Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Legal Threats Against MPlayer, Server To Disappear

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,527

    Default Legal Threats Against MPlayer, Server To Disappear

    Phoronix: Legal Threats Against MPlayer, Server To Disappear

    While legal threats to free software projects would be disastrous (if successful) to those seeking to destroy Linux and open-source work, there's sure been lots of in-fighting as of late that's proving to be quite damaging for many distinguished projects. OpenOffice.org to LibreOffice or KOffice to Caligra Office Suite may be "good forks", but last month some core developers forked FFmpeg to libav to abandon other developers/ There's also been the MPLayer2 fork of MPlayer. But now also on the multi-media front is some ill-detailed threats that is leading to the loss of one of the main MPlayer developers and all services that he provides to the project, including their central server...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=OTMwNA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Sometimes reading project developments like this remind me of a soap opera.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,116

    Default Update

    Hi Koth and World

    Id like to clarify that there was and is no legal threat from me to
    anyone.
    I have no plans to involve any lawyers, any court, nothing like this.
    And even less so would i do something like that to attila.

    I still think having ffmpeg.mplayerhq.hu point to libav is a scam and
    should be changed but theres no legal threat from me because of this.
    Source: http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/...il/068017.html

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    80

    Default

    Of course the libav fork is somewhat questionable, because of all the drama around it, but calling it a "bad fork" outright is poor taste and poor journalism, IMHO. The situation is very difficult to decipher, though I have tried. By the way, the "certain project leader" in question couldn't be Michael Niedermayer, could it? Because that is the ffmpeg project leader, and if that's the things he does, I kinda understand where the libav team were coming from. Then again, it might be somebody else, because Attila Kinali isn't providing any names.

    While I understand the tension around libav, mplayer2, in my opinion, cannot be called a bad fork in any way. It just takes mplayer a different direction, that is all. If I were the leader of mplayer2, I'd be offended by Phoronix right now for this groundless accusation.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3

    Default Interesting PS

    I found Kinali's quote of Ursula Le'Guin's "The Dispossessed" interesting. She has been one of my favorite authors, and this one of my favorite books, since the 1970's. Time to go back and re-read them I think... :-)

    Anyway, back on topic. Sometimes you just have to cut the cord and move on. Losing a major contributor (both in time, IP, and resources it seems) can be a serious blow to an open source project like this. Sometimes they are handled well, and others... not so. I think that the OOo -> LibreOffice split was sensible, and after seeing Vitagnoli at the Flourish! conference in Chicago last weekend, I understand better why he did what he did. I don't think that the mplayer -> mplayer2 split will work out quite so well, unfortunately.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rubberman View Post
    I found Kinali's quote of Ursula Le'Guin's "The Dispossessed" interesting. She has been one of my favorite authors, and this one of my favorite books, since the 1970's. Time to go back and re-read them I think... :-)

    Anyway, back on topic. Sometimes you just have to cut the cord and move on. Losing a major contributor (both in time, IP, and resources it seems) can be a serious blow to an open source project like this. Sometimes they are handled well, and others... not so. I think that the OOo -> LibreOffice split was sensible, and after seeing Vitagnoli at the Flourish! conference in Chicago last weekend, I understand better why he did what he did. I don't think that the mplayer -> mplayer2 split will work out quite so well, unfortunately.
    Oops! Wrong spelling. It should have been Vignoli, not Vitagnoli! Sorry Italo - my bad!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    297

    Default

    How about some real journalism where you go out and ask questions of the developers of the projects you're calling bad forks before calling them bad forks?

    Is this really too much to ask?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kongsberg, Norway
    Posts
    50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by loonyphoenix View Post
    Of course the libav fork is somewhat questionable, because of all the drama around it, but calling it a "bad fork" outright is poor taste and poor journalism, IMHO. The situation is very difficult to decipher, though I have tried. By the way, the "certain project leader" in question couldn't be Michael Niedermayer, could it? Because that is the ffmpeg project leader, and if that's the things he does, I kinda understand where the libav team were coming from. Then again, it might be somebody else, because Attila Kinali isn't providing any names.

    While I understand the tension around libav, mplayer2, in my opinion, cannot be called a bad fork in any way. It just takes mplayer a different direction, that is all. If I were the leader of mplayer2, I'd be offended by Phoronix right now for this groundless accusation.
    Isn't it kind of obvious that the project leader in question is Michael Niedermayer? He is after all answering in a way that leads not much doubt about that. I have no knowledge about this two guys, but sadly, intuitively, I believe this is just happening because Michael Niedermayer got a bit pissed of by the fact that ffmpeg.mplayerhq.hu is pointing to libav.org. He probably wrote or said some exaggerated things, and he has every right to be pissed of. Regardless of the reasons for forking ffmpeg, is really bad idea (read: stupid idea) to do such a thing. It leads to the believe that ffmpeg has just changes name to libav, and the fact that both ffmpeg.org and libav.org looks pretty much the same does not help at all. Also, libav.org don't actually call it a fork, but
    We, as a group of FFmpeg developers, have decided to continue developing FFmpeg under the name Libav. All existing infrastructure will be transferred to the libav.org domain.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AHSauge View Post
    Isn't it kind of obvious that the project leader in question is Michael Niedermayer? He is after all answering in a way that leads not much doubt about that. I have no knowledge about this two guys, but sadly, intuitively, I believe this is just happening because Michael Niedermayer got a bit pissed of by the fact that ffmpeg.mplayerhq.hu is pointing to libav.org. He probably wrote or said some exaggerated things, and he has every right to be pissed of. Regardless of the reasons for forking ffmpeg, is really bad idea (read: stupid idea) to do such a thing. It leads to the believe that ffmpeg has just changes name to libav, and the fact that both ffmpeg.org and libav.org looks pretty much the same does not help at all. Also, libav.org don't actually call it a fork, but
    Yes, I agree with that, somewhat. However, I can see where these developers are coming from. Comparing the volume of libav and ffmpeg lists, it is obvious that more active development is going on in the libav team. Meaning that those 8 developers are 8 core developers of ffmpeg/libav, and should, in their opinion, be considered the majority of developers. I can even see how they thought they had the right to take over the project completely instead of forking it, even though they are not technically the majority -- and they might have succeeded, if the ffmpeg trademark owner hadn't sided with Michael. And if the majority of development is happening in libav camp, it seems to me that libav might, by some standards, be considered the main fork, at least from libav developers' point of view. In their opinion, it is only a technicality that Michael's fork continues under the name of ffmpeg, while theirs bears a different name.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by loonyphoenix View Post
    Comparing the volume of libav and ffmpeg lists,
    You are basing this on the 'volume' of mailing lists? I mean I could understand if you based it on examination of svn entries, but mailing lists? I've seen project mailing lists with tons of chatter but absolutely no development and vice versa. I hope I am misunderstanding this.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •