Inaccurate information about LiVES package
 

Hi all,
I am the main developer/maintainer of LiVES (http://lives.sourceforge.net).

I recently noticed the information about LiVES on this page:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WishList#L-M


The information give about LiVES is inaccurate/incorrect. First of all, LiVES is not dependant on ffmpeg. As in, you can perfectly well build and run the application without ffmpeg being present on either the build system or the end user system.



However, the ffmpeg libraries are recommended for end users, since LiVES will make indirect use of them (via mplayer) for decoding some video formats, and via mencoder for encoding some video formats.

I fail to see the reason for this to be sufficient cause for crossing out LiVES. A long time ago, ffmpeg contained some allegedly patented code (AAC audio IIRC), however this code was removed from the core of ffmpeg at least 5 years ago. However it seems that the FUD (and that is indeed what it is) persists. Microsoft must be laughing hard at this one.



If you don't believe me, then how is it that both ffmpeg and LiVES are in debian testing and unstable ? Please check for yourselves, and contact the debian legal team if you are still in doubt.


It is particularly timely that I noticed this, as I would like to introduce the new packager for LiVES in Fedora, Harry Rickards (harry@linux.com). Harry is also the point of contact between LiVES and the debian multimedia team who are responsible for packaging LiVES for debian.



I hope that you will correct the information on the wishlist page, stop spreading (unintentional ?) FUD about ffmpeg, and most importantly give Harry every assistance with the Fedora LiVES packages.

Regards,


Salsaman,
main developer, LiVES.


http://lives.sourceforge.net
https://www.ohloh.net/accounts/salsaman




--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Inaccurate information about LiVES package
 

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 05:34:34AM -0300, salsaman wrote:
> Hi all,
> I am the main developer/maintainer of LiVES (http://lives.sourceforge.net).
>
> I recently noticed the information about LiVES on this page:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WishList#L-M
>
> The information give about LiVES is inaccurate/incorrect. First of all,
> LiVES is not dependant on ffmpeg. As in, you can perfectly well build and
> run the application without ffmpeg being present on either the build system
> or the end user system.
>
> However, the ffmpeg libraries are recommended for end users, since LiVES
> will make indirect use of them (via mplayer) for decoding some video
> formats, and via mencoder for encoding some video formats.
>
> I fail to see the reason for this to be sufficient cause for crossing out
> LiVES. A long time ago, ffmpeg contained some allegedly patented code (AAC
> audio IIRC), however this code was removed from the core of ffmpeg at least
> 5 years ago. However it seems that the FUD (and that is indeed what it is)
> persists. Microsoft must be laughing hard at this one.
>
> If you don't believe me, then how is it that both ffmpeg and LiVES are in
> debian testing and unstable ? Please check for yourselves, and contact the
> debian legal team if you are still in doubt.
>
> It is particularly timely that I noticed this, as I would like to introduce
> the new packager for LiVES in Fedora, Harry Rickards (harry@linux.com).
> Harry is also the point of contact between LiVES and the debian multimedia
> team who are responsible for packaging LiVES for debian.
>
> I hope that you will correct the information on the wishlist page, stop
> spreading (unintentional ?) FUD about ffmpeg, and most importantly give
> Harry every assistance with the Fedora LiVES packages.

You're woefully mistaken if you think all patent-encumbered code has been
removed from ffmpeg. Debian doesn't have a singular US corporate entity
backing it like Fedora does. Red Hat legal has been down this road, and
there's no way ffmpeg can be in Fedora, due to the number of US patents
that its pretty well guaranteed to infringe upon. This isn't an
endorsement of patents, just a practical matter. There are multiple
3rd-party package repositories for Fedora that carry ffmpeg packages
though, as well as a good amount of software that utilize ffmpeg
(including LiVES in at least one of said repos, iirc).

--
Jarod Wilson
jarod@redhat.com

--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Inaccurate information about LiVES package
 

Hi,

On Monday, 31 May 2010 at 10:34, salsaman wrote:
> Hi all,
> I am the main developer/maintainer of LiVES (http://lives.sourceforge.net).
>
> I recently noticed the information about LiVES on this page:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WishList#L-M
>
> The information give about LiVES is inaccurate/incorrect. First of all,
> LiVES is not dependant on ffmpeg. As in, you can perfectly well build and
> run the application without ffmpeg being present on either the build system
> or the end user system.

What codecs and containers is LiVES able to process without FFmpeg/MPlayer?

> However, the ffmpeg libraries are recommended for end users, since LiVES
> will make indirect use of them (via mplayer) for decoding some video
> formats, and via mencoder for encoding some video formats.

Well, neither MPlayer nor MEncoder can't be included in any useful form
in Fedora. We have them in RPMFusion instead.

> I fail to see the reason for this to be sufficient cause for crossing out
> LiVES.

Is it useful without mplayer and mencoder binaries at all? What can it do
then?

> A long time ago, ffmpeg contained some allegedly patented code (AAC
> audio IIRC), however this code was removed from the core of ffmpeg at least
> 5 years ago.

Not true at all. FFmpeg contains a lot of code that implements standards
that depend on possibly patented "inventions". I've been following FFmpeg
development almost from the beginning (and I maintain FFmpeg packages in
RPMFusion) and I don't remember any code being removed from FFmpeg on the
basis that it was allegedly covered by patents. The AAC case you're referring
to was about licence compatibility, not patents. FAAC was distributed under
the GPLv2, but it turned out that it contained some code whose licence was
incompatible with the GPL, so FFmpeg stopped allowing enabling FAAC support
without --enable-nonfree, because binaries linked with libfaac are not
distributable.

> If you don't believe me, then how is it that both ffmpeg and LiVES are in
> debian testing and unstable ? Please check for yourselves, and contact the
> debian legal team if you are still in doubt.

For some reason, Debian seems to include the decoding parts of various codecs
even though they may be covered by some patents. They don't ship any encoders
as far as I know, though. Anyway, even the decoders are not OK for Fedora.

> It is particularly timely that I noticed this, as I would like to introduce
> the new packager for LiVES in Fedora, Harry Rickards (harry@linux.com).
> Harry is also the point of contact between LiVES and the debian multimedia
> team who are responsible for packaging LiVES for debian.
>
> I hope that you will correct the information on the wishlist page, stop
> spreading (unintentional ?) FUD about ffmpeg, and most importantly give
> Harry every assistance with the Fedora LiVES packages.

We welcome all new packagers with open hands. However, please check your
facts before going off on a rant and accusing people of spreading FUD.

Regards,

--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Inaccurate information about LiVES package
 

Please can you give an example of a patent which is violated in the *core* of ffmpeg.

Salsaman.
http://lives.sourceforge.net
https://www.ohloh.net/accounts/salsaman






On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Jarod Wilson <jarod@redhat.com> wrote:


On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 05:34:34AM -0300, salsaman wrote:

> Hi all,

> I am the main developer/maintainer of LiVES (http://lives.sourceforge.net).

>

> I recently noticed the information about LiVES on this page:

> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WishList#L-M

>

> The information give about LiVES is inaccurate/incorrect. First of all,

> LiVES is not dependant on ffmpeg. As in, you can perfectly well build and

> run the application without ffmpeg being present on either the build system

> or the end user system.

>

> However, the ffmpeg libraries are recommended for end users, since LiVES

> will make indirect use of them (via mplayer) for decoding some video

> formats, and via mencoder for encoding some video formats.

>

> I fail to see the reason for this to be sufficient cause for crossing out

> LiVES. A long time ago, ffmpeg contained some allegedly patented code (AAC

> audio IIRC), however this code was removed from the core of ffmpeg at least

> 5 years ago. However it seems that the FUD (and that is indeed what it is)

> persists. Microsoft must be laughing hard at this one.

>

> If you don't believe me, then how is it that both ffmpeg and LiVES are in

> debian testing and unstable ? Please check for yourselves, and contact the

> debian legal team if you are still in doubt.

>

> It is particularly timely that I noticed this, as I would like to introduce

> the new packager for LiVES in Fedora, Harry Rickards (harry@linux.com).

> Harry is also the point of contact between LiVES and the debian multimedia

> team who are responsible for packaging LiVES for debian.

>

> I hope that you will correct the information on the wishlist page, stop

> spreading (unintentional ?) FUD about ffmpeg, and most importantly give

> Harry every assistance with the Fedora LiVES packages.



You're woefully mistaken if you think all patent-encumbered code has been

removed from ffmpeg. Debian doesn't have a singular US corporate entity

backing it like Fedora does. Red Hat legal has been down this road, and

there's no way ffmpeg can be in Fedora, due to the number of US patents

that its pretty well guaranteed to infringe upon. This isn't an

endorsement of patents, just a practical matter. There are multiple

3rd-party package repositories for Fedora that carry ffmpeg packages

though, as well as a good amount of software that utilize ffmpeg

(including LiVES in at least one of said repos, iirc).



--

Jarod Wilson

jarod@redhat.com



--

packaging mailing list

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging



--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Inaccurate information about LiVES package
 

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik@greysector.net> wrote:


Hi,



On Monday, 31 May 2010 at 10:34, salsaman wrote:

> Hi all,

> I am the main developer/maintainer of LiVES (http://lives.sourceforge.net).

