5 ms·

I don't see an issue with this (am I supposed to? Do we demand everyone use git or similar now?). They can give you the source however they want. On another to

by howeyc 11y ago

I don't see an issue with this (am I supposed to? Do we demand everyone use git or similar now?). They can give you the source however they want. On another topic, did anyone see the license section? --- If you distribute a product (whether software or hardware; whether free or for pay) that uses the LIVE555 library code, then you must - when requested by either a customer, or Live Networks, Inc. - upgrade it as soon as possible to use the latest version of the LIVE555 library code (or else provide a way for your customers to perform this upgrade themselves). Similarly, you must allow any of your customers to - at their discretion - replace the LIVE555 libraries used by your product with their own version (that uses the same API). (Note that in particular, because Apple restricts which iOS apps are made available on their 'App Store', you cannot use the LIVE555 library code in an iOS app that's distributed through Apple's 'App Store'.) --- Does the LGPL enforce this, or is this some extra requirement?

0x0 11y ago
The user-replaceable part is standard fare, but I've never heard about the forced upgrading part. That sounds pretty crazy. I guess if you follow the LGPL and allow a user to swap out the library you're covered, since they say "or". Maybe it's "LPGL or release updates until you die"?
earlz 11y ago
It seems to me that they don't actually WANT anyone to use it, and definitely not modifying the code... Really makes you wonder why they bothered to make it open source and LGPL licensed
- astrodust 11y ago
  I'd like to think the first part is talking about making extensions to the code, that you should be writing subclasses to add new functionality for your own use, not maintaining a series of patches. That is, dependency injection for your extensions, not alterations to the core. The whole project reeks of anachronistic development practices, though.
- pc86 11y ago
  That's a pretty strained interpretation of "open source" on their part.
FigBug 11y ago
> when requested by either a customer, or Live Networks, Inc. - upgrade it as soon as possible to use the latest version of the LIVE555 library code This is not a requirement of the LGPL, the rest is. A user must be able to replace a LGPL portion of a program. Dynamic linking is the way this is usually accomplished.
tbg 11y ago
the "upgrade it as soon as possible" part is an extra requirement
wmil 11y ago
The LGPL requires that end users are able to replace LGPL libraries with new builds. The App Store creates a bit of an issue, but it's possible to update app libraries if your phone is jailbroken. You might also be able to modify and re-sign, but I'm not sure. The LGPL doesn't require the developer to use a new version or provide updates at anyone's request.
- cwyers 11y ago
  Well, what they say: > If you distribute a product (whether software or hardware; whether free or for pay) that uses the LIVE555 library code, then you must - when requested by either a customer, or Live Networks, Inc. - upgrade it as soon as possible to use the latest version of the LIVE555 library code (or else provide a way for your customers to perform this upgrade themselves). That's a very strained reading of the LGPL, but the way the LGPL is written, they must provide a way for customers to updgrade the LIVE555 code used to whatever version they want to, including the latest version. It doesn't have to WORK, necessarily, but the ability to replace LGPL code in a work with one's own code is part of the license. TL;DR: I think they're wrong but not so far wrong as to be crazy, and what they insist on happening is a consequence of following the terms of the LGPL (customers being able to upgrade to the latest version).
  - derefr 11y ago
    Theoretically, could you just say "the newest version of this software is licensed under the LGPL; for any other version, I retain copyright and grant no rights to it, and revoke any rights previously granted."? So it becomes an infringement of their copyright to not be running the newest version, whatever the LGPL says.
- lunixbochs 11y ago
  The iOS App Store disallows dynamic libraries. Libraries are statically linked into the final executable, so they're not easy to replace.
  - plorkyeran 11y ago
zeeed 11y ago
> I don't see an issue with this (am I supposed to? Do we demand everyone use git or similar now?). That depends on your job. If you are a software developer, -engineer or similar, I would argue that you should. There are good arguments for version control. - divide & conquer for bugfinding - reconstruction of history - being able to revert back to an older version if/while operations require it - it allows tracking of changes over time - it is the best way of understanding what changed since the last version (for people actually using the library) - finding complex faults - branching and merging (but the author is opposed to this) So, well, what concerns live555, IMHO it's a huge red flag for people considering to actually use the library. When it comes to "not seeing an issue with not using source control", I believe that one can state without a doubt that it is a good and proven practice.
- sfk 11y ago
  Obviously source control has its benefits, but ironically often tarball-only developers produce very high quality software (the most prominent example is djb at cr.yp.to). Conversely, GitHub is full of low quality software.
  - navait 11y ago
    You're cherry picking a few example of tarball only developers and then comparing it to the entirety of github? How is that a fair comparison at all?
  - geofft 11y ago
    djb's software is pretty low-quality for very many metrics of "quality". Lots of it is not elegantly interoperable with existing UNIX systems, because he has his own idea of how UNIX systems should work. There's the entire qmail backscatter thing. There are pieces of crypto code written in a custom assembler. Curve25519 has its own reimplementation from Chrome's Adam Langley, and all of NaCl its own repackaging in the form of the libsodium project, because the official distributions are difficult to use. NaCl has been promising certain features in the "next release" for years (notably Ed25519 signatures), but no release has been seen. All the downloads are over plaintext HTTP with no cryptographic signatures: I've always interpreted this as implying that if you're not qualified to audit the entire tarball you downloaded, the software isn't for you. None of this is to claim that he's a bad cryptographer, or even a bad software engineer. But pure code output is far from the only important metric for software. GitHub makes it easy to do release engineering well, or to let other people help you with that if it's not your forte. (libsodium, for instance, is on GitHub.)
sesutton 11y ago
The LGPL says no such thing about forcing you to distribute updates but the FAQ implies it does. I wonder how this squares with the part of the GPL that says: >If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.
s73v3r 11y ago
The issue isn't that they don't want to have a repository. The issue is that the rationale for not having one is pants on head idiotic.
machrider 11y ago
Ross may have tacked this on after this exchange with Foscam regarding an IP camera line streaming RTSP with an ancient (and buggy) live555 release: http://foscam.us/forum/a-reported-problem-with-your-fi9821w-camera-t5285.html http://foscam.us/forum/a-reported-problem-with-your-fi9821w-...

