taskSavannah Administration - Tasks: task #7729, Submission of FreeMediaTools

 
 

task #7729: Submission of FreeMediaTools

Submitted by:  James Michael DuPont <mdupont>
Submitted on:  Fri 01 Feb 2008 07:49:07 PM UTC  
Votes:  50  
 
Should Start On:  Thu 31 Jan 2008 11:00:00 PM UTC Should be Finished on:  Sun 10 Feb 2008 11:00:00 PM UTC
Category:  Project Approval Priority:  5 - Normal
Status:  Done Privacy:  Public
Percent Complete:  0% Assigned to:  Sylvain Beucler <Beuc>
Open/Closed:  Closed Effort:  0.00

Add a New Comment (Rich Markup)
   

You are not logged in

Please log in, so followups can be emailed to you.

 

( Jump to the original submission)

Tue 12 Feb 2008 08:52:55 PM UTC, comment #12: 

With these precisions about the state of the project and about its immediate priorities, I can approve the project.

You'll receive a notification mail from the system shortly.

Regards.

Sylvain Beucler <Beuc>In charge of this item.
Tue 12 Feb 2008 08:13:26 AM UTC, comment #11: 

Do you think you can clarify the copyright holder of files
attributed to "The Jahshaka Project"?

I have done some research on the copyright holders,and will need to look into this more.

"Most likely the copyright is just plain wrong. "

In my opinion as well, the copyright is wrong.

That means the sourcecode was never released propery under the GPL.

Sourceforge however requires that the projects release under the GPL.
That means that I will have to register a complaint, first to the project admins and then to sourceforge to clean up the copyright or remove the project from distribution.

The project however is being distributed as free software...
I think that public pressure will be good enough to get the copyright issue resolved, and I think author will be happy to
fix this issue when he becomes aware of it.
There seems to be a company that owns all the rights, I will need to check up on that some more.

<<Do you think you can bring the project to a working state without
using files that you removed (will the "script to download the
needed unattributed material" will be needed to only run
FreeMediaTools)? >>

I have now gotten a autoproject version linking!!!, it does not run for long (need to fix up some more plugins)

here is the tarball!!
http://savannah.gnu.org/submissions_uploads/FreeMediaTools-0.1.tgz

I will be able to get this thing into a working state. yes.

The pixmaps that are linked in directly, I have included back in
for compiling.

If I need to cut out all media and references, I will still get this thing clean.

Btw, with what implementation of OpenGL are you testing? 

I am running debian, opengl? let me see.
/usr/include/GL/freeglut.h
mesa, etc. all the free software.

I will produce a detailed dependancy list asap.

more to come.

James Michael DuPont <mdupont>
Mon 04 Feb 2008 09:31:15 PM UTC, comment #10: 

Hi,

> 5. there is a clause in the lgpl that will allow for me to
> change the license of the code from lgpl to gpl.


No problem with that.

> my replacement [license notice] will look like this :


Perfect.

> I am concerned with the fact that the copyright of these files
> is not clear. How can "jahshaka" or the "jahshaka project" be
> copyright holders?


They could have created an association or any other kind of
moral person to assign their copyright to. Most likely the
copyright is just plain wrong.

> 1. remove all media files and shaders scripts. I will provide
> scripts to download the needed unattributed media files if need
> from other sources.


> there is some code with no copyright assignment on it.
> there is code with no author or other infomation.
> there are numerous media files in there. bitmaps and other
>  things with no copyright attribution.


> 3. look for the cvs source of all files if there are
> unattributed ones. things that look as part of the project or
> that were edited in the project will be looked into more. I can
> contact the source forge authors.


Let's recap:

Do you think you can clarify the copyright holder of files
attributed to "The Jahshaka Project"?

Do you think you can bring the project to a working state without
using files that you removed (will the "script to download the
needed unattributed material" will be needed to only run
FreeMediaTools)?

> glew-devel/libglew1_1.3.4-5


Btw, with what implementation of OpenGL are you testing?

Regards.

Sylvain Beucler <Beuc>In charge of this item.
Mon 04 Feb 2008 08:16:25 AM UTC, comment #9: 

I have created a small perl script to extract the copyrights from the directory structure. you might find it useful.
attached are the script and the resulting file.
notice how a large number of files do not have any copyright assignement in them.
I have added some lines to the boilerplate so that it covers files that were not licensed.
The boilerplate text will be marked with -*-CopyLeft-*- so that it can be updated easily by perl later.

(file #14951)

James Michael DuPont <mdupont>
Sun 03 Feb 2008 10:18:27 PM UTC, comment #8: 

the freemediatools package does not build/link yet,
but it gives you an idea of how I want to setup the project.
this is my start of the packaging : using makedist
http://savannah.gnu.org/submissions_uploads/FreeMediaTools-0.1.0.tar.gz

here is a snapshot of the working directory of freemediatools, inc case the
http://savannah.gnu.org/submissions_uploads/FreeMediaTools.tgz
that contains the lastest sources that link. so if the other snapshots have any problems, you want to get the sources from that at least.

this is what I use to build :
this contains the full package and the media files, in my repackaging i removed a bunch of stuff and will want to make sure that it works without them.

here is just a cleaned up snapshot of my build dir for openlibs:
(when they finish uploading)
http://savannah.gnu.org/submissions_uploads//mnt/sda10/mdupont/experiments/video/js/openlibraries-clean.tgz

here is just a cleaned up snapshot of my build dir for jahshaka:
http://savannah.gnu.org/submissions_uploads/jahshaka-clean-source.tgz

here is my latest binary for debian i386.
http://savannah.gnu.org/submissions_uploads/jahshaka.bz2

I am building/linking using the Makfile.mike in the jahshaka/source dir. this will be replaced by the automake project freemediatools.

Sorry that the packaging is not as far as it could have been, I have been working on the code.

It would be great to have a source repository to check in against.

thanks again,

mike

James Michael DuPont <mdupont>
Sun 03 Feb 2008 09:35:48 PM UTC, comment #7: 

Well, I have done a scan of the code in the jahshaka and openlibs module.

there is some code with no copyright assignment on it.
there is code with no author or other infomation.
there are numerous media files in there. bitmaps and other things with no copyright attribution.

Here are more dependancies :
boost-devel
libboost-filesystem1.33.1_1.33.1-9
libboost-python1.33.1_1.33.1-9
libboost-regex1.33.1_1.33.1-9
libboost-thread1.33.1_1.33.1-9
glew-devel/libglew1_1.3.4-5
ffmpeg-devel
libcaca-devel
libxml2-devel
python-devel
OpenEXR-devel
qt-devel
zlib-devel
SDL-devel
mlt-devel

Here is a list of the copyrights that I could have extract from the jahshaka and openlibs project. I think it is the start of a "authors file".
I am concerned with the fact that the copyright of these files is not clear. How can "jahshaka" or the "jahshaka project" be copyright holders?

How can files just be wildly copied into the project?

I am working on removing all non-attributed files and finding the sources of the libs that were pasted in.

My project will resolve the issues this way :

1. remove all media files and shaders scripts. I will provide scripts to download the needed unattributed media files if need from other sources.

2. remove all unattributed sources.

3. look for the cvs source of all files if there are unattributed  ones. things that look as part of the project or that were edited in the project will be looked into more. I can contact the source forge authors.

4. I will remove all references to "jah" and "shaka" and all that  stuff from the project. I will also remove the bitmaps and any artwork. The program should use only free media files that have copyright attributes and no relation to the old project.

5. I am working on a new automake script that will not have too many subobjects. Only the plugins will be treated as subprojects
for building.

6. I will remove all libs that were pasted into the cvs source and use autoconf dependencies for managing those libs.

7. The upload of my changes, I can give you them first officially when the copyright has been added to all the changed files. I will give you however a snapshot of my work in progress so that you know that I am really doing serious work on this. This is still in progress. here is my suggested boilerplate to add into the files that had gpl and lgpl copyright notices.
the old notices read like this :
   Copyright (C) 2000-2006 VM Inc.
   Released under the LGPL.
   For more information, see http://www.openlibraries.org.
or this :
   The Jahshaka Project
   Copyright (C) 2000-2006 VM Inc.
   Released under the GNU General Public License

my replacement will look like this :
/*
  Copyright (C) 2008 James Michael DuPont
   This file is part of the FreeMediaTools Project.

   This code is based on the openlibraries.sf.net and jahshakafx.sf.net/jahshaka.sf.net projects.
   The license has been changed in accordance with the LGPL/GPL to GPLv3
     Copyright (C) 2005-2006 Editopia Inc.
     Copyright (C) 2005-2006 Visual Media Fx Inc.
     Copyright (C) 2005-2006 VM Inc.
     Copyright (C) 2005-2006 Jahshaka project

   The FreeMediaTools is free/libre software; you can redistribute it and/or
   modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public License as
   published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the
   License, or (at your option) any later version.

