So I was clicking around on random issues in the ffmpeg bug tracker, and I come across this little gem.
argon, if you want I can simply forward this to our lawyers and they’ll suck the
life out of you (and all your money with it). Keep your cool, please.
You know what, GPL faggots? Fuck you forever. You’re just as bad as the sue-happy proprietary software owners/patent owners you claim to hate so much. The entire point of open source is that anyone should be able to do whatever they want with it. You’re trying to keep the cake and eat it too; either you let the code go and let other people use it freely, or you keep it under locks and sue the fuck out of anyone using it in ways you don’t like. There is no middle ground, and it’s pretty clear which side of the fence you’re on.
The GPL isn’t a “free software” license in any way whatsoever because of its ridiculous restrictions. People who use it are the kind of faggots that are still attached to the “I made it so I should be able to control what happens to it until 90 years after my death” school of intellectual property management, which is about as far from any definition of “free” as you can get. Stop pretending you’re different from the HURR YOU ARE MISUSING OUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, SUE SUE SUE companies like Adobe and Microsoft.
tl;dr: fuck copyright forever
edit: disclaimer: I have not ever used the kmplayer and from what I read about it on the cccp wiki it is a useless piece of shit anyway
edit edit: YES I GET VERY ANGRY ABOUT THINGS ON THE INTERNET, DEAL WITH IT
edit edit edit:
- number of projects in the ffmpeg hall of shame: lots
- number of ffmpeg license violators actually sued: 0
- number of ffmpeg license violators that are actually likely to ever get sued: 0
- number of companies that give a shit about the gpl: 0
edit edit edit edit: the gpl has actually been tried in court a total of like three times ever in all the time it has existed and those cases were limited to a total of two countries, namely the US and Germany, so don’t go off thinking that it is a well established or even internally consistent legal document or anything
Comments (27)
Let me add this: Fuck the GPL
lol
GPL is fags. what’s new?
seriously, if you wanted to strictly steer clear of any GPL’d or GPL-violating code in a complex extensible environment, like, I dunno, A MEDIA PLAYER or something, you’d pretty much be stuck with writing all shit from scratch.
GPL is cancerous, and so are its proponents.
PS: I’ll sue!
The thing about the GPL is that it was supposed to prevent freeloading. Besides, it’s not really hard to adhere to: provide source code + license text*, and there you go.
*Just linking to a webpage would be valid too. What is so hard?
if you don’t like freeloaders, how about you make your code proprietary and start asking real money for it
how about “absolutely fucking everything”?
providing source code isn’t exactly trivial since you have to provide it for everything you ever link to (not to mention that your own code automatically becomes GPL too) or you’re a license violator, and contrary to popular belief the webpage link isn’t technically valid either because you have to personally guarantee that the source code will be available for at least three years (and make this guarantee in writing too, and in lawyery terms that means on dead wood)
if you don’t do all of this you will get assaulted by a legion of retarded gpl trolls
Douchebag: They did that. ffmpeg thinks they ought to include ffmpeg source in their download
Not to mention that if you link to anything closed-source or even open-source but with a non-GPL-compatible license the entire binary suddenly becomes illegal to distribute.
The real problem of the GPL is that people who want to code proprietary are teased with source code that is potentially interesting for their project, which they are unable to use because of the GPL’s terms.
Any license that makes me think too hard is not worth it.
That’s why I’m a big fan of the WTFPL. The Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL
Holy shit are you stupid.
Now I feel like downloading the program even though I don’t need it at all… KMplayer or MediaCoder.
Not that I share your rage, but the point about the similar restrictiveness of GPL and normal closed source software is true. Then again, author can spitefuly pick people he will allow to use his shit, it’s perfectly legal and understandable…
the mediacoder guy apparently lives in china, so yeah have fun with that lawsuit sflc
What shit is this?
Its like trying to sue your friend for eating your cake.
Oh wait, I think I know why they’re suing, KMPlayer is more famous and actually has successfully acquired a few business deals.
@ Starks
So far I’ve released my work under WTFPL as well. Simple, to the point, no headaches. And it’s a real legal license. It’s not some made up BS.
Hint: If you’re the copyright holder, everything you can make up is a real legal license.
“The entire point of open source is that anyone should be able to do whatever they want with it.”
Nobody is forcing you to use the code, but if you want to use it then you must do it on their terms ([L]GPL). Don’t like the rules? Then simply don’t use the code.
Another freetard fail…
OK Bob, but don’t pretend it’s “free” because obviously it’s not.
It is free – not for you, but for whomever you give a copy to – apply recursion as necessary.
It’s all about fixing what you own. Binary distributions with bugs but no source can not be fixed. It all started when RMS got a printer with a buggy device driver – without source code to the driver the printer was useless. With source code, RMS could fix the driver and make his printer work.
The goal with GPL is a market in which nobody would ever buy software that didn’t come with source code just like no one would ever buy a car with the hood/bonnet welded shut and the wheels welded on. When/if the market ever gets to that point, the GPL won’t need copyright either.
Ya’ll are fucking faggot idiots…. boohoo, cry me a river. The GPL stole my tacos and my burritos too!
> number of ffmpeg license violators that are actually likely to ever get sued: 0
FFmpeg has real legal representation (http://www.softwarefreedom.org/). And it uses the LGPL because they believe in its terms (for instance, the one about disclaiming patent terms is nice). No reason to use a less free license just to help a bunch of ripoff shareware programs that won’t credit you.
> number of companies that give a shit about the gpl: 0
????
I know about the SFLC. I also know they do absolutely nothing with people who reside outside the US (i.e. all the license violators who actually violate the license to earn money).
Said license violators are going to use your shit regardless of which license you use, so in the end what you’re doing is making it harder for the license-abiding people who like you to use your stuff. Good job!
That said the LGPL isn’t quite as bad as the GPL, but it doesn’t really matter because for all practical applications of ffmpeg you also need swscale, which is GPL, so in the end you’re all literally Hitler anyway.
Just wait until MPEG-LA sues them or their users for using an unlicensed h.264 codec. Then we will all know freedom #5, the freedom to lose your pants because someone refuses to pay for something.
Are you serious? Fuck you then, write your own code. Clearly you are someone that has 0 clue about how to do so.
I sorta lolled
Have you even read the GPL??? I have a hard time emagine that because you talk a lot of shit…