Slashdot Mirror
Google Chrome's Inclusion of FFMpeg Vs. the LGPL
An anonymous reader writes "Google has recently added FFMpeg to Chrome to better support HTML5's video element. FFMpeg is licensed under LGPL 2.1, which states that 'if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Library by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Library.' Google admits to having obtained a patent license for their use, but still claims they are not violating LGPL. Among the confused we find Håkon Wium Lie and Miguel de Icaza, who wonders what FSF might say. Google doesn't feel like asking FSF for clarification."
It's not surprising that Miguel wants in on this.
What projects has he worked on in the past decade that didn't revolve around patents by Microsoft or others?
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
So, what you're telling us is that although all of us in the States have been using FFMpeg illegally without a license for years, when someone finally decides to try and be legal and purchase a license, now they are still in the wrong?
Sounds like the FFMpeg people need to start dual-licensing or something - from what I can tell they are OK with people obtaining licenses to use FFMpeg.
Of course, I'm still missing the biggest point here - since when do they need FFMpeg for HTML 5 support? It doesn't require any patented codecs, and they could always use DirectShow filters.
It isn't when it's inside of Chrome.
The LGPL expressly allows closed-source and even non-free-as-in-beer software to link to an LGPL library, either statically or dynamically, without violation of its terms. That's what makes it lesser than the GPL.
I agree with sentiment in the last link though, this is none of the FSF's business -- the FFMPEG people are the only ones that can claim to be aggrieved here. Until that happens, this is much ado about nothing since there can be no violation of license terms to which the holder of the copyright does not object.
I should probably clarify that Google didn't say *which* libraries would be used, but I assume they were referring to Windows Media Player for Windows, Quicktime for Mac, and GStreamer for Linux. Someone in the know can probably confirm or deny.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Library by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Library
See that word "if"? The patent license permits royalty-free redistribution of the Library... so it's not an issue.
Similarly, we've heard nothing from the authors of the Library - you know, the copyright owners, the only ones who have any legal standing? So maybe the peanut gallery should shut the hell up already.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I must say, it seemed more than a little ... odd ... for the founder of a completely and utterly proprietary competitor to post off-topic messages to a mailing list trying to probe his direct competitor on their adherence to a free software license.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Is there really an issue here? Is it impossible to freely redistribute Chrome? According to this page:
http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html
It seems that anybody can redistribute the code and/or binaries, with the possible exception of the parts that are trademarked (similar to Mozilla).
I noticed that google does give credit to ffmpeg on its "about" page, funnily enough I checked it out last night and clicked the ffmpeg link to read about what they had to say! So I think it is now included.
like phosphorescent desert buttons singing one familiar song
I have to reserve judgement until I know the details of Google's patent deal. It is possible that it includes downstream use.
All patent licenses are not the same. Some are a per-unit royalty, others are a lump-sum purchase of the use of the invention. It's even possible that Google did negotiate "downstream redistribution" of the library if they paid enough cash.
From the attached article I can gather that since FFMpeg uses the LGPL 2.1 (not 3.0) that their obtaining a third party license for something else that prohibits them from granting similar rights for that bit of code does not affect their ability to grant rights for use the FFMpeg libraries. As they put it:
The fact that Party B may have a patent license with an unrelated third-party is irrelevant as long as it doesn't prevent Party B from granting people the rights LGPL 2.1 requires they grant them (namely, only those rights it in fact received from Party A).
Again this all seems rather moot anyway. A lot of operating systems these days include FFMpeg libraries as well as the H.264 and AAC libraries (which is really what this is all about). I know people feel like the idea of linking native libraries from the OS (which may or may not be there) goes against the universality of the HTML5 video/audio spec (and I can't say I disagree), but it would seem that for something as ubiquitous and freely licensable as the FFMpeg libraries, this argument is a bit overblown.
Science will save us. The question is, will it destroy us first?
Nope, you've got it wrong. Chrome includes ffmpeg.
