Hmm what’s “unorganized” now??
What would you want different from what the contributions are now???
Thanks.
If you license code as GPL you are making it available to everyone. You are also making any derived works available to anyone. So if you use GPL code in your own project then you must also license your code as GPL.
It’s ‘political-ware’ so to speak as it wants to push the agenda that all code should be free. It’s the choice of the releasing their code for others to use. After all, they could have decided not to release it all.
However, I try to avoid using GPL code myself for a variety of reasons causing my life to be 100x more complex if I do.
So essentially if you want to charge for an application you should not use any frameworks/libraries that are GPL…?
I wish a lot of this stuff was more up front with people.
When I was looking into JavaCV a couple of years ago there was a random mention of “patented” algorithms for Keypoint Description/Detection, but no where in any tutorial, or page on OpenCV did I see this mentioned.
It’s like us coders not only need to make sure that we are using libraries that are safe, but that any algorithm we find on the internet isn’t “patented” or whatever…
Also, does this mean that any distributed code needs a license so that the author of the code isn’t sued???
You can charge for it… you just also have to release the source code.
LGPL is safer but personally I stay away from any GPL licenses because I prefer to choose my own licenses for my code.
1 Like
Thanks yeah I was just reading this http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/47032/can-i-use-gpl-software-in-a-commercial-application
That’s crazy… Now I have to look over all of my libraries and make sure I’m not infected…
I can’t believe a license like this is actually out there hurting coders, and a lot of them not knowing, since I doubt a lot of them read the licenses…
So does code have to have a license? I assume it’s just there so that the author doesn’t get sued, a you said, because “the nuclear reactor melted down?”
So essentially, because people cannot play nice, we have to have “restrictions and rules…”
Sadness…
If code doesn’t have a license then you can’t use it at all without explicit written permission from the author.
By default, all code is copyright the author. The license grants us ADDITIONAL abilities that we wouldn’t normally have.
1 Like
Ah, I see, awesome then, I just got confused by the comment about suing over something. I wasn’t sure if the license protected them in case we fuck up, but it’s really more for “us” then, except the GPL virus :P.
I was just curious because I got a library from a person who created it and I wasn’t sure what it was under, but it’s probably not licensed at all.
Now to check over all mylibraries…
I’m pretty sure most of my libraries are Apache, some MIT, and idk about Oracle BSD.
Thank you…
Well now that we got really off topic… 
Do you have any idea about the AVI and 2g issue with this “VideoRecorderAppState??”
Thanksd 
EDIT: Crap found one… Ucanaccess. >(.
Weeeeeeeell the GPL “hurting” coders really is a matter of perspective. If you don’t want to be affected by the gpl, don’t use gpl’ed code. If you use GPL code and you don’t like how it affects you, then its you that’s hurt yourself.
My personal preference is GPL, but I generally like most open source licences because they are all working towards similar overall goals, and there are plenty to choose from to suit many peoples preferences.
The differences can get pretty political as pspeed pointed out. Almost as bad as emacs vs vi holy wars…
Any license that tells me that any code that uses that license in my code essentially FORCES to make all of my code gpl, thus FORCES me to OPEN COURSE MY CODE.
How does that not hurt a programmer? Only the “Open Source” community benefits from that.
if you use code that you either
Didn’t look at the license
Looked at the license, but didn’t understand all of the legal aspects
then that’s on you, yes, but I wouldn’t expect something like this to exist.
I think the politics is more how the license controls everything.
I also noticed with the program I’m using
UCanAccess is issued on under the GNU Lesser General Public License 2.1. For further information click here.
Starting with the 3.0.0 version, UCanAccess has been relicensed to Apache 2.0. For further information click here
I’m using 2.0.8, but as long as I use the newest version I shouldn’t have any issues with gpl? the virus dies? hahaha 
?
I am not getting into this here. If you wanna argue licences, start a new thread 
True this has been derailed :P.
But it’s all good information, I’m open to comments, but from what people in this thread, and elsewhere are saying it just doesn’t seem like a good license for those of us who want to protect our code, and have say in how it’s distributed.
I have no clue though, so I just am absorbing the info I’m given, thanks.
Which, by the way, is precisely the agenda that the GPL has.
Agree with the philosophy or not, it’s well written about:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html
I release my code because I want as many people as possible to use it. Others release their code because they believe software should be ‘free’ as in ‘liberty’.
Yeah, and the community can benefit in a large way if code is forced to be “open source,” but it just seems like people wont use gpl or their licensees if they want to “protect their code.”
Thanks for the link.
I agree with what you said, and I want to release code to help people also, but at the same time, I don’t want to be forced to releasing ALL of my code. Some of my code is not meant to be released, and I’m sure there are many people who have code like this.
Also, how exactly would they find out if you are using their license/libraries using gpl, or not? It seems to be the same question with the “patented algorithms” comment. How exactly can they prove that you are using “their” work?
I can see if the code was a jar file or something that was accessible by certain means, but if it’s encrypted, or “obfuscated” or whatever else how do they know…??
Okay, so from what I see both Xuggler and ffmpeg use the gpl licenses, but I also found this tidbit of information on ffmepg’s site.
Q: Is it perfectly alright to incorporate the whole FFmpeg core into my own commercial product?
