Porting (Split fromEsotic Effect V0.8 - 19 TZT Effectors)

[syzygy]

Originally posted by Rovastar

Seriously though I am disappointed that the project decided to rip (port) something existing rather than make something new.

If everyone did this nothing new would get written. :( It is not taht difficult to copy an engine.

How many engines have you ported?

I'd guess none.

Have you ever done any real substantive programming at all?

Porting an engine (of any sort - graphics, database, whatever) can be a really important stage in new things being developed.

Porting an engine to a new platform opens it up to a whole new community of developers, with new ideas for taking it forward.

Porting an engine provides a great opportunity to study the code inside out and learn the strengths and weaknesses. If the porters are any good then some refactoring during porting will usually lead to a better engine in the port than the original.

Porting an engine is usually done because the underlying architecture of the original is well understood and accepted to be a good one. Why waste time reinventing the wheel when the existing engine can be ported and the time put into new developments and improvements?


Consider the opposite viewpoint; it sounds a little like you are saying that every new system that is built should be recreated from the ground up rather than being based on existing systems.

Should I devise a new merge sort algorithm for every system I build?

Should I invent a new markup language for each system rather than using XML?

Should you build a new visualisation codebase for every scene you want to createm, rather than just making presets for an existing one?

If everyone agreed with what you said (and I don't think you even agree with it really if you think about it), nothing really useful would ever get built. We'd all be spending our programming time writing mergesort algorithms or devising new off the wall architectures just to be different.

Dan.

[Esotic]

Well spoken.

The ProjectM guys have already made feature advances in thier code beyond what MD could do. And once peeps like me get thier grubby little coding fingers on the port things have the potential to go totally insane.

So, instead of berating Rova (cuz I personally have huge respect for what he's contributed to the MD community), even though he may partially deserve it, we should be asking him for some suggestions. Like, what kind of "new things" would you like to see (in projectM or any other visualization tool).

ProjectM exists because MD development had stopped and the source was not available (which in some respects was quite a shame). Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Ok, everyone go make something beautiful...

-Esotic

[Rovastar]

I have done plenty thanks dan. I resent your comments that I cannot do anything. I am sick of your fucking put downs. Screw you. I am not going to justify myself to you.

It is a lot harder to come up with something new than reverse engineer something that already out there. I cannot believe you are trying to argue otherwise.

There are legal and ethical issues in reverse engineering a copyrighted peice of software anyway. You obviously approve of this by your tone.

I feel that it would be better to the visualization community at large if they was a new engine rather than yet another (the 3rd now) copy of what already exists. That does not do anything in taking thing forward it just shows a lack of imagination copying what is fundmentaly 2-3 year old code.

So we have about 5 different engine and multiple copies on one of them.

[syzygy]

Originally posted by Rovastar
I have done plenty thanks dan. I resent your comments that I cannot do anything. I am sick of your fucking put downs. Screw you. I am not going to justify myself to you.


Live by the sword, die by the sword Rova. I only phrase myself strongly towards you because that's the way you treat other people - I assume you expect it.

Just to be clear. I didn't say you can't do anything. I said it seems to me that you haven't done any substantive programming. The reason I assume that is that anyone who has done any substantive programming would know that starting from scratch every time is a really bad way to get things built. You don't seem to know that, so I assume you haven't been involved in building any large systems.

Either you have ported enough systems to know how hard it is to do (in which case you don't really have a right to put other people down for doing it) or you don't have experience in porting systems, in which case you don't know how hard it is.

Which is it?


It is a lot harder to come up with something new than reverse engineer something that already out there. I cannot believe you are trying to argue otherwise.


Where did I say it was not harder to develop something new? My post was in response to you saying:


If everyone did this nothing new would get written. It is not taht difficult to copy an engine.


I was pointing out that porting an existing system can be an important stepping stone towards new things being developed.


There are legal and ethical issues in reverse engineering a copyrighted peice of software anyway. You obviously approve of this by your tone.


Ah yes, the usual Rova tactic. You can't fault my arguments directly, so instead you choose to put words into my mouth that I never said.

Reverse engineering a system without the permission of the original copyright owner is a very different situation to porting a system where permission has been given to take the system to a new platform.

My post was about the value of reimplementing systems - nothing to do with the issue of whether the person doing the reimplementing has asked for permission. Trying to put those words into my mouth is a stupid way to argue.

Argue against my point is you think i am wrong. Ask me for clarification if you think I may have implied something in my tone. Don't try to cloud the issue by putting words into my mouth.


I feel that it would be better to the visualization community at large if they was a new engine rather than yet another (the 3rd now) copy of what already exists. That does not do anything in taking thing forward it just shows a lack of imagination copying what is fundmentaly 2-3 year old code.


That's a fair point, and you know a lot more about the visualization community than I do so, if I didn't find your arguments on most issues irrational, I would be likely to take your word for it.

However, its a pretty big leap from "I feel that it would be better..." to "If everyone did this nothing new would get written. It is not taht difficult to copy an engine."

I was pointing out that if you think it is universally true that better software always comes from starting from scratch, you are just plain wrong.

For once, I'm not sorry I offended you. All I ever see from you is crititcism of other peoples efforts. When people do make points in response you resort to stupid debating tactics.

Of course you don't have to justify yourself to me. That doesn't mean I'm not going to respond when you say something that is clearly wrong though.

If you want a new engine, you should stop whining at people who are building things using existing architectures and start from scratch and build one of your own, if you can.

If you feel that intellectual property is being stolen through reverse engineering then I suggest you raise the issue with the copyright holder on the original system.

Dan.

[syzygy]

sorry about that guys.

feel free to split the contentious posts out to a different thread if you like.

Dan.

[Rovastar]

Originally posted by syzygy
Live by the sword, die by the sword Rova. I only phrase myself strongly towards you because that's the way you treat other people - I assume you expect it.

Just to be clear. I didn't say you can't do anything. I said it seems to me that you haven't done any substantive programming. The reason I assume that is that anyone who has done any substantive programming would know that starting from scratch every time is a really bad way to get things built. You don't seem to know that, so I assume you haven't been involved in building any large systems.


I was talking about making new creative visualization engine. How are more going to appear if we re-use old stuff ??!?

Obviously you can re-use your own code for creating systems.

Originally posted by syzygy
Either you have ported enough systems to know how hard it is to do (in which case you don't really have a right to put other people down for doing it) or you don't have experience in porting systems, in which case you don't know how hard it is.

Which is it?

?? My original comments relate to the reversing engineering side.

Originally posted by syzygy

Ah yes, the usual Rova tactic. You can't fault my arguments directly, so instead you choose to put words into my mouth that I never said.

Reverse engineering a system without the permission of the original copyright owner is a very different situation to porting a system where permission has been given to take the system to a new platform.




??? How is this not related?

Who gave permission??

Do you know what we are talking about here?

Porting a reversed engineered clone? All my comments relate to ProjectM not the subsequent possible port of that to TZT. Isn?t that like saying if you play a copy of a Hollywood DVD in a club that someone has giving you it is OK. LOL.

If YOU required clarification you should have asked first?

You are generalising to specific points.


Originally posted by syzygy
If you want a new engine, you should stop whining at people who are building things using existing architectures and start from scratch and build one of your own, if you can.

If you feel that intellectual property is being stolen through reverse engineering then I suggest you raise the issue with the copyright holder on the original system.


LOL so I should write my own new engine so someone could reverse engineer it do use it. The creativity there is the most difficult bit.

If this happened for a open source version of VJo or Resolume, etc I suspect there would be a less nonchalant point of view here.

[syzygy]

So you think it was totally clear what you original were going on about from your original post?




Seriously though I am disappointed that the project decided to rip (port) something existing rather than make something new.

If everyone did this nothing new would get written. It is not taht difficult to copy an engine.



I took that to mean that you thought that porting was equivilent to ripping (when people put a word in brackets after another word they usually mean the two are equivilent) and that you thought that reimplementation or porting of engines has no value in the development process.

I see no reason why I should have sought clarification. What you said seemed pretty clear.

You said:


It is not taht difficult to copy an engine.

I said:


Either you have ported enough systems to know how hard it is to do (in which case you don't really have a right to put other people down for doing it) or you don't have experience in porting systems, in which case you don't know how hard it is.

Which is it?


I don't expect to get an answer, but I think the question was logical after your orginal comment that copying an engine is 'not taht difficult'

Like I said, if you think someones copyright is being violated, contact the copyright owner and let them know.

I didn't see you rasing the copyright issue on the
ProjectM Thread (http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?threadid=175336) on the Winamp forums. Since your .sig says that you stab people in the _front_ I assumed that, if there was an issue, you would have raised it there or on the ProjectM forum, to the developers faces , rather than bitching about them here behind their backs. Clearly I assumed too much.

If there is a genuine copyright issue then please do raise it.
All I saw was you complaining about people reimplementing an existing arcitecture (not neccessarily a copyright infringement) so I responded to that.

Do you agree with me then that reimplementing an architecture can be a valuable stepping stone to new things being developed? (assuming copyright is not infringed)


Dan.

[Rovastar]

The project I was refering to was ProjectM in that quote as that was the topic at the time.

