Media Player .NET (MPDN) - D3D HQ GPU Video Renderer [v2.49.0/v1.31.0 27 Dec 2018]

[Belphemur]

Originally Posted by madshi

To be honest, I was wondering about that, too. But since I had the "ok" from tritical for using NNEDI3 in madVR, it didn't matter much to me. SEt's kernel being LGPL practically meant that SEt was fine with me using it in madVR (as long as I'm compliant with LGPL, of course). And tritical was fine with it, too, so I was covered in any case.

I think we can also assume tritical have also provided the same kind of permission to SEt. (Let's assume be because ... GPL ... is really one of the messier license where it's OpenSource by OpenSource for OpenSource (which is nice but tricky), that's why they came with LGPL)

Originally Posted by madshi

Well, I do not distribute MPC-HC, nor do I link in any part of MPC-HC. It's not madVR using MPC-HC. It's the other way round. madVR is also not a plugin to MPC-HC, it's simply an official DirectShow renderer which anyone can use who wants to use it. I don't see how that would have any legal effect on madVR. I mean Microsoft also doesn't have to publish their EVR sources as GPL, just because MPC-HC uses EVR, right?

No of course not, it's a one-way relation. You use GPL, you are GPL. If you're under GPL you can use proprietary software/lib/etc ...

This part of the comment was about the claim of Zachs you use some of the Shader code of MPC-HC, if it's the case, the GPL license propagate to MadVr if you don't have the same kind of permission you got from tritical.

(some light of the GPLv3 : http://blog.milkingthegnu.org/2008/0...r-dummies.html)
In the case you said with EVR, since EVR is a system lib, no problem else ... it's tricky again ... GPL is really more an ideal than anything else ... and if I'm right, haven't been tested in court either.

Anyway, for that nevcairiel cleared up the question, and well the API is provided by the system.

Originally Posted by Shiandow

Isn't that what I just did? I made a somewhat limited exception to whatever parts of LPGL are currently violated. It was limited on purpose though, to avoid introducing any more ambiguity.

Yeap, I just meant, the agreement you did before with madvr was already enough

[madshi]

I'm not directly using any MPC-HC shader code in madVR. What Zachs meant is that users can setup MPC-HC to send shader code to madVR via an official custom shader interface.

FWIW, I've also asked the LumaSharpen and FineSharp devs (both AviSynth and HLSL), and they were all ok with me using the shaders in madVR. Really, I thought I had everything covered and thought that I did everything correctly. I just wasn't aware of those extended LGPL requirements. I'm working on fixing that right now.

[Belphemur]

Originally Posted by madshi

I'm not directly using any MPC-HC shader code in madVR. What Zachs meant is that users can setup MPC-HC to send shader code to madVR via an official custom shader interface.

FWIW, I've also asked the LumaSharpen and FineSharp devs (both AviSynth and HLSL), and they were all ok with me using the shaders in madVR. Really, I thought I had everything covered and thought that I did everything correctly. I just wasn't aware of those extended LGPL requirements. I'm working on fixing that right now.

Sorry, I misunderstood that part.

To be honest, all those license are really complicated and usually an MIT or BSD license is enough to cover you as a developer and give right to other dev to use your work in any kind of settings (with correct credit). The best part of those permissive license, if you feel other are not respecting your work, you can then change the license to a less permissive one.

Anyway, you've done nothing wrong, maybe it would have been better that Zachs sent you an MP instead of posting it here, even if it triggered an interesting conversation on the different licenses used.

[Zachs]

Originally Posted by madshi

Well, I do not distribute MPC-HC, nor do I link in any part of MPC-HC. It's not madVR using MPC-HC. It's the other way round. madVR is also not a plugin to MPC-HC, it's simply an official DirectShow renderer which anyone can use who wants to use it. I don't see how that would have any legal effect on madVR. I mean Microsoft also doesn't have to publish their EVR sources as GPL, just because MPC-HC uses EVR, right?

