killing your own market!!!
From the latest sources downloaded from their website, and the update of their webpages (removed the SLA, put GPL instead) it seems that Sigma is heading toward complying with xvid (and others) requests.
... ?
I think the source code they're releasing now is different from what they put up on the webpage first. (Which only had some "Inspired by XVID" comments)
Now the question is "is that enough" should they do something more to redeem themselves? What do you think they could do:
- Give some compensation to the xvid developpers?
- Pay for some of their expenses (like hosting the website)
- Hire the developpers (this could backfire...)
-