I stand by what I said I am disappointed that they did not create a new visualization system. It is a shame they copied an old one. True I didn't make this clear in that winamp forums but it is a general disappointment never-the-less.

Some might say they ported it others might say they ripped it. It all depends on your ethicial and illegal viewpoint. I left both options in their whilst expressing my dissapointment for something new.

And reverse engineering a visualization system generally is not that hard as the scenes make up most of the experience.

But about the copyright issues.

I cannot understand however that you say there is not copyright issues here?

They admit to reverse engineering a copyrighted peice of work?

For the record Nullsoft are aware and are discussing the issue with their AOL lawyers. I am awaiting official clarification maybe initaily there was a blind eye as it was for linux but when ports for windows and other rival media players that directly effect their product are discussed proirties change.

But when does defending copyright I have to contact the party involoved. If there is a pirated DVD/software I can vent my displeasure and we would not allow links to it here on VJC/F. We do not have to ask the copyrighters ok first?!??! I don't write to Sony Music or Microsoft everytime I need to remove a reference on VJC.

This is a general issue on copyright. ARe you pushing the issue to make an offical VJC/F stance on this?

"All I saw was you complaining about people reimplementing an existing arcitecture (not neccessarily a copyright infringement) so I responded to that.

Do you agree with me then that reimplementing an architecture can be a valuable stepping stone to new things being developed? (assuming copyright is not infringed)"

What is the arcitecture here you are refering too?

Yes using an arcitecture that is opensource (free of copyright limitations) is a good thing. If the arcitecture is sound and up to date.

If a vis arcitecture was opensource and free of copright issues. I still would not choose MilKDrop for a foundation. Personaly I fear that MilKDrop is too dated for this as are most of the others like AVS and G-Force, etc. They are too limited with there ideas, etc and if done again (with no scene data) would be very different as the authors got better coders and would do things differently to improve things and use more available 3d hardware commands/extensions for example.

[sleepytom]

why when it comes to copywrite do you allways jump to defend the big guys? - acording to your world the opensource community is made up thives - yet as far as i can tell their only true crime is honesty - ie when an opensource project comes together to port an existing system you cry "stop theif" and yet you never mention the cases where microsoft are in court because they have stolen GPL code and blackboxed it into .dlls - the opensource aproach gives credit to the original authors and often is simply about making good software better / making existing software work on unpopular platforms

your line "Yes using an arcitecture that is opensource (free of copyright limitations) is a good thing. " shows how little you understand about opensource / copywrite / licencing - the GPL is very strict and is in no way "free of copyright limitations" most opensource software is covered by some kind of licence "copywrite free" is actually extreamly unlikely as almost all work (of any kind) is covered by the statutory laws of the land it was produced in - for something to be guenuinly "copywrite free" the authour must give a universal licence that waives his statutory rights.

[syzygy]

I cannot understand however that you say there is not copyright issues here?

There you go again putting words into my mouth. Please stop doing that. I can only assume that you do it to deliberately mislead other people who read this thread; it certainly isn't going to help us to have any sort of adult discussion about this topic.

I never said there was no copyright issue here. I originally assumed there was not as you had not posted about any copyright issues on either the ProjectM forum or the Winamp forums thread about the project. I still don't understand why you haven't rasied this issue (which you clearly feel strongly about) at either of those two venues (unless your 'I stab people in the front' .sig is supposed to be ironic)

I don't just post to a thread withour finding something about the background. I checked the ProjectM pages and the Winamp forums and saw no hue and cry about copyright infringement. I think it was reasonable, then, to conclude that your bitching was about reimplementation/porting rather than copyright infringement.

I'm not going to continue discussing this until you reread my posts and start responding to what I say rather than simply putting words into my mouth.

If you can't learn to correspond without saying things like 'screw you' or trying to label me with extreme views that I don't have then I'm just going to put you on ignore so I don't have to see any of your posts again. I think perhaps we'll both be happier.

Dan.

[Rovastar]

DAn,

You said

"If there is a genuine copyright issue then please do raise it.
"

That implies that you cannot see any copyright issues. There are them and that is a subject to debate. I am saying nothing on the winamp forums or ProjectM as I am awaiting what the copyright holders are to do next. As this is a secondary resource I feel free(-er) to speak my mind more so.

I repeat again my 'bitching' was about the disappointment of not creating something new and orginal. I mentioned in passing the opensource/copyright and ethicial side of it. That is not my main concern here. But as the subject is now more and more on the lines of opensource/porting/copying etc I am game for havinga debate about that.

Dan are 'labeling' me more than I am labeling you. I fear you are not reading anything I have writen here not the other way around.

Tom,

I don't always defend the big guys. I defend the orginal authors work big or small. If Microsoft, etc for some reason copied VJamm, etc I would defend the orginal authors.

I always do as I said before copyright is there for all of us not just the big guys. It does work too for example

http://biz.yahoo.com/pz/040519/57812.html

A bloke invented a new washing machine thingy showed it to Electrolux they said they were not interest and they copied it. He sued them and got money from them $30million USD or something.

Opensource

My above example of:

"Yes using an arcitecture that is opensource (free of copyright limitations) is a good thing.

Where there are no copyrighting issues with it (i.e. not copying someone elses work) Not about GPL. I am pretty aware of GPL stuff as it has been quoted in teh past about (now I choose my words carefully) free programs where the source code is given away freely but could at some point be used for commerical use by the author. Some could call this open close as it is the opposite of closed source but this is not the case with the GPL defination.

My general views on opensource are I admit not all 100% postive. Often only geek elements are implemented on open-source designs (e.g. GUI are often the most left out 'features' are the programmers want to do other more functional stuff) and overall many have no organisational structure and contains much patched on code. Very few project manager types give up there free time to work on an opensource project, often many programmers strongest point is not the organisation.

Porting /Reverse engineering.

I do however find it amusing that only certain points are picked up on my comments.

OK would it be ok to reverse engineer and opensource a peice of VJ software like VJo and port it to *nix?

And should we promote it here?

[syzygy]

Surely when I say:

If there is a genuine copyright issue then please do raise it.

Then I am saying that I believe it is possible there is an issue that has not been raised so far. I was inviting you to fill me in on an issue that has not been discussed on the ProjectM/Winamp forums (even in discussions that you are part of)

Had I said "there is not copyright issue" then that would be different. I didn't say that and you know it, so why put those words into my mouth?

I still find it slightly strange that you come across as supportive of ProjectM on the winamp forums and yet are bitching about it here. I can understand that you might not want to comment on the copyright issue there but surely you should make your general disaproval of the project clear there if you want to be true to your 'I stab people in the front' .sig?

Anyhow, in the hopes that you can have a mature discussion, I'll respond to your point about the porting of a VJ software.

Directly taking the source code to a VJ software without permission and creating new software based on it would be a breach of copyright. My view on these issues is that copyright should protect the original creator if the new work competes with the original, so in my view, copyright law should be used to prevent the new software competing with the original (or rto recompense the original coder if it has already competed)

Reverse engineering is much more of a grey area.


At one extreme end, you have an approach of decompiling the compiled app and picking through it instruction by instruction, reconstructing the logic of the original code. That is clearly very close to simply taking the source code and should be dealt with similarly I think.

At the other extreme end you have someone looking at the application user interface and thinking 'i'll building something similar' Clearly the new app would be based on the old, but it would clearly be ridiculous to prevent people from building similar kinds of application to what has gone before.

In the middle, there is a whole range of different approaches, some closer to directly taking code and some closer to simply being inspired by the original.

One example is architecture. I see nothing wrong with lopoking at an existing application, learning about its architecture and using that it inform the development of a new application. Architecture is by its nature theoretical until it is implemented, so really this situation is about using theory from the original - not copyrighted code.

There is a mechanism to protect theory that is applied in technological systems - the patent system. If a patent is breached then the original creator will have legal recourse to prevent their theoretical work from being copied by others (for a limited time)

Rerverse engineering is commonplace in every field of technological development. There is a point where learning about the technology and using that information to inform new development can become an unethical copying from the original, but it is an incredibly grey area.

Building a system with the same features as the original is not, in my opinion, unethical.

Building a system by using the original code without permission is, in my opinion, unethical.

There is a big area inbetween though.

Dan.

[Rovastar]

Reverse engineering in it purest form is more than that looking a something and thinking I want somthing like that.

Concepts and ideas are all good.

I wouldn't do say a Vjo reverse engineer job on there stuff or there modules as it would not feel right. I do however see no problem with an idea or concept or design.

Take for example in in VJo pdoom's copyed tunnels 'Donkey' as the result do not look exactly the same as Monkey. In fact I have done copies of Monkey myself but just the ideas not the actual smae thing where you change the same parameters the same things happen.

Taking a general concept like a a first person shooter computer game they my all look like Doom or something but if a version had the same level layout, the same monsters the same AI that to me is just wrong. And prying on the popularity of the orignal to get recognition.

But I would not copy as much as was done in ProjetM. That to me was too much ethically. I understand way and welcomed initailly a port to *nix as here is very little on that platform but when the direction was changing of the project as 'ports' for other players etc. This I feel will reduce still the resources of a media player company to invest in a decent visualization products which I fear no-one wins. If onthe other hand a new orginal open-source concept was available then that competivness will raise the stakes of quailty.