>

> I recently noticed the information about LiVES on this page:

> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WishList#L-M

>

> The information give about LiVES is inaccurate/incorrect. First of all,

> LiVES is not dependant on ffmpeg. As in, you can perfectly well build and

> run the application without ffmpeg being present on either the build system

> or the end user system.



What codecs and containers is LiVES able to process without FFmpeg/MPlayer?



dv (with libdv), ogg/theora (although ffmpeg is required for vorbis encoding/decoding), mng (encoding only), animated gif.

*


> However, the ffmpeg libraries are recommended for end users, since LiVES

> will make indirect use of them (via mplayer) for decoding some video

> formats, and via mencoder for encoding some video formats.



Well, neither MPlayer nor MEncoder can't be included in any useful form

in Fedora. We have them in RPMFusion instead.



> I fail to see the reason for this to be sufficient cause for crossing out

> LiVES.



Is it useful without mplayer and mencoder binaries at all? What can it do

then?



You can edit dv, or you could for example load in an image sequence and encode it to ogg/theora.

*


> A long time ago, ffmpeg contained some allegedly patented code (AAC

> audio IIRC), however this code was removed from the core of ffmpeg at least

> 5 years ago.



Not true at all. FFmpeg contains a lot of code that implements standards

that depend on possibly patented "inventions". I've been following FFmpeg

development almost from the beginning (and I maintain FFmpeg packages in

RPMFusion) and I don't remember any code being removed from FFmpeg on the

basis that it was allegedly covered by patents. The AAC case you're referring

to was about licence compatibility, not patents. FAAC was distributed under

the GPLv2, but it turned out that it contained some code whose licence was

incompatible with the GPL, so FFmpeg stopped allowing enabling FAAC support

without --enable-nonfree, because binaries linked with libfaac are not

distributable.



Again, what patents are violated by the *core* of ffmpeg (with all non-free decoders/encoders disabled) ? I think the only codecs included in the core are probably snow, and the nut container format.



*
> If you don't believe me, then how is it that both ffmpeg and LiVES are in

> debian testing and unstable ? Please check for yourselves, and contact the

> debian legal team if you are still in doubt.



For some reason, Debian seems to include the decoding parts of various codecs

even though they may be covered by some patents. They don't ship any encoders

as far as I know, though. Anyway, even the decoders are not OK for Fedora.



It depends on which codecs. For example if they include only theora, dv, pcm and mjpeg decoding then there is no problem. Same with ogg and matroska container formats.



*
> It is particularly timely that I noticed this, as I would like to introduce

> the new packager for LiVES in Fedora, Harry Rickards (harry@linux.com).

> Harry is also the point of contact between LiVES and the debian multimedia

> team who are responsible for packaging LiVES for debian.

>

> I hope that you will correct the information on the wishlist page, stop

> spreading (unintentional ?) FUD about ffmpeg, and most importantly give

> Harry every assistance with the Fedora LiVES packages.



We welcome all new packagers with open hands. However, please check your

facts before going off on a rant and accusing people of spreading FUD.



When you can show me an actual example of a registered patent which the core of ffmpeg violates then I will stop. Until then I still regard it as FUD.


Salsaman.
*


Regards,



--

Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann

RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu

"Faith manages."

* * * *-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"

--

packaging mailing list

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging



--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Inaccurate information about LiVES package
 

On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 11:41:21AM -0300, salsaman wrote:
> Please can you give an example of a patent which is violated in the *core*
> of ffmpeg.

This is the wrong place to raise legal questions wrt Fedora packaging, or
potential new packages for Fedora. They should be directed to Fedora Legal
team

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal

"If you have any legal questions that can be discussed in public,
post to fedora-legal-list . If you have any private legal questions
send a mail to legal AT fedoraproject.org"

Regards,
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://deltacloud.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Inaccurate information about LiVES package
 

On Tuesday, 01 June 2010 at 16:53, salsaman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
[...]
> > What codecs and containers is LiVES able to process without FFmpeg/MPlayer?
> >
> >
> dv (with libdv), ogg/theora (although ffmpeg is required for vorbis
> encoding/decoding), mng (encoding only), animated gif.

I guess this might be useful then. What about WebM/VP8?