   The FreeMediaTools is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
   but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
   MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
   Library General Public License for more details.

   You should have received a copy of the GNU Library General Public
   License along with the FreeMediaTools; see the file COPYING.  If not,
   write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330,
   Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.
*/

James Michael DuPont <mdupont>
Sun 03 Feb 2008 10:16:50 AM UTC, comment #6: 

Ok,
Now here is my concise description of the openplugin issue:

1. the openplugin lib is used to load modules dynamically by name.
2. the modules loaded are licensed under a different license from the main module.
3. the main module cannot run or even do anything usefull without these plugins.

4. The bit of code in the openplugin libs is only used to allow other apps to load the modules without having any dependencies. it serves no other purpose. therefore the purpose is to avoid copyleft.

5. I do not support this behaviour, and do not want to contribute to it. It is my right and freedom to not support it. In fact, I would like to remove it from the code, because it also makes it harder to develop and maintain the code.

5.  there is a clause in the lgpl that will allow for me to change the license of the code from lgpl to gpl.

6. The relicensing and the relinking of the code from dynamic to static will make a new application that is easier to debug and maintain, and one that will be harder for other applications to reuse.

that is a summary of my case.
please decide on it.

James Michael DuPont <mdupont>
Sun 03 Feb 2008 10:08:55 AM UTC, comment #5: 

Thanks Beuc.

I have not changed the license yet, I have only been working on the code itself.

but I will upload a version tonight.

Right now I have some linker errors because I am trying to remove the dynamic loading of plugins and have them statically loaded.

I will comment on that next.

James Michael DuPont <mdupont>
Sun 03 Feb 2008 09:41:05 AM UTC, comment #4: 

Hi,

Can you upload the version of the code you're cleaning-up so we can review it for legal issues? (upload limit is now 50M)

Also I guess you forgot "Qt" as a dependency :)

I changed the project license to "GPLv3". You can do that at Savannah, but it's at the end of the license list (newest addition).

Sylvain Beucler <Beuc>In charge of this item.
Sat 02 Feb 2008 01:33:38 PM UTC, comment #3: 

I dont have a problem with the code being LGPLED, it is free software.

I want to exercise my rights for my contributions as allowed in the LGPL, and make my contributions under the GPL.

I dont think that the current project as alive, and it does not make sense to contribute to it as it is. For the chance to revive it and continue maintainence it should be licensed under one license not many.

But I do not aggree with the logic presented in the streamers licensing faq that I have linked. If there is no place for people to create GPLed code, and make contributions under the GPL, then they will be forced to make them under the LGPL.

What I do think is this :

1. the application at this point has a mix of licenses in the source distribution. on source forge they said it is gpled. in the copying file the same. but some files are lgpled as well.
this was confusing for me.

2. I think that people should have the choice to exercise the LGPL clause for relicensing. I would like to contribute to making the jahshaka program better, the application itself. I dont see why I should contribute my changes as LGPL inside the application. It seems to me to be an arbitrary split.

3. The fact that the code is not even being kept up to the gnu standards for documentation, coding, packaging etc. makes it hard to work on it. Many people have complained about not being able to build, that the dependancies are not clearly marked.

4. the debian pacakaging of the software is still in waiting, done by a debian developer. It seems the emails went unanswered for a long time.

5. The application is split up into 10-20 libraries with lots of inline functions. It is extremly difficult to debug or work on the code. I dont see the point in having all these modules at runtime. For linking it makes sense to have modules, but there is no need for having tons of shared objects in my opinion. it is fine to have a staticly linked video editor that has all the plug ins compiled in.

I hope that I have addressed the issues that people have brought up.

Maybe you will understand why there is a need for a fork of the code as it is.

James Michael DuPont <mdupont>
Sat 02 Feb 2008 01:15:33 PM UTC, comment #2: 

After some more dicussions with people I would like to make the following things clear :

1. there would be no need for me to fork the code if there was active development or maintaince of the v.20 codebase. The current codebase is not even maintained or compilable.

2. the version 3 codebase will discontinue the gpled code and I find that a shame. I dont want to discard my work and would like to continue on it.

3. I did now even know that the code was going to be re-written in python, and started to get the latest version from sourcesafe, after spending a week cleaning up the code and fixing bugs, I was told that the code would be discarded anyway.