I am supportive of people making any visualziation stuff (hence no overly-negative comments here) but more so in making new orginal stuff.

[pdoom]

Originally posted by Rovastar
Take for example in in VJo pdoom's copyed tunnels 'Donkey' as the result do not look exactly the same as Monkey.

Funny enough, the idea for a Donkey-like effect appeared before I ever knew about Monkey (it was Nema's idea initially). But only after I saw that this has already been done (in Monkey), I actually started coding the plugin. It might be interesting for some people that Monkey/Donkey uses basically the same algorithm as used for rendering 3D Blobs. So it wasn't really such a big step, as we've done Blobs before in visualJockey.

[psperl]

Wow! Look at all this crap I started.

I probably shouldn't even join this discussion, but I can't allow myself not to.

Rovastar, we made projectM ONLY because of the work you and your fellow preset writers did. We wanted to see your beautiful work, and we couldn't. So we looked at the presets, realized they really weren't that complex, and started to make a program that could interpret them. I don't even have a windows computer to compare projectM to Milkdrop, I just know when I get it right.

I never imagined you would be an opponent to our progress such that you would even call projectM "the reason to stop writing milkdrop presets." Honestly, that is the worst thing anyone has ever said to me (even though you didn't say it directly to me).

When you said "But I would not copy as much as was done in ProjetM. That to me was too much ethically." What does this mean? The whole point was to make a program that could interpret the massive amount of free MilkDrop presets, so what could we possibly have done different?

I'll tell you what though, thanks for the heads up notice that lawyers might be coming my way!!!! I have NO idea how to deal with that. yet.

-Pete Sperl

PS - Rovastar, you mentioned other MilkDrop clones exist? Could you point them out to me. I am not aware of them. I'de like to see if any of them are open-source, cross-platform, and fully functional.

[syzygy]

Hmm well, for me, implementing a system that can understand presets that are publically available, without using code from the original system, would fall on the okay side of reverse engineering, especially as you seem to be looking to add new features and improvements.

The only cases I have heard of where there were issues with implementing a file format have been where patents, rather than copyright are used to protect the format (e.g. the gif image fomat issues)

As far as I know, the Milkdrop preset format is not patent protected (I would be very suprised if it were - doesn't look to me to have any sufficiently novel features to qualify for patent protection)

I'm not a lawyer though, so you would probably be wise to consult someone with real legal knowledge...

If you can't afford it or don't want to throw money at a lawyer just yet, my advice would be to write a polite letter to nullsoft explaining that you have been told they are considering legal action against you and that you would like to establish whether this is the case.

It's a shame that they haven't contacted you yet to discuss the issue.

Good luck!

Dan.

[Rovastar]

Nullsoft/AOL haven't decided what they are doing yet. So that is why no contact has been made. Although I will say that they are confidant that you have broken the EULA given with Winamp by making ProjectM that protects there file format, etc.

"The reason to stop making new scenes for MilkDrop. ;)"
(Note: The tongue in cheek quote with a smilie. And directed at MorpH who knew what I meant.)

Was made more in relation to the possibility of a more mainstream VJ software package development of ProjectM. I cannot imagine other VJ developing new stuff of their own in this format. Call me a cynic.

But I have done less and less work on MilkDrop in recent months anyway. Although I still do some.

Initially the project was Linux but given the nature of the open source beast it appears everywhere. Linux, iTunes, et al, etc. Once spawned into this it damages the possibility of Nullsoft, developing anything else new. Which is a shame. There are many pictures to look at and this is one of them. Personally I support/didn?t mind you having it for Linux as nothing is available for it but when development is ongoing for other media players it gets cloudy.

The ?opponent of the progress? does get complicated to.

Ethically I would not copy and existing structure in that way. Example I am doing a Java based web based visualization for a client and they want something like G-Force to display the animations. I am not going to reverse engineer G-Force and directly port/copy the Deltamaps configs, etc we will make our own system up. And it will look in that same style as G-force, Acidspunk, Geiss, etc but with different stuff (e.g. multiple colour defined delta maps) and then create our own configs/scenes based on our new framework. Maybe I am thinking from too much of a business point of view.

I understand what you are trying to achieve and don?t want you to see you ruined by the lawyers etc.

Other clones are Brian Spangler?s TwistedPixel and Roman Komary X-Plugin both closed source, both v1.03

[psperl]

Rovastar,

You said AOL/Nullsoft are pretty confident we broke the EULA. Well, I just downloaded milkdrop 1.03 and there was no EULA during the install. I use Linux exclusively, so I typed "wine milkdrop_103.exe," and it installed without asking me to agree to an EULA. I obviously couldn't run Milkdrop 1.03, I just wanted to see the install.

projectM was started before Milkdrop 1.04 was released. I have never installed milkdrop 1.04, becuase I stopped using windows after I started using linux, and because it wasn't necessary. Does this EULA you speak of come with 1.04 or the Winamp 5 bundle? If it does, then I never agreed to it. Carmelo never used milkdrop ever, he's been using linux since he was a wee little baby.

When we finished the equivalent 1.03 features and Milkdrop 1.04 came out, we downloaded the 1.04 presets from your website (www.milkdrop.co.uk) and the Winamp Forums, and we looked at what was new. We noticed our program already did most of the things 1.04 added, and the shapes/waves stuff was as simple as could be. We didn't even realize there was a 4 shape/wave limit in Milkdrop until after we were done.

So, in other words, when did I agree to an EULA? I don't remember ever doing that. All the presets were taken from your site or the Winamp Forums. I've never even used Milkdrop 1.04, i've only ever seen it for a few minutes when a friend of mine was running it on his machine upstairs, and he said "its too slow," so he switched back to 1.03.

-Pete Sperl

[Rovastar]

I don't know but if you are trying to blame me in your fight I am not someone you want to make an enemy of.

[psperl]

Huh? What did I say to make you think I was trying to blame you?

You seemed much more informed of our legal situation that I was, so I figured you would be a good person to ask for some information. You mentioned an EULA, and I had NEVER seen one attached to Milkdrop, so I figured I'd ask you where it was.

[syzygy]

Originally posted by Rovastar
I am not someone you want to make an enemy of.

LOL, so sinister! I think that quote's going in my .sig sometime soon :P

Pete - I think you are taking Rovastar a bit too seriously here. Lots of people do that from time to time (including me) Come to think of it, Rova tends to take himself a bit too seriously sometimes too ;)

Don't expect a reply on your point that you never agreed to a EULA -rova doesn't tend to respond to facts that show that he is wrong.


Rova - the ideas you mention for your Java based visualisation project sound an awful lot like you are heavily basing the ideas on existing systems and just adding/changing some details. Shouldn't you really be starting from scratch and coming up with a whole new visualisation approach? (i.e. one that does not involve the same concepts) Sounds like just another knock off visualisation system to me... :scared:


Dan.

[dongbamage]

Originally posted by Rovastar
I don't know but if you are trying to blame me in your fight I am not someone you want to make an enemy of.

Go Dark Jedi :D

[w1z7ard]

For starters, I admit that projectM does not yet have many novel features over Milkdrop, but our goals are otherwise.

Here are some goals for the summer:

1) Particle System- ie spawn millions of spheres that bounce around the screen according to shape equations.

2) Embedding Serpent, a Python-like scripting language to create a new preset file grammar with all the benefits associated with a full fledged scripting language.

3) Interval Detection / Other Music Extraction Features - why stop with just beat detection and wave spectra information? We want the preset writer to know the "mood" of the music using some clever feature extraction methods. We have already communicated with the developer or Marsyas (check sourceforge for info) to get started on this.

4) Contact us for feature requests!

Rovastar - we have to start somewhere, why not sit on the shoulders of giants, ie. Geiss?

PS: I still love your presets

[Rovastar]

What is in the Winamp EULA?

And the Nullsoft MilkDrop homepage.
http://www.nullsoft.com/free/milkdrop/

You can try and blame it on my repackage version if you wish. I am not one of those camp tree hugger that VJC is full of.

Originally posted by syzygy
Don't expect a reply on your point that you never agreed to a EULA -rova doesn't tend to respond to facts that show that he is wrong.

I am not that much like you Dan, please.:)

The system is totally different someone give you a screen shot and say I want something like this. I will deliver but I will not copy what the existing system. Very different.

[elbows]

So where is the Milkdrop EULA? I spent a good while searching for one yesterday and couldnt find one at all, can you be a bit clearer about where to look?

Some links on reverse engineering and the law:

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise25.html

http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/sigmil/RevEng/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering

As usual with these matters things wil vary globally and info may already be out of date, but it looks very much to me like copyright does not protect against the kinds of reverse engineering discussed here. Patents or licence agreements are required - where are they?

[Rovastar]

FFS this is not even my fight.

--------------
WINAMP PLAYER LICENSE AGREEMENT

BY CLICKING THE ACCEPTANCE BUTTON OR INSTALLING OR USING THE WINAMP SOFTWARE, YOU AGREE ON BEHALF OF YOURSELF AND THE ENTITY YOU REPRESENT (IF APPLICABLE) THAT YOU OR SUCH ENTITY ARE BOUND BY, AND ARE BECOMING A PARTY TO, THIS AGREEMENT AS THE "LICENSEE." IF YOU OR THE ENTITY YOU REPRESENT, AS APPLICABLE, DO NOT AGREE TO ALL OF THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, YOU MUST SELECT THE CANCEL BUTTON, YOU MUST NOT INSTALL OR USE THE SOFTWARE, AND YOU OR THE ENTITY YOU REPRESENT, AS APPLICABLE, DO NOT BECOME A LICENSEE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT.

1. DEFINITIONS.

a) "Agreement" means this Winamp Player License Agreement.

b) "Basic Product" means the executable code version of only those features of the Winamp player identified as the features of the free Winamp player at the following URL: http://www.winamp.com/download. Any feature identified as a premium feature either at the above URL or within the product is not part of the Basic Product.

c) "Documentation" means the help pages hosted on the Winamp.com website, which are accessible through the Winamp Help menus, as well as the skinning information available at http://www.winamp.com/nsdn.

d) "Premium Product" means the executable code version of the fully functional Winamp player, including both the Basic Product and all features of the premium Winamp player identified at the following URL: http://www.winamp.com/download.

e) "Product" means the Basic Product and/or the Premium Product, as applicable to Licensee.

f) "Skin" means a graphical interface for the Product that changes the look but not the functionality, and includes the text files that define how the skin is built, the scripts that define how it should behave, and the graphics that create the visual look.

g) "Update" means a revision to the Product designated by a change in the version number to the right of the decimal place.

h) "Upgrade" means a revision to the Product designated by a change in the version number to the left of the decimal place.

2. LICENSE GRANT.

a) Basic Product. Subject to Licensee's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Nullsoft, Inc. ("Nullsoft") grants Licensee a free-of-charge, personal, non-exclusive, and non-transferable license to install and use the Basic Product. Nullsoft also grants Licensee permission to create Skins for the Product by modifying the winamp.modern.wal or other included Skin file, in accordance with the Documentation. Licensee may distribute the Skins it creates, but it must rename the file it distributes and may not use the Winamp name or any Winamp file name in the name of the Skin file it distributes.

b) Premium Product. Provided Licensee complies with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and has paid the applicable license fees for the premium features of the Premium Product, Nullsoft grants Licensee a personal, non-exclusive, and non-transferable license to install and use the Premium Product. Upon Nullsoft's receipt of the applicable license fees, a serial number key will be issued to Licensee to unlock the premium features of the Premium Product. Licensee may only access and use such premium features using the serial number key provided to it by Nullsoft.

3. RESTRICTIONS ON USE. Licensee may not: (i) modify or create any derivative works of the Product; (ii) decompile, disassemble, reverse engineer, or otherwise attempt to (a) derive the source code, underlying ideas, algorithms, structure or organization of the Product, or (b) defeat, avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate or otherwise circumvent any software protection mechanisms in the Product (except to the extent applicable laws specifically prohibit such restriction); (iii) attempt to access or use the premium features of the Premium Product if Licensee has not paid the applicable fees or by any manner or method other than using the key provided by Nullsoft; (iv) redistribute, encumber, sell, rent, lease, sublicense, or otherwise transfer the Product or rights thereto; (v) use the Product to reproduce, display, perform, or distribute audio and/or video content in any manner that violates any U.S. or foreign laws or regulations or any third party's rights, including copyright, privacy or publicity rights, or other intellectual property right; (vi) use the Product in a timesharing or service bureau arrangement; or (vii) remove or alter any trademark, logo, copyright or other proprietary notices, legends, symbols or labels in the Product. The Nullsoft produced Skins that are provided with the Product may only be used with the Product and may not be used with any other media player or other third party product.

Supply of this Product does not convey a license nor imply any right to distribute content created with this Product in revenue-generating broadcast systems (terrestrial, satellite, cable and/or other distribution channels), revenue-generating streaming applications (via Internet, intranets and/or other networks), other revenue-generating content distribution systems (pay-audio or audio-on-demand applications and the like) or on commercially distributed physical media (compact discs, digital versatile discs, semiconductor chips, hard drives, memory cards and the like). An independent license for such use is required. For details, please visit http://mp3licensing.com.

4. NEED FOR CONTENT LICENSES. This license provides no rights with respect to any musical compositions, sound recordings, video recordings, or other audio and/or video materials ("Content") that may be reproduced, encoded, distributed, transmitted, performed, or otherwise used in connection with the Product. Licensee alone is responsible for ensuring that any Content is properly used in accordance with applicable laws and the rights of any third party with respect to such Content.

5. SUPPORT.

a) Basic Product. If Licensee is using the Basic Product, Licensee will have access to community forums, FAQs, and other online self help services, but will not be entitled to receive from Nullsoft any technical support or telephone assistance.

b) Premium Product. If Licensee is using the Premium Product, in addition to the self help services available, Licensee shall be entitled to reasonable telephone and email customer support during normal business hours for thirty (30) days commencing on the date Licensee receives the Premium Product key. No customer support is provided for Updates or Upgrades received pursuant to this Agreement.

6. FEES. There is no license fee for the Basic Product. A license fee is required in order to receive a key to access the premium features of the Premium Product. Fee information is available at: http://www.winamp.com/download.

7. UPGRADES.

a) Basic Product. This license does not entitle Licensee to Updates or Upgrades to the Basic Product. In order to receive an Update or Upgrade to the Basic Product, Licensee must agree to the then current license agreement and download the Update or Upgrade from http://www.winamp.com/download.

b) Premium Product. This license does not entitle Licensees of the Premium Product to Updates or Upgrades to the Premium Product. If Updates and/or Upgrades to the Premium Product are made available, they will be available from http://www.winamp.com/download and will be subject to Nullsoft's then current license agreement and payment of additional license fees, if any.

8. LICENSEE REPRESENTATIONS. Licensee represents and warrants that it has the legal capacity to enter into this Agreement, that it will use the Product only for lawful purposes and in accordance with this Agreement, and that it will not use the Product to violate any law, regulation or ordinance or any right of Nullsoft or its licensors or any third party, including without limitation, any right of privacy, publicity, copyright, trademark, or patent.

9. PRIVACY. Nullsoft values the privacy of Winamp users. Information on Nullsoft's policies governing the use of Winamp user information can be found at http://www.winamp.com/privacy. By installing the Product, you consent to the collection and processing of information in accordance with Nullsoft's Winamp Privacy Policy.

10. TERMINATION. Should Licensee breach this Agreement, Licensee's right to use the Product shall terminate immediately and without notice. The respective rights and obligations of Nullsoft and Licensee under the provisions of Sections 3 ("Restrictions on Use"), 4 ("Need for Content Licenses"), 9 ("Usage Information"), 10 ("Termination"), 11 ("Proprietary Rights"), 13 ("Indemnification"), 16 ("Limitation of Liability"), and 20 ("Miscellaneous") shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement and Licensee agrees to continue to be bound by those terms. Upon termination, Licensee shall destroy all copies of the Product.

11. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS. Title, ownership rights, and intellectual property rights in the Product shall remain in Nullsoft and/or its licensors and other suppliers. Licensee acknowledges such ownership and intellectual property rights and will not take any action to jeopardize, limit or interfere in any manner with Nullsoft's or its licensors' or other suppliers' ownership of or rights with respect to the Product. The Product is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and by international treaties. All trademarks used in connection with the Product are owned by Nullsoft, its affiliates or its licensors and other suppliers, and no license to use any such trademarks is provided hereunder. Title and related rights in the Content are the property of the applicable content owners and are protected by applicable law. You agree that Nullsoft may use in any manner and without limitation all comments, suggestions, complaints and other feedback you provide relating to the Product.

12. USE AND AVAILABILITY OF OPEN SOURCE CODE. Portions of the Product use software components developed through various open source projects. The licenses and availability of source code for such components are specified in the copyright notice file delivered with this Product.

13. INDEMNIFICATION. Licensee agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and at Nullsoft's request, to defend Nullsoft, its affiliates, and its licensors from any and all costs, damages and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from any breach of this Agreement or claim that Licensee's use of the Product has injured or otherwise violated any right of any third party or violates any law.

14. LIMITED WARRANTY FOR PREMIUM PRODUCT. Provided Licensee has paid the applicable license fees for the Premium Product and is in compliance with the terms and conditions hereof, for sixty (60) days after the date of download of the Premium Product (the "Warranty Period"), Nullsoft warrants that the unmodified Premium Product, when properly installed and used, will substantially achieve the functionality described in the applicable Documentation. THIS LIMITED EXPRESS WARRANTY FOR THE PREMIUM PRODUCT CONSTITUTES THE ONLY WARRANTY WITH RESPECT TO THE PRODUCT. NULLSOFT AND ITS LICENSORS AND OTHER SUPPLIERS DO NOT MAKE, AND HEREBY EXCLUDE AND DISCLAIM, ALL OTHER REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND WITH RESPECT TO THE PREMIUM PRODUCT AND ANY UPDATES OR UPGRADES THERETO, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED (EITHER IN FACT OR BY OPERATION OF LAW), INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ACCURACY, NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTIES' RIGHTS, AND SECURE, ERROR-FREE OR UNINTERRUPTED OPERATION. NULLSOFT AND ITS LICENSORS AND OTHER SUPPLIERS SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE WARRANTY PROVISIONS SET FORTH HEREIN IF LICENSEE ALTERS OR MODIFIES THE PREMIUM PRODUCT; USES THE PREMIUM PRODUCT ON A COMPUTER SYSTEM OR IN A MANNER NOT SPECIFIED BY NULLSOFT; OR LICENSEE VIOLATES THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IN THE EVENT OF A BREACH OF THIS WARRANTY, AND IF LICENSEE PROVIDES NULLSOFT WITH A WRITTEN REPORT DURING THE WARRANTY PERIOD OF ANY ERRORS OR FAILURES, NULLSOFT WILL USE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO PROMPTLY CORRECT, REPLACE OR PROVIDE A WORK AROUND FOR SUCH ERROR OR FAILURE, AT NO CHARGE TO LICENSEE, OR AT NULLSOFT'S SOLE OPTION, PROVIDE A REFUND TO LICENSEE. THIS IS LICENSEE'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR BREACH OF ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES HEREUNDER. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN IMPLIED WARRANTIES; HOWEVER, THE EXCLUSIONS OF NULLSOFT'S WARRANTY IN THIS LIMITED WARRANTY SECTION SHALL APPLY TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.

15. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY FOR THE BASIC PRODUCT. THE BASIC PRODUCT IS PROVIDED WITH ALL FAULTS ON AN "AS IS" BASIS. NULLSOFT, ITS LICENSORS AND OTHER SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING THE WARRANTIES THAT THE BASIC PRODUCT IS FREE OF DEFECTS, VIRUS FREE, AND ABLE TO OPERATE ON AN UNINTERRUPTED BASIS, THAT THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE BASIC PRODUCT WILL MEET LICENSEE'S REQUIREMENTS, OR THAT ERRORS IN THE BASIC PRODUCT WILL BE CORRECTED, AND THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES THAT THE BASIC PRODUCT IS MERCHANTABLE, OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, ACCURATE, FIT FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NEED, OR NON-INFRINGING, UNLESS SUCH IMPLIED WARRANTIES ARE LEGALLY INCAPABLE OF EXCLUSION. FURTHER, NULLSOFT, ITS LICENSORS AND OTHER SUPPLIERS DO NOT WARRANT OR MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE USE OR THE RESULTS OF THE USE OF THE BASIC PRODUCT IN TERMS OF THEIR CORRECTNESS, ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE. NO ORAL OR WRITTEN INFORMATION OR ADVICE GIVEN BY NULLSOFT OR A NULLSOFT AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHALL CREATE A WARRANTY OR IN ANY WAY INCREASE THE SCOPE OF ANY WARRANTY THAT CANNOT BE DISCLAIMED UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. NULLSOFT AND ITS LICENSORS AND OTHER SUPPLIERS HAVE NO LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO LICENSEE'S USE OF THE BASIC PRODUCT. LICENSEE BEARS THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THEIR QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE AND ASSUMES THE ENTIRE COST OF ANY SERVICE AND REPAIR. THIS DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY CONSTITUTES AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THIS AGREEMENT. NO USE OF THE BASIC PRODUCT IS AUTHORIZED HEREUNDER EXCEPT UNDER THIS DISCLAIMER.

16. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL NULLSOFT, AMERICA ONLINE, INC., OR THEIR RESPECTIVE PARENTS, AFFILIATES, DIRECTORS, EMPLOYEES, DISTRIBUTORS, SUPPLIERS, AGENTS OR RESELLERS (COLLECTIVELY, THE "NULLSOFT GROUP") BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOST PROFITS, LOST DATA, LOSS OF GOODWILL, WORK STOPPAGE, COMPUTER FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION, OR ANY AND ALL OTHER COMMERCIAL DAMAGES OR LOSSES, EVEN IF SUCH PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY THEREOF, AND REGARDLESS OF THE LEGAL OR EQUITABLE THEORY (CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE) UPON WHICH THE CLAIM IS BASED. IN ANY CASE, THE NULLSOFT GROUP'S ENTIRE COLLECTIVE LIABILITY UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED IN THE AGGREGATE THE SUM OF THE FEES LICENSEE PAID FOR THIS LICENSE (IF ANY) AND REPLACEMENT OF DEFECTIVE MEDIA OR PROVISION OF A REASONABLY SIMILAR PRODUCT, AS DETERMINED AT NULLSOFT'S SOLE DISCRETION, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURY CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF NULLSOFT TO THE EXTENT APPLICABLE LAW PROHIBITS THE LIMITATION OF DAMAGES IN SUCH CASES. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR SPECIAL DAMAGES, SO THIS EXCLUSION AND LIMITATION MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE. ADDITIONALLY, THE NULLSOFT GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIMS OR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF: (i) CONTENT PROVIDED BY LICENSEE OR A THIRD PARTY THAT IS ACCESSED THROUGH OR USED WITH THE PRODUCT AND/OR ANY MATERIAL LINKED THROUGH SUCH CONTENT; OR (ii) THE USE OF PLUG-INS OR SKINS DEVELOPED BY THIRD PARTIES AND MADE AVAILABLE ON NULLSOFT'S WEBSITE FOR USE WITH THE PRODUCT.

17. EXPORT CONTROLS. Licensee agrees to comply with all export and import laws and restrictions and regulations of any United States or foreign agency or authority, and not to export, re-export or import the Product or any direct product thereof in violation of any such restrictions, laws or regulations, or without all necessary approvals. For example, Licensee may not export or re-export any commodities, software, or technical data received from Nullsoft, or any direct product of such commodities, software or technical data, to any proscribed country, party, or entity listed in the applicable laws, regulations, and rules of the U.S. Government unless properly authorized. As applicable, each party shall obtain and bear all expenses and responsibility relating to any necessary licenses and/or exemptions with respect to its own export or re-export of the Product from the U.S.

18. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. Licensee acknowledges and agrees that, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, any breach or threatened breach of this Agreement by Licensee shall cause Nullsoft irreparable damage for which recovery of money damages would be inadequate and that Nullsoft therefore may obtain timely injunctive relief to protect its rights under this Agreement in addition to any and all other remedies available at law or in equity.

19. U.S. GOVERNMENT END USERS. The Product is a "commercial item," as that term is defined in 48 C.F.R. 2.101, consisting of "commercial computer software" and "commercial computer software documentation," as such terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212. Consistent with 48 C.F.R. 12.212 and 48 C.F.R. 227.7202-1 through 227.7202-4, all U.S. Government End Users acquire the Product with only those rights set forth herein.

20. MISCELLANEOUS. (a) This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the subject matter hereof, which may only be modified by a written amendment signed by an authorized executive of Nullsoft. (b) Except to the extent applicable law, if any, provides otherwise, this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, U.S.A., excluding its conflict of law provisions. (c) Licensee expressly agrees that jurisdiction for any claim or dispute relating to or arising out of this Agreement resides exclusively in the federal and state courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia and expressly consents to the personal jurisdiction thereof. (d) This Agreement shall not be governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. (e) If any provision in this Agreement should be held illegal or unenforceable, such provision shall be modified to the extent necessary to render it enforceable without losing its intent, or severed from this Agreement if no such modification is possible, and other provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, or Nullsoft may at its option instead terminate this Agreement. (f) A waiver by either party of any term or condition of this Agreement or any breach thereof, in any one instance, shall not waive such term or condition or any subsequent breach thereof. (g) Licensee may not assign or otherwise transfer by operation of law or otherwise this Agreement or any rights or obligations herein. Nullsoft may assign this Agreement to any entity at its sole discretion. (h) This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties, their successors and permitted assigns. (i) Neither party shall be in default or be liable for any delay, failure in performance (excepting the obligation to pay) or interruption of service resulting directly or indirectly from any cause beyond its reasonable control.
-------------------------------------

I still don't see why you crazy lefties are so against copyright of stuff anyway. I am the only one in defence. It makes me paranoid about creating *anything* new.

I thought the DMCA cover most of these things anyway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act without the need for a EULA that people are trying to get around.

If that is the offical stance of VJC then who is up for a port/reverse engineer, etc of Visual Jockey, Resolume, etc. Come on lets do it properly folks put your money where your mouth is.

[psperl]

Rovastar,

I don't think you understand. Where does one AGREE to that EULA? I've never seen it accompanied by an "AGREE" button anywhere during an install. I was under the impression that someone had to AGREE to an EULA before it was binding.

I bet that EULA is presented during the install of Winamp 5, something I never installed, therefore, it does not apply to me. Which is FANTASTIC really.

[Rovastar]

I don't know but I am confused how you worked out how to make ProjectM with seeing MilKDrop run (and hence Winamp)

Anyway Nullsoft might not do anything. They are supports of open-source so maybe they will leave it. *shrug* at least you know anyway.

[akira_k]

Originally posted by Rovastar
I don't know but I am confused how you worked out how to make ProjectM with seeing MilKDrop run (and hence Winamp) That's how reverse engineering works, isn't it? You see how something functions and try to replicate it with your own methods. When you reverse engineer, say, a piece of hardware, usually is because you have no tech document at all that said how it worked, so you could "emulate" it, s you have to see what it does and think how that is done, and do it.

It obviously depends on what you are reverse engineering, usually you have more tools that will ease the process(like CPU debuggers, etc), but if you don't have anything, nothing you can do but SEE and try to replicate.

[elbows]

I think he just miss-wrote without as with, it then makes sense.

[Rovastar]

Goddamnit

meant to say

......ProjectM withOUT seeing MilKDrop run

[akira_k]

Aye, it's clear now then ;)

[psperl]

Rovastar, do you even read my posts? I did install winamp, version 2, about 2 years ago. Then I installed milkdrop 1.03 separately. Now, I don't think winamp's EULA can cover milkdrop, as milkdrop at that time was distributed without an EULA in its install.

Saying that the winamp 2 EULA covered milkdrop even if it was installed separeately isn't valid, because then ALL of the software on windows would fall under the Windows EULA, which clearly isn't how things actually work.

Winamp 5 however, does have an EULA, and milkdrop is distributed with it. Boy am I glad I started using linux before winamp5 was released.

If Nullsoft/AOL is going to sue me, it's going to be soon. The open-source beast has gotten hold of projectM and Mac/Windows ports are running right now on some other developer's desks. I can' t see them, but I know they are there. They are working out some minor issues, then we'll see it released, and then we will also see if the lawyers will rain their fire down upon me.

[Rovastar]

I did read you posts.....did you read mine.

I said what Nullsoft said to me (I am not Nullsoft) which in all fairness I should not have said to you.

I am presuming what they would say.

Exculding the EULA you are on thin ice (personally speaking) reverse engineering something owned by a big corperate. The copyright and the DMCA is still valid. Maybe you have more money than AOL/TW I don't know but wouldn't play that game.

(and even so when you had winamp2 and milkdrop 1.03 you would have to reversed engineer the winamp api I would have though)

Personally I think using that as a reason/excuse for the reverse engineering rather than the more valid 'all I want to do is help' is a poor excuse and one unlikely to win you any points. Like with me although I don't overall approve of RE'ing something for an obsurce/non competetion format I am less bothered from a ethical standpoint.

ALso a company can sue at any time just becaue they leave it 6 months (years, etc) doesn't mean they are illegally excluded from doing so. Copyright last 40 -odd years ore somthing by default.

Also I said they are doing nothing at moment and Nullsoft (if you researched the company that you copied off) are keen open sourcers (NSIS, etc) and in fgact at one point were talking about OS MilKDrop but that is another story. MAybe they want the extra publicity or something *shrug* so they will let it be. I personally hope the do not ruin you and will even go as for to tell them that.

......I am still waiting for teh open source versions of more mainstrem VJ apps though folks if I didn't have headphones on the silence would be deafing.

[syzygy]

Here is a summary of the situation as I understand it right now (please do correct me if I have any of this wrong)


* The ProjectM contributors have created a visualization system that provides similar features to Milkdrop and understands Milkdrop preset files

* The version of Milkdrop that they have actually installed and seen is an old one that did not come with Winamp and did not have a EULA

* They have not decompiled the Milkdrop bits or otherwise studied the internals of its workings in order to work out how to build their system.

* They have used some observations of how Milkdrop behaves along with some knowledge of the format of its preset files to build a similar, compatible system.

Let's look at a common definition of 'reverse engineer' -


Reverse engineering (RE) is the process of taking something (a device, an electrical component, a software program, etc.) apart and analyzing its workings in detail, and after that to reconstruct a new device/program/etc. that does the same thing, without actually copying anything from the original.

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/R/reverse_engineering.html
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Reverse_engineering
http://www.free-definition.com/Reverse-engineering.html



(please do provide another defintion, with references, if you disagree with this one)


Since there has been no 'taking apart' of the original Milkdrop and no 'analyzing its workings in detail', I'm not sure how the phrase 'reverse engineered' is being used so much about ProjectM...

Dan.

[Rovastar]

from you links

Reverse engineering (RE) is the process of taking something (a device, an electrical component, a software program, etc.) apart and analyzing its workings in detail, and after that to reconstruct a new device/program/etc. that does the same thing, without actually copying anything from the original.

Yeah I am fine with that.

i take 'taking something apart' as systematically breaking down the program into different areas mentally (it doesn't have to be physical take for example the reverse engineering of chips, etc they don't physicaly open tehm up) and the 'analyzing it's workings' to get the exact same output from a set of the same inputs. This is how most 'black box' systems will work you have an input and you want the same output. That is reverse engineering.

How did they make the same (that is the goal) output from the set inputs if they was no

If I looked at a peice of software like Vjo or something and recreated say one of Pdooms effects and made a copy so exactly the output was the same or very, very similiar to the orginal given the same paramters and scripting. Then had a copy of download.

Is that reverse engineering? And it is than how is thsi different toteh example you are discussing.
Is it all ok to do this ethically? If so where does this leave VJ software devolpement.

[syzygy]

Originally posted by Rovastar

Exculding the EULA you are on thin ice (personally speaking) reverse engineering something owned by a big corperate. The copyright and the DMCA is still valid. Maybe you have more money than AOL/TW I don't know but wouldn't play that game.


Do you actually understand copyright and the DMCA?

In order for copyright to be breached, something copyrighted has to be copied. What specific copyrighted work is it that you are claiming was copied from Milkdrop to Winamp? (hint: implementing software that performs the same functions does not breach copyright unless the code itself is copied)

What the hell does the DMCA have to do with anything?

Here is an overview of the DMCA (http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/dmca1.htm)

The DMCA does contain provisions pertaining to the piracy of software (specifically making it illegal to develop and provide means to circumvent anti-piracy measures) but it DOES NOT have anything in it about developing software that is functionally equivilent to existing software.

This has been mentioned a couple of times already but I'll try to make it clear:

* Copyright protects the information itself (the actual sequence of 1's and 0's in the binary, or the source code)
* Patents can protect the way that software works (the algorithms, the user interface etc)
* Trade secret laws can sometimes provide protection for tehcniques used in the inner workings of software

If the information in the software has not been directly (or somewhat indirectly, such as by a programmer seeing the source code and reimplementing it almost identically) copied and used to make the new system, the programmer has not had the opporunity to breahs trade secrets (as they have not seen the original code) and there are no patents held over the technology involved, it is difficult to see what legal route would be taken.



The software world abounds with examples of software that is aimed at providing similar features to existing software and does not get into legal problems.

A good example here is openoffice. It provides very similar features to MS Office, in a similar way, and even understands the various MS office file formats. Microsoft has not sued because the open office developers have not used any code from MS office in openoffice, or looked at the MSOffice code to learn how to implement features.

Originally posted by Rovastar

ALso a company can sue at any time just becaue they leave it 6 months (years, etc) doesn't mean they are illegally excluded from doing so. Copyright last 40 -odd years ore somthing by default.


I love the way you always so so definitive even when you clearly know little about a subject...

Delaying taking action is often a really bad move from the point of view of the plaintiff. While copyright does not have the same 'must protect it immediately or lose it' pressure of Trademarks, judges will take a dim view of plaintiffs who sit back and allow breaches of their copyright to happen and then try to claim large damages later. This is especially true if the company in question has not even sent a 'cease and dissist' style letter to assrt their copyright. Courts will typically, at the least, reduce the damaged awarded based on what damage had been done to the plaintiff at the point where they could have originally taken action. If the defendant can convince the court that he genuinely did not believe he was breaching copyright, the court (under UK law at least) cannot award damages at all.

Note that I am not a lawyer, so don't take my word as gospel. However, I have, at least, read the relevent laws (and been involved in software copyright cases) so I have some idea of how these things work

Originally posted by Rovastar

I personally hope the do not ruin you and will even go as for to tell them that.


ROTFL! Just how much inflation can your sense of importance take?


Originally posted by Rovastar

......I am still waiting for teh open source versions of more mainstrem VJ apps though folks if I didn't have headphones on the silence would be deafing.

What has that got to do with anything? Are you trying to say that our views would be different if someone provided similar features to an existing VJ app in an open source app? Or, are you trying to say that you don't think the open source model could develop software comparable to existing VJ apps?

Dan.

[Rovastar]

yet agian Dan you avoid what I am saying how amny times wil you do this. It si what 4 times now. I will repeat.

"
If I looked at a peice of software like Vjo or something and recreated say one of Pdooms effects and made a copy so exactly the output was the same or very, very similiar to the orginal given the same paramters and scripting. Then had a copy of download.

Is that reverse engineering? And it is than how is thsi different toteh example you are discussing.
Is it all ok to do this ethically? If so where does this leave VJ software devolpement."

They why I see it is that you approve of this 'reverse egineering'/'porting'/'copying' (note all in quotes) of this tatic on all VJ software and to me that goes against many devolpers of VJ software desires.

I will not respond to any more points until you answer this fundemental point about 'reverse egineering'/'porting'/'copying' (note all in quotes) other fellow VJ/visual artists & programmers work.

While you try and make me out bizarrely to be some egotistical manic as people at the company know an respect me and value my opinions (how many people at Nullsoft do you know??!??!) you sound lake like a support of raping Vj software that devolpers here try so hard to create.

[BrainStove]

1.- Is that reverse engineering?
NO, it?s not.

2.- Is it all ok to do this ethically?
YES, yes it is.

3.- If so where does this leave VJ software devolpement.
Improving, innovating & making better shit EVERYTIME.

4.- ...this tatic on all VJ software and to me that goes against many devolpers of VJ software desires.
Desires??? Unfortunately TOO MANY PEOPLE mistakenly have put their heads Too Deep within theirs OWN assess still looking to find inside that Desires Chimera which says: "In the country of the blind the one-eyed is king"

[Rovastar]

OK I wonder what all the devolpers here would feel like if alternative copies of there software were freely available. MAybe I am the only that wants to protect non-open source software.

[many2]

Originally posted by Rovastar
OK I wonder what all the devolpers here would feel like if alternative copies of there software were freely available. MAybe I am the only that wants to protect non-open source software.

Do a search on google with "(name of your favorite VJ software) +crack" and you'll see that a lot of people have done something worse than reverse engineering. You don't want to know how many VJs are using illegal versions of VJ software. Too many VJs steal the tools they are using to make a living - but when it's time to buy hardware they always find the money. I digress, sorry :(

I don't feel it fits with this thread but I would like to discuss about open-source projects. I have many opinions on the subject but I rarely have the opportunity to discuss them and take them further.

[petewarden]

Rovastar wrote:
> OK I wonder what all the devolpers here would
> feel like if alternative copies of there software
> were freely available.

Probably the same way that a music player developer would feel about winamp being free.

[psperl]

Rovastar,

By your definition, We should all yell at Microsoft for cloning WordPerfect with their Microsoft Word product. I mean, they are both the same thing, right? Microsoft Office can open WordPerfect files exactly like Wordperfect, but I don't hear you screaming about that.

[Rovastar]

The end of the world is no doubt nigh

[syzygy]

I think it is pretty clear from my previous posts what my view would be on a free version of a VJ app (that does not breach copyright)

Anyway, for Rovas benefit, here it is explicitly:

If someone used their own time to develop a software package that duplicated the features of a commericial VJ app (without breaching its copyright) and released it for free, my response would be something like 'well, the commercial app team need to up their game and take their app to the next level then'

I wouldn't see any legal or ethical problems with someone developing a free app that duplicated the features of a commercial app and even understood its file format (providing it was independently developed, not made using ripped source code)

If a software developer believes they have developed something sufficiently novel that they should be rewarded with a monopoly on its use, there is a mechanism for them to get one - the patent system. As far as I know, no VJ software developer has applied for a patent on technology in its software.

If someone takes code directly from the original software then there is a mechaniusm to prevent this - copyright law. This would not apply if the new app reimplemented the same features without using the original code.

If someone looks inside the workings of the original application and uses information gleaned there to accelerate the development of a new system, there is a mechanism (albeit a tough one to use) to prevent that - trade secrets protection. This would not apply if the developer of the new software had not unfairly decompiled the original software.

I think it is unlikely that a free VJ software would direcly plant any of the existing commercial offerings, for the following reasons:

* Someone would have to put in equivelient time (ask the VJ soft developers how much time they've had to put in) with no financial compensation.

* The likelyhood is that, by the time the features had been duplicated, the original app would be in its next version, with newer features

Personally, I would tend to favour a commercial VJ app over a 'free' one in any case. By paying a license fee (which we have done for the commercial VJ softwares that we use - twice in one case) we support the development of the software and get to have some sort of faith that new versions will continue to be released.

Free/Open Source software works well in areas where there are large numbers of developers who want to pitch in to build software - there are enough hands on deck to develop features, provide support etc. This is just not the case in the VJ world. There would not be enough developers to sustain an open source VJ software in a way that would keep it up with the commercial alternatives.

As many2 mentions, VJ Softwares should fear cracking much more than legal free alternatives.

So, no I don't support the 'raping' of VJ Softwares (on a side note - I think using the word/concept 'rape' in contexts such as this is not neccessary, distateful and ill advised) Far from it, I have paid money to VJ software developers, provided them with feedback on their creations and put a set of plugins into the public domain that enhance the value of their applications.

What have you done to support the VJ software developers?

Dan.

[syzygy]

Rova - do you disagree with reverse engineering so strongly that you don't use software that is reverse engineered? Do you check out the software you use to make sure it complies with your moral code?

Dan.

[sleepytom]

no- he runs windows just like everybody else!

re opensource - i think your wrong dan about a lack of developers for opensource VJ apps - freeframe proves this - it might not be a complete VJing application but ulitmatly it is a viable transferable plugin format that enjoys the support of a good range of applictions - this is far more valuable than a single open application - it provides a standardised system for people to develop effects for that have instant commercial value because of the wide range of diffrent host support

[syzygy]

I agree with you totally Tom - Freeframe prooves the value of open source development.

Note that freeframe has been pushed by a collaboration between the developers of commercial Vj softwares though. I think it shows why opne source and commercial development, far from being enemies, can both be valuable parts of a community.

This relationship (closed source commercial software for the actual applications, open source for APIs and other things that are shared between apps) is becoming common in lots of areas of software development and plays to the strengths of closed and open source development:

* Developers of commercial grade applications need to get paid, so closed source is really the only realistic option in a field as niche as VJing.

* Where there is an advantage to the developers in working together, the open source approach is great.


I stand by my thoughts that VJ softwares do not, at this stage, need to fear open source competitors. This is especially true when they use the open source model where appropriate, alongside close source development.

Dan.

[syzygy]

Originally posted by sleepytom
no- he runs windows just like everybody else!



Not just Windows.

Anyone using an IBM-compatible PC is using a BIOS that is based on reverse engineered technology.

The sort of blackbox development (where the inputs and outputs from a system are observed and an equivilent system built) that Rova is keen to stamp down on is the only reason we have IBM-compatible machines nowerdays. The original IBM bios was reverse engineered to create compatible chips.


Note that this was and is totally legal, provided 'cleanroom' approaches are taken, where the inner workings of the chip (or software) are not examined directly).

Dan.

[sleepytom]

maybe we should all chip in to get rova an IBM 5100 so he can start a fresh and develop his visualization system without these copywrite issues.
http://i23.ebayimg.com/02/i/01/f6/5f/7f_1.JPG

[Rovastar]

Oh well VJC stance on this is all clear then. Now post you cracks folks.

[syzygy]

In what way has anyone said that cracks are okay?

As usual Rova, you are unwilling to accept when facts disagree wth you so instead you purposely misread other peoples posts and claim that they are supporting extreme actions.

Very big. Very clever.

In case it is pure stupidity (or an inability to read) on your part rather than a willfull decision to misread what people say, I will try to dumb down and state things clearly and in short sentences.

1. Reverse engineering is different to cracking

2. Reverse engineering is not illegal (providing copyright, patents and trade secrets laws are not breached)

3. Cracking is illegal (it is copyright infringement)

4. Reverse engineering is different to cracking

5. Reverse engineering is common practice in both software and hardware. It is not frowned upon by the industry. I can say with 100% certainty that you use software and hardware that has beeen built using reverse engineering techniques.

6. Cracking is very much frowned upon by the industry.

7. Reverse engineering is different to cracking.

Just in case you haven't got it yet:

8. Reverse engineering is different to cracking.


That clear enough for you?


Dan.

[Rovastar]

I know it is different it is a slippery slope that is all.

[elbows]

Oh the old "slippery slope" argument, classic reactionary scaremongering thinking to me, overplaying the argument in a desperate attempt to keep things black and white rather than the infinite shades of grey that every issue really represents.

Its really misleading to see these reverse engineering issues as some leftwing thing as well. Business large and small wrestle with these issues all the time, there are factors to weigh up and attempt to balance. Whilst on the one hand companies are keen to protect their invetments in research and development, the gods of the marketplace demand competition.

I really get the idea sometimes that at the heart of this debate lies the desire of some people to protect their ideas in the same way they protect their wealth. It doesnt work that way with ideas, once they get out into the world you just have to accept that a certain amount of control and ownership is lost. Whilst there are cases where this can harm people financially, it seems more often than not that it is peoples sensibilities and sense of ownership that can be tramped on, rather than their finances.

Personally I like to see the best possible things created, and dont like restrictions that stifle innovation for the sake of it. For sure its not a glorious experience to see your own ideas copied, but realistically just turn the other cheek and even try to be flattered by it rather than offended. But of course this is just my opinion.

[Rovastar]

MAybe there are shades of grey but with me and Dan,Tom here we are on other sides of black and white. In fact no-one has really mentioned the grey areas yet.

[syzygy]

Okay, here is a series of points on the continuum (most of which HAVE been mentioned so far, if you bother to read the thread Rova)


1 Developing software completely from scratch with no recourse to existing systems at all - clearly the most extreme approach but, I would argue, one that is not actually possible unless you independantly invent the computer before learning about existing ones.

2 Looking at existing software and then building broadly similar systems. - clearly rova has no problem with this, sinc he admits he is building a java visualisation app that is broadly similar to existing visualisation apps.

3 Implementing software with equivilent features to existing software - legal and common practice in the software industry

4 Implementing software that is compatible with file formats of existing software - legal and common practice in the software industry.