[...]
> > We welcome all new packagers with open hands. However, please check your
> > facts before going off on a rant and accusing people of spreading FUD.
> >
> >
> When you can show me an actual example of a registered patent which the core
> of ffmpeg violates then I will stop. Until then I still regard it as FUD.

http://wiki.multimedia.cx/index.php?search=patents

If you can provide a configure command that would produce a non-patent-
encumbered FFmpeg binary and a list of files that must be deleted from FFmpeg
tarball so that it can be distributed by Fedora then please do so.
I have no time to do this and even if I did, I'd most likely be unable
to find all the relevant patents and miss something. Until then, I'll keep
maintaining it in RPMFusion.

Regards,
R.

--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Inaccurate information about LiVES package
 

Please answer the question. I have been personally assured by representatives of the mplayer developers that the ffmpeg code contains *no patented code*. I spent over two years fighting to convince the debian developers that this was true, until they finally accepted it.



I am very tired of this discussion, and I am not prepared to go through it all again with the fedora legal dept.

Please just point me to just one registered patent that the core of ffmpeg is known to violate.


Otherwise you are just spreading FUD.

Salsaman.

http://lives.sourceforge.net
https://www.ohloh.net/accounts/salsaman






On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:


On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 11:41:21AM -0300, salsaman wrote:

> Please can you give an example of a patent which is violated in the *core*

> of ffmpeg.



This is the wrong place to raise legal questions wrt Fedora packaging, or

potential new packages for Fedora. They should be directed to Fedora Legal

team



*http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal



*"If you have any legal questions that can be discussed in public,

* post to fedora-legal-list . If you have any private legal questions

* send a mail to legal AT fedoraproject.org"



Regards,

Daniel

--

|: Red Hat, Engineering, London * *-o- * http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|

|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://deltacloud.org :|



|: http://autobuild.org * * * *-o- * * * * http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|

|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 *-o- * F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|

--

packaging mailing list

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging



--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Inaccurate information about LiVES package
 

On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 12:11:19PM -0300, salsaman wrote:
> Please answer the question. I have been personally assured by
> representatives of the mplayer developers that the ffmpeg code contains *no
> patented code*. I spent over two years fighting to convince the debian
> developers that this was true, until they finally accepted it.

The general Fedora package maintainers aren't in a position to decide
on legal question, so having this discussion here won't come to any
useful conclusion. Only Fedora legal have the authority to decide on
legal questions & so they are the people you have to ask about this,
not Fedora packagers.

> I am very tired of this discussion, and I am not prepared to go through it
> all again with the fedora legal dept.
>
> Please just point me to just one registered patent that the core of ffmpeg
> is known to violate.
> Otherwise you are just spreading FUD.

I'm not spreading FUD, merely directing you to people who actually have the
authority to speak for Fedora on legal questions like this.

Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://deltacloud.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Inaccurate information about LiVES package
 

http://lives.sourceforge.net
https://www.ohloh.net/accounts/salsaman




On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik@greysector.net> wrote:


On Tuesday, 01 June 2010 at 16:53, salsaman wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:

[...]

> > What codecs and containers is LiVES able to process without FFmpeg/MPlayer?

> >

> >

> dv (with libdv), ogg/theora (although ffmpeg is required for vorbis

> encoding/decoding), mng (encoding only), animated gif.



I guess this might be useful then. What about WebM/VP8?



[...]

> > We welcome all new packagers with open hands. However, please check your

> > facts before going off on a rant and accusing people of spreading FUD.

> >

> >

> When you can show me an actual example of a registered patent which the core

> of ffmpeg violates then I will stop. Until then I still regard it as FUD.



http://wiki.multimedia.cx/index.php?search=patents



If you can provide a configure command that would produce a non-patent-

encumbered FFmpeg binary and a list of files that must be deleted from FFmpeg

tarball so that it can be distributed by Fedora then please do so.

I have no time to do this and even if I did, I'd most likely be unable

to find all the relevant patents and miss something. Until then, I'll keep

maintaining it in RPMFusion.



Regards,

R.



Sure, I can make a configure commandline which would only enable for example ogg/theora/vorbis and other free codecs. You could then edit (in LiVES):

ogg/theora/vorbis


mjpeg/pcm
ffv1 (lossless)
ogg/dirac/vorbis


and in the future:

vp8/vorbis/matroska (a.k.a webm, the new format from Google).





Actually we should get the terminology straight.



ffmpeg is a binary which uses libavcodec and libavformat. mplayer and mencoder are also binaries which make use of libavcodec and libavformat.

So what we are really talking about are configure options for libavcodec and libavformat in mplayer and mencoder.



LiVES does not use ffmpeg (except as an optional encoder for example for webm format, since the commandline options are simpler than for mencoder).

LiVES will make use of mplayer and mencoder if they are present to decode/encode the above mentioned video and audio formats.






Regards,
Salsaman.





--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging