PSPWare now available

zigzag · Post by **zigzag** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:27 pm

http://www.nullriver.com/index/products/pspware

Mac users, have a look! :)

pirloui · Post by **pirloui** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 2:30 pm

cool :)
<runs off to try it>

Starman · Post by **Starman** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:41 am

So where's their source code? Since they distributed it with ffmpeg, under the license agreement, they must distribute their app's source as well.

To clarify:

http://ffmpeg.sourceforge.net/legal.php

Be advised that FFmpeg incorporates several modules that are covered under The GNU General Public License, notably liba52 and libpostproc. If you use these components in your project, you are expected to release your whole application under the GPL if you distribute your project at all. This is the full text of the GPL.

--

Q: Since FFmpeg is licensed under the LGPL, is it perfectly all right to incorporate the whole FFmpeg core into my own commercial product?

A: You might have a problem here. Sure the LGPL allows you to incorporate the code. However, there have been cases where companies have used FFmpeg in their projects, usually for such capabilities as superior MPEG-4 decoding. These companies found out that once you start trying to make money from certain technologies, the alleged owners of the technologies will come after their dues. Most notably, MPEG-LA (licensing authority) is vigilant and diligent about collecting for MPEG-related technologies.

This is why I haven't distributed MY PSP app yet....I wanted to wait for the other people to screw up first :).

Mike

M2 · Post by M2 » Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:09 am

... messed around with this app last night. seems pretty good. it uses the ID3 tags to create a thumbnail for the mp3 tracks, as well. however, it didn't on some tracks, some i'm wondering which version of ID3 it can handle.

zigzag · Post by **zigzag** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:25 am

Because we are not modifying ffmpeg, it is legal to package it with the software. It is not integrated via code nor modified in any way, there is no code to release, it is exactly the same as the usual ffmpeg release.

As for the ID3 tags, v2.4 tags should work.

Starman · Post by **Starman** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:14 am

It's not a question of modifying ffmpeg, it's the usage of it AS IT IS. This is why ffmepgX isn't distributed with the ffmpeg tool - the author tells the user where to get it.

I really think you should re-read the ffmpeg license.

Mike

M2 · Post by M2 » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:24 am

zigzag wrote:As for the ID3 tags, v3 tags should work.

Thanks, zigzag, for both of your quick responses ;)

Would be cool to see some .m3u file generation support too... not that the PSP supports it all that well (yet).

zigzag · Post by **zigzag** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:49 am

Starman wrote:It's not a question of modifying ffmpeg, it's the usage of it AS IT IS. This is why ffmepgX isn't distributed with the ffmpeg tool - the author tells the user where to get it.

I really think you should re-read the ffmpeg license.

Mike

If the license is GPL, then I believe it works as I've stated.

LGPL offers even more freedom. Other applications already do the same thing we are doing and are considered fully legal. For example, take a look at Acquisition X, which uses the GPL'd LimeWire core.

zigzag · Post by **zigzag** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:50 am

M2 wrote:
zigzag wrote:As for the ID3 tags, v2.4 tags should work.
Thanks, zigzag, for both of your quick responses ;)

Would be cool to see some .m3u file generation support too... not that the PSP supports it all that well (yet).

We're already looking into it, among other things :)

zigzag · Post by **zigzag** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:52 am

Starman wrote:It's not a question of modifying ffmpeg, it's the usage of it AS IT IS. This is why ffmepgX isn't distributed with the ffmpeg tool - the author tells the user where to get it.

I really think you should re-read the ffmpeg license.

Mike

Contradictory to your belief, by the way, ffmpegX *is* distributed with the ffmpeg tool. Please check your sources. Perhaps it wasn't in the past due to a misunderstanding by the author.

Starman · Post by **Starman** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:59 am

zigzag wrote:
Starman wrote:It's not a question of modifying ffmpeg, it's the usage of it AS IT IS. This is why ffmepgX isn't distributed with the ffmpeg tool - the author tells the user where to get it.

I really think you should re-read the ffmpeg license.

Mike
Contradictory to your belief, by the way, ffmpegX *is* distributed with the ffmpeg tool. Please check your sources. Perhaps it wasn't in the past due to a misunderstanding by the author.

I downloaded it 2 weeks ago and the tools were not there.

Mike

zigzag · Post by **zigzag** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:00 am

Starman wrote: I downloaded it 2 weeks ago and the tools were not there.

This does not mean the reason was licensing.

However, I've just downloaded it myself and they are included.

zigzag · Post by **zigzag** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:23 am

Sorry, correction: v2.4 tags should work fine.

Starman · Post by **Starman** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:23 am

You're right. My mistake. I cheked and it was there. I thought it wasn't because the "locate the tools" dialog came up when I first ran it, and it had URLs for the tools.

I'm a bit worried about distributing ffmpeg. I was reading the Debian distro forum where they had the same dilemma and they were going to point the user to where the tool(s) could be downloaded rather than distribute the tool.

I just don't want to pay a gazillion dollars in royalties someday :).

Mike

kry.sys · Post by **kry.sys** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:51 pm

developers on *gpl onyl get cranky when you sell your app with thiers bundled in. take note that ffmpegX is free. i am not trying to knock this app, in fact i love it. more the reason for me to care about its future. if a large portion of this app is based on free code i would ask permission before it gets out of hand. best thing to do is have the app -require- ffmpeg installed, and make sure that your app gets licensed in a way to even be allowed to link against its libraries. (for instance: mysql4 and qpl code cant link eachother "legaly"... yet.. but thats another story)

hope this helps

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:08 pm

Developers only get cranky if you sell GPL code without providing the source.

It is ok to sell GPL code, as long as source is also provided, for the specific code covered under GPL.

If ffmpeg is GPL, they can include the code and binary in their shareware package, is is allowed under GPL.

As long as the code is not integrated with proprietary code, any separate proprietary code can remain proprietary. If there is any integration of proprietary source with GPL source, then all source must be GPL.

But they said ffmpeg is distributed as a separate binary, so I am not sure there is a problem here ? Unless the ffmpeg license is NOT GPL ?

Post by **mrbrown** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:35 pm

Good Lord. ffmpeg is LGPL, some optional parts of it are GPL, so if you don't use the optional GPL parts and don't modify the LGPL parts then you can distribute binaries compiled against ffmpeg without providing source to your entire app.

kry.sys · Post by **kry.sys** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:11 pm

^^^ what he said ^^^

... or she ...

Post by **blackdroid** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:33 pm

Sigh another thread with screamin GPL viral monkeys, when will you ever learn.

kry.sys · Post by **kry.sys** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:01 am

...that i can do what ever i want with gpl code anyway since those gpl devs dont have any money to sue me?

classic case
pear pc vs. cherry os

okok

back on topic.... sorry