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020035.html
I think Google's relying on a technicality, but it's a significant one. In this case Google isn't the creator of the library, they received it from it's creator. So either it's creator could grant them an LGPL 2.1-compatible patent license, or the library can be distributed without a license, or it's creator couldn't have legally distributed the library to them. I think that, right or wrong, Google's probably on solid legal ground there. They didn't introduce the patented code into the library, they didn't create the library, so I don't think the law'll have much trouble allowing them to redistribute the code under the same terms and with the same rights as they got from it's creator.
I think it's a situation the GPL and LGPL don't contemplate explicitly. The situation where Google was adding the infringing code to a library they received under (L)GPL terms and then redistributing the results, that's exactly what the v2 language covers. But I'm not sure even the v3 language covers the situation where the holder of the patent license isn't the one who put the infringing code into the library and where the person who did put it in doesn't hold a patent license and has no rights to grant downstream recipients. If the library was under LGPL v3 I think you could make an argument that the automatic grant of rights in paragraph 11 kicks in, since Google does hold a relevant patent license, and that if their license doesn't let them do what paragraph 11 requires then they can't redistribute, but LGPL 2.1 doesn't contain anything explicit corresponding to v3's paragraph 11.
I think Google's right here, it does in fact come down to what the patent-holder says. If they sue Google and get an order blocking Google from distributing infringing code, then Google can't distribute the library. If the patent holders sue the library's author and get an order blocking distribution of the library without a patent license, Google can't distribute the library. But until then, Google can't be forced to add any rights that they didn't get when they received the library.
Not FFMpeg! That is all.
Google is in the clear here.
This is tempest in a tea-cup stuff.
Steven
I don't understand this at all.
Could someone please put this into a car analogy?
They are distributing the library under the terms of the LGPL with no additional restrictions and so are complying fully with the license. Whether or not they are violating their patent license by doing so is their problem.
The situation this clause of the LGPL is aimed at is one wherein Google would be obligated by their patent license to require that everyone they distributed the program to sign a patent sublicensing agreement that took away rights granted by the LGPL.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
But in the link, dannyb@google.com says
He should definitely look at the terms of his patent license instead of deciding whether it's worth asking permission. Also his comment is just stupid because any contributor to ffmpeg has "standing to enforce" and sue google.
I download it from Google. I redistribute FFMPEG under terms of the GPL. I get sued by someone for distributing something they hold a patent for. I in turn sue google on the grounds that their licensing terms indicated this would be OK and it's not. I'm not sure what the specifics would be, and it doesn't seem likely. However, I suspect anyone wanting to use FFMPEG for commercial purposes without a patent license would now get it from Google.
Stop making sense, AKAImBatman. You're gonna spoil all the fun of this thread before it even gets going.
We need to destroy Google immediately! After all, what have they ever done for us?
You are welcome on my lawn.
On the other hand, DannyB is an intellectual property lawyer, and you aren't. Furthermore, "the ffmpeg folks" would include "any contributor to ffmpeg", so your point is moot.
+mod points that I don't have. Layman opinion professional opinion
Seems you're right. The confusion is my own. The thread didn't start with the email you linked to, it started here:
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-May/019994.html
When I read it a few days ago, I understood it as "loading native codecs" rather than loading a binary library of FFMPEG. After that I paid little heed to the thread as these A\V codec discussions get a bit heated. :-/
Oddly, I have Chrome 2.0.172.30, but no FFMPEG license in sight. Oddly, the license for the V8 assembler is listed as Copyright (c) 1994-2006 Sun Microsystems Inc. WTF?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
the FFMPEG people
not people, giants!
The Admin and the Engineer
The emails were on the WHATWG mailing list. Anyone can join and participate. I mostly keep an eye on things. Ideally, I want to be able to jump in and say "HOLD IT!" if things are going off-track, but it seems the browser makers have some good heads on their shoulders. Except for Microsoft. I'd love to pop in with the occasional exclamation of "bullshit", but that wouldn't accomplish much. ;-)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The situation this clause of the LGPL is aimed at is one wherein Google would be obligated by their patent license to require that everyone they distributed the program to sign a patent sublicensing agreement that took away rights granted by the LGPL.
Wouldn't they be able to license included libraries under different agreements to compensate for this? Or does a patent agreement not work the same as copyright agreements in that respect?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Not sure why this was modded troll, since it's factually correct. Chromium is open source, yes, but Chrome itself is not. It's a fine distinction, and I'm not sure what parts of Chrome differ from Chromium, but I think the automatic updater service is not installed with Chromium, among a few other things. I think Chromium also lacks Google branding, probably for sticky copyright issues. Of course, the parts that use FFMpeg are probably open source, although we can't say for certain since the Chrome source is not available, but there's no reason why they should be different in Chrome than Chromium.
All your base are belong to Wii.
Oddly, the license for the V8 assembler is listed as Copyright (c) 1994-2006 Sun Microsystems Inc. WTF?
V8 author Lars Bak used to work for Sun, so maybe he borrowed something.
> Oddly, I have Chrome 2.0.172.30, but no FFMPEG license in sight.
That's because <video> support was added in Chrome 3.x
Slashdotters think copyright law is wrong and piracy is okay.
I think you have two distinct groups of slashdotters confused. Those of us who support the GPL do not pirate Microsoft Windows (we don't want it or need it) and we do not pirate music.
We're fundies man. Do not make me car bomb your OEM Microsoft Windows CDs.
I can't speak for anyone but myself.
I do NOT believe that copyright is wrong, at least not inherently.
I DO believe the DMCA is wrong, I DO believe copyright after the death of the originator is wrong, I DO believe that massive statuatory penalties intended to keep corporate infringers in line should NOT be applied to private citizens (I would accept that there should be some statuatory damages, not THOUSANDS of dollars per downloaded song though). I DO believe that treating the people who want to pay you like criminals with DRM is brain dead AND wrong.
In addition to all of that, I have one other major quibble with copyright law, and that is the status of distributors in the system. Distributors, such as the MAFIAA, should have ZERO copyrights. Originators, producers, should have the only copyrights.
Companies like the collective MAFIAA produce little of value--they are greedy middle men with no moral right to the money they skim off the top, middle, and most of the bottom.
Moreover, I DO think that piracy is advantageous for most artists. The reality is, thanks to the nature of the MAFIAA business model, that the majority of artists are obscure with minimal audiences, and make little to no money. All of those people (depending on the study, 90-95% of musicians, similar for authors) BENEFIT from piracy, purely by having an expanded audience. It is only the Metallicas, or Madonnas that are hurt by it because they do not benefit from free marketing the way most artists would.
"Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"
Answer: Control the money supply and collect taxes. Some things never change.
In Russia, you don't need a patent license in order to use H.264 compression. Moreover, software patents and patents on algorithms are explicitly declared as invalid by the law. So, the patent clause in LGPL doesn't fire, and redistribution of ffmpeg is perfectly legal. As for the USA - it's their problem, after all. Developers of ffmpeg may just prohibit redistribution of ffmpeg in USA in order to avoid such legal questions. I don't care.
This may come as a surprise to you however the slashdot community is made up of numerous individuals with their own differing opinions. Not everyone shares the same point of view which is why we're all here in the first place posting comments.
(FSF moderators, start your engines. You'll want to mod this post down to -1, to make sure nobody sees it)
Mpeg AFAIK is a freely implementable spec. Find a codec for it that uses the BSD license, or write one yourself. Problem solved.
I never use GPL licensed software at all myself unless it is unavoidable, (gcc/gmake etc, unfortunately) for precisely this type of reason.
The GPL is only a free license according to Richard Stallman's dishonest redefinition of the word "free." I consider him a fundamentally dishonest individual, and the FSF an immoral organisation, and I do not support him or them.
An early employee yes, an he worked with the two founders previously at Telenor but he is not one of the founders himself.
It matters what patents exist. If it is the position of the FFMpeg authors that the patent license that Google has obtained is actually required for royalty-free distribution, then nobody can redistribute FFMpeg at all.
