Re: [Deinterlace-discuss] Posibel gpl violation?

[Peter G. <pe...@el...>]

I don't pretend to be explicit, but let's start at least with this 
additional paragraph. I haven't checked in htm yet - I can do so after 
Dan approves it. We can add a paragraph to FAQ as well - IMHO it's 
better to say the same thing twice than say nothing about it at all. 
Especially in our case ;-)
And one more idea. Could we make a special page with a list of 
applications using Deinterlace.ax? I know Hauppauge and ZoomPlayer. 
Leadtek is going to be next, I hope... Yaobing Deng is evaluating the 
filter now... Something like hall of fame ;-)

Peter

Mark Rejhon wrote:

>Hi,
>
>An explicit explanation on the DScaler website is an excellent idea!
>
>Thanks,
>Mark Rejhon
>
>Peter Gubanov wrote:
>
>>This is GREAT! Mow we know 2 companies who steel deinterlace.ax, and
>>personally I like it. This means the filter is really useful.
>>However, I appreciate they put a link to DScaler website and leave
>>copyright notice intact.
>>I agree with John, let's consider presumption of innocence. Maybe
>>Leadtek guys are really stupid and don't know what LGPL means. John
>>already has experience explaning licensing issues to Hauppauge. Hope he
>>can do it once again, but this can become really annoying. Let's put an
>>explanation on the website. We should define explicitly how companies
>>can districute deinterlace.ax with their products, what words they have
>>to put in documentation, readme, license agreement, about box, etc. At
>>least this will enable us to blame such ignorant companies for violating
>>our copyright.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>  Peter
>>
>>John Adcock wrote:
>>
>>>>Wow, if Leadtek really did this, then they have really done a bad
>>>>thing.  LGPL does not give up rights and ownership of a project to a
>>>>corporate entity who decides they need the code to improve their
>>>>product. If they really have stripped the license and the
>>>>copyright(s)
>>>>
>>>>from the code, then this is a serious legal offense.  They can
>>>
>>>>distribute the library and even sell the service of distributing it,
>>>>but they can't make closed modifications, remove previous copyrights,
>>>>and strip the LGPL.  Unfortunately, I think this happens a lot, but
>>>>doesn't get caught very often.
>>>>
>>>From Torbjorn discription this is exactly what they have done.  But let's
>>
>>>not be too hasty in attacking them yet.  It looks like the same thing that
>>>happened with Hauppauge has happened again. I'll try and find a contact
>>>e-mail when their site is up again.  I expect this will be resolved ina
>>>similar as with Hauppage and they will comply once they are told they have
>>>done something wrong.
>>>
>>>>Here's FSF's checklist for possible violation of the license
>>>>(including LGPL), and what to do:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
>>>>
>>>The only people who are able to do anything about a violation is us the
>>>copyright holders.  If we get nowhere or get a brush off we will try the
>>>tried and tested approach of posting this to slashdot.
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>
>