by howeyc 11y ago

0x0 11y ago

The user-replaceable part is standard fare, but I've never heard about the forced upgrading part. That sounds pretty crazy. I guess if you follow the LGPL and allow a user to swap out the library you're covered, since they say "or". Maybe it's "LPGL or release updates until you die"?

earlz 11y ago

It seems to me that they don't actually WANT anyone to use it, and definitely not modifying the code... Really makes you wonder why they bothered to make it open source and LGPL licensed

astrodust 11y ago
I'd like to think the first part is talking about making extensions to the code, that you should be writing subclasses to add new functionality for your own use, not maintaining a series of patches. That is, dependency injection for your extensions, not alterations to the core. The whole project reeks of anachronistic development practices, though.
pc86 11y ago
That's a pretty strained interpretation of "open source" on their part.

FigBug 11y ago

> when requested by either a customer, or Live Networks, Inc. - upgrade it as soon as possible to use the latest version of the LIVE555 library code This is not a requirement of the LGPL, the rest is. A user must be able to replace a LGPL portion of a program. Dynamic linking is the way this is usually accomplished.

tbg 11y ago

the "upgrade it as soon as possible" part is an extra requirement

wmil 11y ago

The LGPL requires that end users are able to replace LGPL libraries with new builds. The App Store creates a bit of an issue, but it's possible to update app libraries if your phone is jailbroken. You might also be able to modify and re-sign, but I'm not sure. The LGPL doesn't require the developer to use a new version or provide updates at anyone's request.

cwyers 11y ago
Well, what they say: > If you distribute a product (whether software or hardware; whether free or for pay) that uses the LIVE555 library code, then you must - when requested by either a customer, or Live Networks, Inc. - upgrade it as soon as possible to use the latest version of the LIVE555 library code (or else provide a way for your customers to perform this upgrade themselves). That's a very strained reading of the LGPL, but the way the LGPL is written, they must provide a way for customers to updgrade the LIVE555 code used to whatever version they want to, including the latest version. It doesn't have to WORK, necessarily, but the ability to replace LGPL code in a work with one's own code is part of the license. TL;DR: I think they're wrong but not so far wrong as to be crazy, and what they insist on happening is a consequence of following the terms of the LGPL (customers being able to upgrade to the latest version).
- derefr 11y ago
  Theoretically, could you just say "the newest version of this software is licensed under the LGPL; for any other version, I retain copyright and grant no rights to it, and revoke any rights previously granted."? So it becomes an infringement of their copyright to not be running the newest version, whatever the LGPL says.
lunixbochs 11y ago
The iOS App Store disallows dynamic libraries. Libraries are statically linked into the final executable, so they're not easy to replace.
- plorkyeran 11y ago

zeeed 11y ago

> I don't see an issue with this (am I supposed to? Do we demand everyone use git or similar now?). That depends on your job. If you are a software developer, -engineer or similar, I would argue that you should. There are good arguments for version control. - divide & conquer for bugfinding - reconstruction of history - being able to revert back to an older version if/while operations require it - it allows tracking of changes over time - it is the best way of understanding what changed since the last version (for people actually using the library) - finding complex faults - branching and merging (but the author is opposed to this) So, well, what concerns live555, IMHO it's a huge red flag for people considering to actually use the library. When it comes to "not seeing an issue with not using source control", I believe that one can state without a doubt that it is a good and proven practice.

sfk 11y ago
Obviously source control has its benefits, but ironically often tarball-only developers produce very high quality software (the most prominent example is djb at cr.yp.to). Conversely, GitHub is full of low quality software.
- navait 11y ago
  You're cherry picking a few example of tarball only developers and then comparing it to the entirety of github? How is that a fair comparison at all?
- geofft 11y ago
  djb's software is pretty low-quality for very many metrics of "quality". Lots of it is not elegantly interoperable with existing UNIX systems, because he has his own idea of how UNIX systems should work. There's the entire qmail backscatter thing. There are pieces of crypto code written in a custom assembler. Curve25519 has its own reimplementation from Chrome's Adam Langley, and all of NaCl its own repackaging in the form of the libsodium project, because the official distributions are difficult to use. NaCl has been promising certain features in the "next release" for years (notably Ed25519 signatures), but no release has been seen. All the downloads are over plaintext HTTP with no cryptographic signatures: I've always interpreted this as implying that if you're not qualified to audit the entire tarball you downloaded, the software isn't for you. None of this is to claim that he's a bad cryptographer, or even a bad software engineer. But pure code output is far from the only important metric for software. GitHub makes it easy to do release engineering well, or to let other people help you with that if it's not your forte. (libsodium, for instance, is on GitHub.)

sesutton 11y ago

The LGPL says no such thing about forcing you to distribute updates but the FAQ implies it does. I wonder how this squares with the part of the GPL that says: >If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.

s73v3r 11y ago

The issue isn't that they don't want to have a repository. The issue is that the rationale for not having one is pants on head idiotic.

machrider 11y ago

Ross may have tacked this on after this exchange with Foscam regarding an IP camera line streaming RTSP with an ancient (and buggy) live555 release: http://foscam.us/forum/a-reported-problem-with-your-fi9821w-camera-t5285.html http://foscam.us/forum/a-reported-problem-with-your-fi9821w-...