Regardless of the legality of what Google is doing, the point that only the ffmpeg folks are able to enforce the LGPL is still significant. Google's relationship with the project is likely quite good. They're sponsoring 9 students as part of their Summer of Code program. If one of the contributors were to file suit, it's likely that other project members could persuade that person to drop the suit.
Even if they are in violation of the letter of the law, they're not really in violation of the spirit of the law. They're giving back to the open source community by releasing the source to their browser. And they're paying to add new functionality to ffmpeg. The only issue is that their legal team felt the need to cover the company by purchasing a license. And they would have been foolish not to, since the threat of a LGPL lawsuit is much less than a patent infringement lawsuit. AFAIK, even if they were to lose, they would be given a chance to come into compliance. And this only becomes an issue if someone who contributed to ffmpeg feels that this minor issue merits the hassle of a lawsuit and probably end any GSoC sponsorship for the project in the future...seems unlikely to me.
So the point that only the ffmpeg contributor have standing to attempt to enforce the LGPL seems pretty important since it likely means that no one with the right to do so will go through a ton of hassle to iron out a few legal details when the company has been nothing but gracious towards the project as a whole and even towards the open source community as a whole. There's far too many companies violating the (L)GPL that are acting in bad faith attempting to leach off the open source community that would make better targets. ffmpeg even maintains a list of such companies on their site.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
...in the very end, replace "FFMPEG Developers" by "FSF" and replace "our lawyers will be suing you" by "we will generate a shitload of negative publicity around this for Chrome and Google in general,", and you have an idea of what could happen instead.
I'd thought that recently about a project I'm working on, but there isn't an LGPL version of Affero. Getting the "if you modify it and redistribute it then make your modifications available" and "using it on a website is 'redistribution'" along with the LGPL's "you can link non-GPL code against it" would be useful for some libraries for online use.
And how, pray tell, would you get "sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health" without collecting taxes (and, to an extent, controlling money supply)?
I predicted this in my blog on that bastards a couple of days back. Simple solution: boycott them. The world has enough browsers controlled by monopolistic corporations already. Support Firefox.
Another answer for the benefits of Rome (some of those others aren't actually accurate) use a monotheistic religion as part of a military strategy, in order to group together disparate nationalities and more effectively target, isolate and eliminate non-believers. Not really all that much of a good thing, pretty sucky in fact
Speaking of google chromium I came across an add for it on that new search mess Bing - multimap, ugh (I ain't cruel so no link). I finally remembered where I heard bing repeated over and over again, it was that insurance salesman in the movie ground hog day that accosted bill, trust ballmer to pick that as the new name for the M$ search engine, it's seem you can never really take the insurance salesman out of the wanna-be jockstrap, 'BING' ;D.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
People, don't bother trying to discuss with this guy. Look at his comment history and see for yourself: he is only interested in turning every issue into evidence on how Slashdot is some sort of hypocritical hive mind.
This is not a complicated issue at all. Either ffmpeg requires patent license to use/redistribute or it doesn't. If it doesn't - no problem, nobody is in violation.
If it does then Google doesn't have a license to redistribute but neither do the authors! Hence, Google are supplying the source code under exactly the same terms so there is no ground for complaint for ffmepg's authors. The fact that Google, lets say for their own peace of mind, bought a license to use any relevant patents is frankly irrelevant and none of anyone else's business.
Exactly.
It should be realized that the party who would enforce any such breach of copyright would be the people who hold copyright: its writers, whereby any suit on a breach of that clause would have to argue that there exist valid, applicable patents that apply to the capabilities GPL licenced code,. a stance copyright holders have not taken. [1]
http://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html
Don't say "branding" and "copyright" in the same sentence. Branding is about trademarks. Trademarks are okay in the open source world. Copyright, mmmmmm, not so much.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
However, it requires you to still distribute the source code to the library.
And still bars use of patent licenses for the covered library, unless the licenses provide for everyone's full use under the GPL, including the full use by those you the recipient choose to further distribute the library to, who downstream recipients distribute the library to, etc...