A: You might have a problem here. There have been cases where companies have used FFmpeg in their products. These companies found out that once you start trying to make money from patented technologies, the owners of the patents will come after their licensing fees. Notably, MPEG LA is vigilant and diligent about collecting for MPEG-related technologies.
I guess this is why Jmonkey uses AVI? AVI is less evil? haah…
so essentially any application that “converts to/from mpeg” would have to buy a license from “MPEG LA?”
So now that both use gpl, we are back to square one… >(.
Hopefully someone can shed some light on the app state itself, and all that, but it looks like it takes JPEG images and converts them into a movie… I’m assuming it could be output to another format/ another avi format or…? I’ll have to look into this…
However I did find this Google Code Archive - Long-term storage for Google Code Project Hosting.
it seems interesting, will look nto it more, but it says the code is “real only…” according to Google’s shizz…
However it’s version .8 and no updates since 2012…
The trick is to call ffmpeg by command line and make it optional.
That way it does not depend on it, does not modify it and so on.
This is basically one of the larger exceptions when having gpl stuff. (As else everything ever started on linux would be GPL)
However using any licensed video codec will cost you.
If you want to choose a codec for anything the possible choices are basically:
OGG formats
WAV and AVI
This is also the reason jme cannot play mp3 files out of the box, as that is surely not a technical problem.
You do make a good point, in a sense that also means I could technically make a “standalone” converter that isn’t a part of my main program, thus also not being bound by the rules in the main application.
I’ll look into VP9, but still curious about this AVI issue. I did look up that there’s apparently a 2/4gb limit, but then I read on Microsoft’s site the largest AVI file can be only 512 GBs large, and DirectX can only read a 800gb AVI (idk how that works but yeah!), so I’ll have to look into this a bit more, or see about doing it another way. The Problem is, the only files I can use are the ones above, so using an external resource is still not worth it if I cannot use a licensed codec without paying for it… Unless, of course the “external/second” application isn’t considered under the terms where you would need a license.
From what ffmpeg said it’s usually if you are using the application to make money off of. I’m not using this to make money, it would just be nice to have as part of my application.
Q: Bottom line: Should I be worried about patent issues if I use FFmpeg?
A: Are you a private user working with FFmpeg for your own personal purposes? If so, there is remarkably little reason to be concerned. Are you using FFmpeg in a commercial software product? Read on to the next question…
Q: Is it perfectly alright to incorporate the whole FFmpeg core into my own commercial product?
A: You might have a problem here. There have been cases where companies have used FFmpeg in their products. These companies found out that once you start trying to make money from patented technologies, the owners of the patents will come after their licensing fees. Notably, MPEG LA is vigilant and diligent about collecting for MPEG-related technologies.
I’m not trying to get into gray areas, or do anything sketchy, but from what you posted it seems that as long as it’s not part of your main application, and you’re not making money off of it, you should be able to convert to it, or…?
I’m also curious if gpl program calls main program how does that work? I would assume it’s okay, but main program couldn’t call gpl program?
I might need data from the main program, but I might not either, was just curious about it…
I know we are programmers, and not lawyers but figured some people have read over it :P.
Also, from what you said about Jmonkey not having mp3, so would Jmonkey have to buy a license? Does that mean ffmpeg bought theirs? I’ve been curious how it works as software is made free is you’ve bought a license, and what happens to the people who use your software and their access to the licenses…
Thanks for the help!
You can also probably use jCodec (I didn’t find it mentioned in here). GitHub - jcodec/jcodec: JCodec main repo. Xuggler I think is dead.
Easier to embed to application than FFMPEG, although supposedly slower performance.
1 Like
Wow, nice one, thanks.
You mentioned “supposedly slower performance” so does that mean you haven’t tried this? The license is their own made one it looks like so that’s good.
Didn’t know about Xuggler, just saw it posted somewhere, thanks for the info :).
I did find this interesting code snippet in “Jcodec”
Encode a sequence of images into MP4 file (h.264 encoder will be used)
import org.jcodec.api.awt.SequenceEncoder;
…
SequenceEncoder enc = new SequenceEncoder(new File(“filename”));
// GOP size will be supported in 0.2
// enc.getEncoder().setKeyInterval(25);
for(…) {
BufferedImage image = … // Obtain an image to encode
enc.encodeImage(image);
}
enc.finish();
Since Jmonkey uses images to an AVIWriter…
But again Mp4 and legal issues hmm…???
It looks like to me that the 3-clause BSD licence that jmonkeyengine is distributed under is compatible with the LGPL and the GPL. Definitely you can use LGPL with BSD, and you only have to distribute the LGPL code - you explicitly don’t need to distribute the BSD licensed code. If you don’t modify the LGPL code, then you won’t be distributing any of your own code
After a quick search, there appears to be a few implementations of various video and audio encoders
LGPL: https://jitsi.org/Projects/LibJitsi
2-clause BSD: http://jcodec.org/
I have only looked at some of their code (I did a Dungeon Keeper II movie decoder for my JME project), not directly used it. But Google gave some comments on stackoverflow saying it is a bit slow. Although old comments and the situation might be different today. I just don’t know can JAVA leverage the hardware acceleration on encoding, well I don’t know if FFMPEG can either… I can easily assume that FFMPEG is faster without any proof But does the difference have really any affect, that is another story…