No, but that's the thorny issue with GPL - when user supplies madVR with GPL'ed shader files via GPL'ed MPC-HC, violation happens. I'm just not sure who is violating the license. The same applies for NNEDI3 for MPDN if it remains GPL. Since tritical is unreachable for years now, I guess leaving it as LGPL isn't too bad since it has the same spirit as GPL, and where MPDN's NNEDI3 implementation goes, the whole thing is LGPL'ed.

There are plenty of ways GPL violation could occur - and they do all the time without the user knowing it - e.g. Using Windows Media Player with LAV Filter is a violation.

Like I said, GPL wasn't meant to be used for libraries, let alone binary files that have weights in them or shader files that can be used in other apps. They can be copyrighted, but GPL is the wrong license for it.

I work for a global corporation with access to and have been trained frequently by lawyers specializing in patents, copyright and licensing laws. We avoid GPL code like the plague. Think of LGPL is the 'bug-fixed' version of GPL if you like.

[Belphemur]

Originally Posted by Zachs

No, but that's the thorny issue with GPL - when user supplies madVR with GPL'ed shader files via GPL'ed MPC-HC, violation happens. I'm just not sure who is violating the license. The same applies for NNEDI3 for MPDN if it remains GPL. Since tritical is unreachable for years now, I guess leaving it as LGPL isn't too bad since it has the same spirit as GPL, and where MPDN's NNEDI3 implementation goes, the whole thing is LGPL'ed.

There are plenty of ways GPL violation could occur - and they do all the time without the user knowing it - e.g. Using Windows Media Player with LAV Filter is a violation.

Like I said, GPL wasn't meant to be used for libraries, let alone binary files that have weights in them or shader files that can be used in other apps. They can be copyrighted, but GPL is the wrong license for it.

I work for a global corporation with access to and have been trained frequently by lawyers specializing in patents, copyright and licensing laws. We avoid GPL code like the plague. Think of LGPL is the 'bug-fixed' version of GPL if you like.

As nevcairiel pointed out, it's not a violation to use LAV with Windows media player, same that madvr is not in violation when used with MPC-HC.

They all implement a system API, the way the module communicate together is through the system, they are not linked together neither provided as a package. It's the system doing the link, in that case, no violation ensue ... because else, you could go sue Microsoft just because you installed a GPL software on it ... it wouldn't make any sense.

[Zachs]

Originally Posted by nevcairiel

Commercial products tend to avoid shipping GPL components like LAV Filters directly, but instead recommend simply installing them manually.

That's because company lawyers like what we have in our company would be considering it a 'derivative work' - they believe COM is no different from calling something directly as a DLL. Recommending a manual install is a very dangerous practice too.

[madshi]

Well, I guess we can close the issue here. The next madVR build should be fully LGPL compliant (if not, let me know, maybe I missed something again). @Zachs, if I may suggest: Send a PM to tritical, but keep things in MPDN as they are. Then he has the chance to complain, and you did all you could. If he doesn't complain, all is well. My 2cents, at least...

[nevcairiel]

Originally Posted by Zachs

That's because company lawyers like what we have in our company would be considering it a 'derivative work' - they believe COM is no different from calling something directly as a DLL. Recommending a manual install is a very dangerous practice too.

Well if you believe that, then MPDN violates LAVs GPL. Can i haz moneyz noaw?

[Zachs]

Originally Posted by Belphemur

As nevcairiel pointed out, it's not a violation to use LAV with Windows media player, same that madvr is not in violation when used with MPC-HC.

They all implement a system API, the way the module communicate together is through the system, they are not linked together neither provided as a package. It's the system doing the link, in that case, no violation ensue ... because else, you could go sue Microsoft just because you installed a GPL software on it ... it wouldn't make any sense.

WMP with LAV filter is considered a violation - in fact that's the very example those lawyers used. This is the very reason nev said commercial software don't include LAV filters.

madVR in MPC-HC is a different matter - that's the opposite of WMP with LAV Filters. What I said before was user using MPC-HC shaders in madVR.

[Belphemur]

Originally Posted by Zachs

That's because company lawyers like what we have in our company would be considering it a 'derivative work' - they believe COM is no different from calling something directly as a DLL. Recommending a manual install is a very dangerous practice too.