What a load of convoluted bollocks this is. I'm glad I'm just debugging code.
IIUC licenses such as the GPL were created in order to provide a less restrictive legal basis for copying code than the default one you get if you don't copyright at all. In a world without copyright such licenses wouldn't be necessary, as in essence all they say is: "if you use this code within your code, you've got to let other people use your code too".
Miguel de Icaza is not a credible person to attack. Novell works as the work bench of Microsoft. He is the one who infected Gnome with Mono dependencies and told he does not care about patents in open xml, mono and so forth.
1) Give software away without restriction. Result: someone takes the code, incorporates it into their paid for product and using the revenue from their near monopoly blows the 'free' version out of the water. No more free version.
Microsoft would tend to disagree with you, I'm sure. They managed to corner the market with a free product, in the case of Internet Explorer. Before you try and argue semantics simply because this won't be in support of your premise, it's true that they no longer have 100%; but they still wouldn't be that far below 90%.
Before you also start bleating at me about how they were leveraging their monopoly, realise how well Google are doing in the market on search. Thus, it could work for them, whether or not it couldn't work for a smaller startup.
Even with small startups, the whole point isn't to necessarily use the BSD license for everything. Use it for things that ought to have unencumbered reference implementations; video codecs are a good example. That way, it getting copied by other companies is entirely the point; some of said companies will add value to it (and close it) if they want, while others can also develop it but keep it open as they choose, while still others can rely on availability of at least the reference baseline.
Corporations are entirely free to make closed, modified derivatives of Apache; again, if Stallman is right, why haven't they been destroyed yet?
Your entire argument is fear-based; as all of the FSF's rationale is. If the, "corporations are going to destroy everything!" argument is valid, how come any of the BSDs still exist at all? Come to that, why didn't Microsoft destroy the WC3 after they acquired Internet Explorer? How come virtually any of the Internet's protocols still exist, rather than single, monopolised implementations? As I said above, Apache isn't licensed with the GPL; how come it hasn't been destroyed yet?
On the other hand, DannyB is an intellectual property lawyer, and you aren't.
Furthermore, "the ffmpeg folks" would include "any contributor to ffmpeg", so your point is moot.
Just using the term "intellectual property" already says something about how one thinks about copyright. _If_ he actually describes himself as an "intellectual property" lawyer doesn't mean he understands the GPLv3 better than anyone else, only that he supports a view against copyleft. It doesn't make him an auth
ority, only an interested party.
From my reading, this is very clearly the thing the GPLv3 was written for. If you want to support patents that harm users, just don't use our software.
OTOH, anybody may represent themselves in court which means we're all lawyers.
I took "intellectual property lawyer" to mean works in the complex area of law surrounding contracts and licencing, and the interpretation and supposed violation of the above.
Yay me!
Not so. In fact, the GPL depends on copyright law to enforce its terms.
Dangerous, sexy, turing complete: Femme Bots
You are showing your own bias with that comment (you just stopped short of calling him a social parasite).
An attorney that specializes in licenses, copyright and patents is (IMHO) the most qualified person to analyze the GPL in behalf of its employers. Whenever or not the lawyer himself believes that the GPL is a good or a bad license, or that copyright is good or bad is irrelevant.
No sig for the moment.
I really wonder who really cares about what Icaza has to say about patents, large companies, shadowy use of LGPL.
I promise myself never to talk about Icaza and leave it to boycottnovell.org but somehow he really manages to troll me.
We all know Opera ASA is a closed source company, they claim it is their business model and it works so far. I can take their words very serious since they are the ones who managed to stand up against Microsoft instead of selling out to them and still claim they are the same company. Can we tell the same thing about Icaza guy and Novell? Come on really, one should really know when to shut up.
...and by not using H264 just because it is patented World wide, multi platform, large company adopted (including MS, that monkey boy knows) standard, they guarantee that we will see the use of video element ONLY in open source fanatic sites and perhaps Wikipedia.