James Michael DuPont <mdupont>
Sat 02 Feb 2008 12:02:08 PM UTC, comment #1: 

The codeline for jahshaka v2 has been discontinued.
the development for v3 is moving into more plugins, less gpled code. This has to be stopped.

the value will be added by having the code maintained
and bugs fixed and crud removed as i have been doing

and when more people decide to contribute to the gpled versions than the lgpled versions

I wanted to select gplv3, but savannah did not allow it yet.

James Michael DuPont <mdupont>
Fri 01 Feb 2008 07:49:07 PM UTC, original submission:  

A new project has been registered at Savannah
This project account will remain inactive until a site admin approves or discards the registration.

Registration Administration

While this item will be useful to track the registration process, approving or discarding the registration must be done using the specific Group Administration page, accessible only to site administrators, effectively logged as site administrators (superuser):

Registration Details

  • Name: FreeMediaTools
  • System Name:  freemediatools
  • Type: non-GNU software & documentation
  • License: GNU General Public License v2 or later (Will relicense LGPL and other compatible libs into the framework.)

Description:

GNUMedia is to contain a complete and compilable version of my fork of the "open source" sic jahshaka and ffmpeg /media player tools that pretend to be free.

we need to finally relicense these "open source" lgpl tools and make them free.

All libraries used will be relicensed into GPL, and changed to conform to the GNU standards for project layout, documentation and working conventions.

All updates to the libraries will be maintained, but value will be added by encouraging people who contribute to contribute only to this project.

Other Software Required:

jahshaka.org http://jahshakafx.cvs.sourceforge.net/jahshakafx/jahshaka/source/Jahshaka/

open libraries:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/openlibraries/

ffmpeg :
http://ffmpeg.mplayerhq.hu/legal.html

mplayer :
 svn checkout svn://svn.mplayerhq.hu/mplayer/trunk mplayer

Other Comments:

I am very upset with the current state of the jahshaka project.
the code that is in cvs cannot even compile, and the people running the project dont seem to understand free software.
I have a running version now using the gcc 4.0, and will be cleaning up the source for uploading.

This is what I want to fight :
http://www.linuxrising.org/files/licensing.html

"I have above outlined the practical reasons for why the GStreamer community suggest you allow non-free plugins to be used with your applications. We feel that in the multimedia arena the free software community is still not strong enough to set the agenda and that blocking non-free plugins to be used in our infrastructure hurts us more than it hurts the patent owners and their ilk.

 This view is not shared by everyone. The Free Software Foundation urges you to use an unmodified GPL for your applications, so as to push back against the temptation to use non-free plug-ins. They say that since not everyone else has the strength to reject them because they are unethical, they ask your help to give them a legal reason to do so."

The link below is to the jahshaka source,
I have twice uploaded to the upload window and it failed.

I want to create the cvs/svn repository and then apply my patches.

Tarball URL:

http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/jahshakafx/jahshaka.tar.gz

James Michael DuPont <mdupont>

 

(Note: upload size limit is set to 16384 kB, after insertion of the required escape characters.)

Attach Files:
   
   
Comment:
   

Attached Files
file #14951:  boilerplate.txt added by mdupont (2KiB - text/plain - my new boilerplate)
file #14949:  copyright.txt added by mdupont (167KiB - text/plain - the boilerplate preparation program and the copyright list extracted)
file #14950:  boilerplate.pl added by mdupont (3KiB - text/x-perl - the boilerplate preparation program and the copyright list extracted)

 

Depends on the following items: None found

Items that depend on this one: None found

 

Carbon-Copy List
  • -email is unavailable- added by Beuc (Posted a comment)
  • -email is unavailable- added by mdupont (Voted in favor of this item)
  • -email is unavailable- added by mdupont (Submitted the item)
  •  

    Do you think this task is very important?
    If so, you can add your encouragement to it.
    This task has 50 encouragements so far.

    Only logged-in users can vote.

     

     

     

    Follow 8 latest changes.

    Date Changed by Updated Field Previous Value => Replaced by
    2008-02-12 Beuc StatusWait reply => Done
        Open/ClosedOpen => Closed
    2008-02-04 Beuc StatusNone => Wait reply
        Assigned toNone => Beuc
    2008-02-04 mdupont Attached File- => Added boilerplate.txt, #14951
    2008-02-04 mdupont Attached File- => Added copyright.txt, #14949
        Attached File- => Added boilerplate.pl, #14950
    2008-02-02 mdupont Carbon-Copy- => Added mdupont

    Back to the top


    Powered by Savane 3.5