But technically speaking, it's not even linked with it ... neither loading it, since it's done through the system.

That's always what bother me with legal and technical ... two differents reality.

[Zachs]

Originally Posted by madshi

Well, I guess we can close the issue here. The next madVR build should be fully LGPL compliant (if not, let me know, maybe I missed something again). @Zachs, if I may suggest: Send a PM to tritical, but keep things in MPDN as they are. Then he has the chance to complain, and you did all you could. If he doesn't complain, all is well. My 2cents, at least...

Oh I did more than half a year ago, I'll try again now that MPDN extensions include NNEDI3.

Originally Posted by nevcairiel

Well if you believe that, then MPDN violates LAVs GPL. Can i haz moneyz noaw?

Sure but you'd have to sue me first
I was talking about the licensing terms in the strictest terms where big corporations are concerned. And the whole point was to say that GPL is the wrong license to use - perhaps consider LGPL for LAV? Commercial apps would have no problem including it.

[nevcairiel]

LAV was originally based on partial GPL code from MPC-HCs old built-in filters, if anything or how much of that remains is impossible to say - but it also makes it impossible to relicense it LGPL without a lot of research.

[Zachs]

Originally Posted by Belphemur

But technically speaking, it's not even linked with it ... neither loading it, since it's done through the system.

That's always what bother me with legal and technical ... two differents reality.

Yeah it's dynamically loading it (yes it's loaded, it has to be - ask Nev). The mechanism that loads it is besides the point - technically it's still loaded. What companies tend to do is ask the user to install LAV filters on their own so it's the users violating the GPL license, not them (but advising the users would land them in legal troubles).

[madshi]

Oh well, it's sad tritical appears to be "gone". He was working on NNEDI4 at some point (although from what I saw the improvement compared to NNEDI3 was very small), and on a sharpener based on NNEDI technology.

[Zachs]

Originally Posted by madshi

Oh well, it's sad tritical appears to be "gone". He was working on NNEDI4 at some point (although from what I saw the improvement compared to NNEDI3 was very small), and on a sharpener based on NNEDI technology.

Yeah. I was monitoring his "last activity" since before I started MPDN...
It still remains at "22nd December 2013 03:55".

[Belphemur]

Originally Posted by nevcairiel

LAV was originally based on partial GPL code from MPC-HCs old built-in filters, if anything or how much of that remains is impossible to say - but it also makes it impossible to relicense it LGPL without a lot of research.

For what I understood, if you can contact the authors of the code you used and get a permission to re-license that part under LGPL, you should be okay ...

In that case, you need to put both license specifying until which version the GPL apply and from which version the LGPL apply.

Speaking of license, I saw that ffmpeg also have a tricky licensing system : https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/blob/master/LICENSE.md

[Zachs]

BTW, giving special permissions as permitted by GPL is also a sketchy clause (there's no such provision under LGPL by the way) - if Nev were to say MPDN could include LAV Filters as MIT, then if someone uses the LAV Filters from MPDN, but in the source is in every way similar to the GPL version, would they be in violation? See why companies avoid GPL now?

[nevcairiel]

Originally Posted by Belphemur

For what I understood, if you can contact the authors of the code you used and get a permission to re-license that part under LGPL, you should be okay ...

I'm aware, which brings it back to the "research" point, first finding the code which is not mine, and then tracing back the original authorship (or re-writing it). Sounds like days of boring work. Anyone volunteer?
I have tried to get rid of some of the old code since it was mostly hacks which were better suited properly re-implemented inside ffmpeg, but some are still present.

Originally Posted by Belphemur

Speaking of license, I saw that ffmpeg also have a tricky licensing system : https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/blob/master/LICENSE.md

While FFmpeg includes code under varying licenses, you basically specify which license you want at build-time, and it'll only build code that is available under that license, resulting in properly licensed binaries.

LAV already uses a LGPL build of FFmpeg, fwiw.

[Zachs]

Ah now I remember, I never succeeded in sending tritical any PMs because it was full the first time I tried, and it is still full now!

[madshi]

Argh, that's bad. Is there a known email address? I don't remember...