Such things made what Flash has become today and they guarantee its further success as an abused plugin. It is amazing... Silverlight by its anti multi platform attitude (don't tell me about that clone), Quicktime large download bundled with iTunes, Real Networks still not getting rid of God damn bundles and their attitude, Java still not being a ultra light and fast plugin... All serves to Flash... Really amazing!
The video codec/plugin for embedding content standard is dictated by Google who owns Youtube and Youtube look alikes. It is Flash now. Very same company attempts to use a standards based method using an open source application and mini RMS people all over speaking about very deep philosophical matters.
Let me start reporting Flash bugs to Adobe again, it seems people are eager to guarantee that originally vector drawing plugin will be used for video next 5 years.
Since the issue is their use of a library licensed under the LGPL, version 2.1, even if violating the "spirit" of a license was a problem, the "spirit" of a completely different license than the one applicable to the software they are using wouldn't be.
Oh right, I did mean trademarks, but I couldn't think of the proper word. But uh, the other reply to you is definitely right in that without copyright Open source wouldn't function.
All your base are belong to Wii.
Also, I think I can even find an exception to the whole Trademarks being okay thing. See the whole mess with Firefox and Debian which led to Iceweasel.
All your base are belong to Wii.
I don't necessarily disagree with what you're trying to convey, but your approach needs some work:
"Microsoft would tend to disagree with you, I'm sure. They managed to corner the market with a free product, in the case of Internet
Explorer. Before you also start bleating at me about how they were leveraging their monopoly, realise how well Google are doing in the market on search."
Netscape was an ok web browser and when IE made it to around 4 or 5, they became ok as well. The difference was that IE -was- installed by default on the majority of new desktops (mshtml cannot be uninstalled) and Netscape wasn't good enough to justify users going out to find a new one. This was during a period where more and more casual PC users were entering the PC market to use the Internet. Many of those users would care less what 'browser' they used.
"some of said companies will add value to it (and close it)"
Lets say that Microsoft took vorbis, added some proprietary and hence incompatible hooks to the product then made it part of the default Windows installation, nobody would cry bloody murder? I think the most likely case would be that the 'market' would split with some using microsoft's default broken implementation while others would go with the free open version. Same things happened with web development and Java. In both cases Microsoft embraced and extended to the point of breaking inter-compatibility.
"Corporations are entirely free to make closed, modified derivatives of Apache; again, if Stallman is right, why haven't they been destroyed yet?"
Apache is still alive because of the people contributing to it. If a closed source product (like MS) wanted to embrace and extend Apache, that's their decision. But apache is itself an implementation of a specification, not the specification itself. The only benefit someone has of taking Apache code would be to save development costs in rolling out their own Web server. I'm sure there are a ton of companies that have done just that. If your point is to develop code that people will use, mission accomplished. If your goal was to foster your personal philosophy of software without commercial value, you're probably on less steady grounds.
"how come any of the BSDs still exist at all?"
BSD is a bad example, since its lost favor for the vast majority of developers. Linux could be considered the slightly younger, more attractive platform to work on, so people jumped ship to Linux, but nothing stops BSD from living on forever. That's not to say its a success story in modern times vs. Apache which still maintains a very high relevance.
"why didn't Microsoft destroy the WC3 after they acquired Internet Explorer?"
They had a monopoly but not exclusive monopoly on the market. That's why they embraced and extended their browser to include proprietary hooks like ActiveX and many non-standard coding extensions. If given enough time, they would've completely tossed out WC3 from consideration. Lucky for us, Mozilla took over the sinking Netscape product line and saved our ability to choose web platforms.
"Internet's protocols still exist, rather than single, monopolised implementations?"
IPv4, TCP, UDP, all De-facto standards that EVERYONE uses. Maybe you should pick a better example, because this one is 100% inaccurate. If you're trying to come up with 'proprietary' protocols, you would be best to look at Instant Messangers, some streaming media, some email provisions and SMB. Beyond that, I can't recall many protocols that don't have proprietary hooks that limit their use. The major reason why protocols aren't proprietary is because the protocols aren't copyrightable in many(all?) countries. If its not illegal to copy, someone could analyse and reproduce said function and publish specifications for how it works without legal reprocussions. Once that's done, the protocol can be implemented by any who care to use it.
Bye!
x264 is an (GPL) encoder. Google is distributing the (LGPL) H.264 decoder included in ffmpeg.
Same things happened with web development and Java. In both cases Microsoft
embraced and extended to the point of breaking inter-compatibility.
Granted, except in this case, my own theory at least is that like just about
everything else that has come out of Sun, (at least that I've ever heard of)
Java has largely been a solution in desperate need of a problem.
That's not to say that nobody uses it, (I have a cousin with a CS
degree who just got back from two years in England a few days ago, and the
company who sent him over there had him doing Java work in particular for some
sort of touchscreen kiosk type setup) but your point about why Microsoft were
ultimately able to kill Netscape, (i.e., not only was IE incumbent on Windows,
but it was also perceived as better, or at least good enough) also applies
here.
Specifically, that Java wasn't tangibly more attractive, for the most part, .NET, Silverlight, and Mono, but I don't hear much
than what Microsoft were able to come up with themselves. I keep hearing a
lot of talk online about
these days about Java, at all.
BSD is a bad example, since its lost favor for the vast majority of
developers. Linux could be considered the slightly younger, more attractive
platform to work on, so people jumped ship to Linux, but nothing stops BSD
from living on forever. That's not to say its a success story in modern times
vs. Apache which still maintains a very high relevance.
Whether BSD or Apache are popular or not wasn't my point. My point was that,
contrary to Stallman's paranoia, Microsoft (or $(EVIL CORPORATION)) haven't
used the legal system to literally remove them from existence. The central
rationale behind copyleft (and certainly the GPL 3, if not 2) is the
expectation that corporations will use the legal system to kill FOSS, and thus
the legal system also needs to be used in order to prevent that from
occurring.
To a large extent, that hasn't happened. Netscape wasn't FOSS, and even if it
was, the legal system wasn't used to kill it. Whether or not software is
*irrelevant* or not, is not my point. The point is that the legal system is
not being used to literally give non-GPL projects the baby harp seal
treatment; and that being the case, there is no genuine need to use the GPL
over any other FOSS license.
It's also worth remembering that, while we haven't seen any scenarios yet
where the GPL has prevented the actual death of a project, (to differentiate
from what the FSF defines as violation) the GPL also did not economically protect
Red Hat from Oracle, or projects like CentOS, which essentially provide the
same software that Red Hat does, (and in the case of Oracle, possibly similar
support) but simply without Red Hat's artwork; as under the GPL, the artwork
itself is pretty much the only unique IP that Red Hat owns where its' distros
are concerned at all. That can simply be stripped out, and Red Hat's work
redistributed by someone else.
What is this "spirit of the law" "even if they were to lose" "minor issue merits the hassle of a lawsuit" nonsense. Google is too big to open itself to legal liability and cross its fingers.
It matters what patents exist. If it is the position of the FFMpeg authors that the patent license that Google has obtained is actually required for royalty-free distribution, then nobody in the US can redistribute FFMpeg at all.
Fixed.
The FFmpeg stance has allways been that 'they', not being in the US can happily ignore any patent issues, and that anyone in the US should figure out there patent problems on there own. It's, erm, "interesting" to see a big US company use a library which could never have been build in the US...
Is that a Godwin offense, accusing me of a practice usual in WWII-losing countries? I don't see where I refer to social parasites.
I do have a bias. I have a strong opinion about the subject. You say it like it's a bad thing. I don't like people using the term "intellectual property", because its usage hinders the real understanding of copyright, trademarks and patents. Relating intellectual stuff with property is misleading, to say the least,
Of course, someone who calls themselves a "free software specialist" is going to have a bias for free software, and an MSCE is going to have a bias for MS software. That is what I think about "intellectual property" lawyers. A "copyright" lawyer, a "patent" lawyer would be another thing, but I was responding to a post about an "intellectual property" specialist.