5 'Blackbox' and 'cleanroom' reverse engineering techniques - legal if done properly and widely accepted as being a neccessary part of the industry.

6 Using theory that has been publically discussed relating to existing sofware when building new software - common practice, but you have to be careful not to breach patents.

7 decompiling or looking at source code to learn how to program a type of system - very risky unless you have a license, due to trade secrets and copyright law. Nevertheless, more common that perhaps it should be (as it is in other industries, such as car manufacture)

8 using code or binary from the original software in new software - illegal unless you have a license to use it and widely regarded as unethical.

9 cracking piracy prevention measures in the original software and selling it on - clearly illegal and widely regarded as unethical

10 altering software to make it appear your own and passing it off as your work - clearly illegal and clearly unethical


Now, to me, there is clearly a legal difference between 1-5, which are legal, 6-7, which may be illegal and 8-10 which are definitely illegal. (I'm refering to UK/USA law as that is what I know)

There is also, I think, a clear ethical difference between 1-6 and 7-10. 1-6 do not involve making use of information that is not already in the public domain. 7 - 10 involve extracting information that may well be supposed to be secret in order to get a leg up. To my mind, that is not fair play.


How far down this list do you need to go before you consider it unacceptable?

Dan.

[Rovastar]

I still don't think it is as easy as that.

e.g.
7 decompiling or looking at source code to learn how to program a type of system - very risky unless you have a license, due to trade secrets and copyright law. Nevertheless, more common that perhaps it should be (as it is in other industries, such as car manufacture)

I support for legal case as in looking at open source/code examples to work out how to do things I presume most have examples of code they look at to get a better understand of coding esp in area they don't understand too well.

Using these directly though is not all that ethical in my book but if you are talking about code on in closed system then that is unacceptable to me.

and look at say file systems and take Real Player as an example they are protective of their codecs and rightly or wrongly they do not appear on other mainstream media players reversed engineered or not. Legally it is unclear.

I still see black-boxing as unethical esp in a small feild (like VJ software) where a new system would serve much better than multiple copies of old ones. Importing files systems is something I would think twice about too or I would ask seek permission first. I see clear ethical difference between 1-3 and the rest.

Of course there is a difference for legal and ethical and we all have a points of view wether it is teh war in Iraq, rainforst cutting down or reverse engineering.

[syzygy]

At last we're getting somewhere! See how much more interesting a discussion is when you make points rather than spinning other peoples points ;)

Regarding your point about number 7, my original point accounted for the situations you mention (open source/ examples) - in such cases, there is a license granted to the person who looks at the code that allows them to use the code legally to some extent. (note that I said "very risky unless you have a license")

A common misconception about open source is that it is copyright free. It is not at all - there is just a license that grants some rights (usually with some conditions attached)

I agree with you about there being more value in new systems being developed than simply duplicating existing systems. Simply providing what is already available is clearly pointless. I don't think it is neccessarily unethical for people to engage in pointless activities though (hell, if I did, I'd have left VJF a long time ago ;) )

However, as I said right back at the start of this thread, I think there are clear cases where reimplementing systems, or building systems that support existing file formats, if to the benefit of the community at large. Usually this is when the new development does not stop at immitating the original system but continues to add new features.

What about when an existing system is no longer being actively developed, there is a large quantity of data files available for it and a developer sees an opportunity to build a system that can use those data files, providing the same features as the original application, plus some new ones?


Regarding your point about the RealPlayer codecs - they are patent protected. That means that they have satisfied the USPTO that the technology contained in those codecs is sufficiently novel that they deserve to be rewarded with a limited term monopoly on its use.

I disagree with some kinds of softwrae patents (The Amazon one click ordering debacle being a prime example) but in cases such as the RealMedia codecs, I agree that they should be protected. Real invested considerable resources in developing the technology behind those codecs, applied for patents and was awarded them. They therefore deserve to be protected.

Any programmer who feels they have developed something sufficiently novel can apply for a patent on it. That's how novel technical developements are protected.

Where a development is not sufficiently novel to warrant a patent, such a most simple file formats, I think there is more value to society in allowing interoperation between applications than there is in preventing it.

I think the world is better place when MSOffice can read older document formats and, in turn, open office can read MSOffice formats.

I think the world is a better place when graphics apps can open each others files so we can shift data between packages to use the bets tool for the job.

I think the world is a better place when people don't have to recreate hundreds of preset files to make them compatible with a new visualisation system.

Dan.

[Rovastar]

I am confused by the difference ethically of reverse engineering a peice of software and a codec that has patent built into it.

To me someone has still spent time creating a peice of work/software and I respect that and as you know I defend the right of creation of something very strongly. Do not sotware authors dedicate time and effort into it like patented stuff does?

(incidently surely the policy would be to check to see if a patent existed first before reverse engineering somthing)

Sometimes the policy of 'I have beat the system, I can get out of it' is used when copying something. Some feeble hacker mentality on such a small scale for small victories.

I will defend all orginal creators whether big or small.

The smaller teh enviornment the more the goalposts change for all of us. The sampling community for example would not use another VJ's set where they would use Hollywodd films for example. I see the same for VJ software. Legal or not (and still grey areas there) ethically I am not comfortable with it and not a big gulf from cracking, etc. It is like an ethical cracking that many people applaud.

[syzygy]

To be clear, the codec does not have a "patent built into it" - Real has patents on the technique used by the codec to encode and decode the files or streams.

It is indeed usual policy to check for patents before engaging in any kind of serious development, especially when seeking to replicate some or all features of an existing system.


Imagine I make a box that takes two inputs and does some calculation, creating an output.

Should I now have a monopoly on producing boxes that take two inputs, perform that calculation and produce an output?

My personal view (and current IP laws in both the UK and the USA) basically say "yes, but only if the approach you have taken is sufficiently novel to warrant it"

If you think that answer should be "yes - the creator should always have a monopoly", you need to consider what happens when people start claiming monpolies on very basic systems. Clearly there needs to be some cutoff point at which an invention is not considered ground-breaking enough for the maker to be granted a monopoly on the concept.

The means for determining whether an innovation is sufficiently novel for the creator to be granted a monopoly on it is the patent system. The invention is examined and a determination made about whether it represents something sufficiently novel.

So if an inventor (or programmer) feels they have develoepd something sufficiently novel, our society provides them with a way to get it protected.


Now, you do make a good point about developers of non patented software putting a lot of time into developing their software. You seem to be saying that, ethically, it is wrong to use ideas from others work in new creations.

The problem with that argument is that, once you step away from the reasonably well defined limits of copyright and patent protection, there is nowhere to draw the line.

You have said yourself that you are basing a new visualisation system on existing ones (albeit with some new features). Is that fair to the people who put time into creating the original systems? Aren't you taking advantage of their efforts?

What about if you see a particular 3d effect on TV and think "That gives me a great idea for a preset" - should you be getting in touch with the TV production company to ask for permission to use the idea that arose from watching their work?

Should the first ever word processor have been the only one that ever became available? (everyone else was just ripping off the original idea and adding features)

Should visualisation systems be unable to import 3D objects built in popular 3D modeling packages because supporting the file formats would be ripping off the 3d packages ideas?

If one VJ app implements a 'play backwards' feature, should all other VJ apps then be prevented from implementing that feature?

If I program a freeframe effect that does a particular thing, should I then have a monopoly on that effect forever? no matter how simple the effect?

If a computer manufacturer decides to use a strange power cable connector so that they can charge large sums for replacements, should third party companies be prevented from producing power cables that fit?

Should all spare parts for cars only be made by the original manufacturers? (Imagine what the prices would be like!)

Was it unethical for pdoom to reverse engineer the DM2 protocol, allowing lots of us to use it to spit out midi control?

Was it unethical for me to reverse engineer the protocols used by legacy mainframe systems so that the web apps I was building could interface with them? Should I have embarked on a ten year quest to find the original developers?

Is PHP (essentially a reimplementation of the ideas in ASP) an unethical technology?

To me there is a very strong ethical difference between implementing new software that provides equivilent features to existing software and developing new software by pulling apart existing software and looking at how it works internally. It is difficult to see how the software industry could operate without the first just as it is difficult to see how it could operate without some limits on the second.

Dan.

[Rovastar]

I am not saying taking 'ideas' from other programs is wrong. Even features is ok in my book but I don't like wholesale copying.

Why have exactly the same program as another already out there but as it is open source it is all cool. I don't get it. Make something new there is by far enough scope in the VJ software to write something new. Copying something exactly to give the same results.

Ideas and concepts are fine. Craeting something that is the same as a crack but without the crack stigma and is cool open source is not.

Equivilant features (in say VJ software) are like playing video, doing 3d effects on the video, etc. Not copying features 'exactly' the same with the same parameters down to the final pixel. I see a big difference.

[KillingFrenzy]

Wow, this thread is still going on?
Shouldn't there be a finished Milkdrop clone, or a lawsuit filed, or something completed by now?

It seems to me that almost all aspects of this subject have been plumbed and this is just starting to repeat itself.

I think we've got the opinions from both sides, but it really comes down to the developers and the lawyers.

[syzygy]

Originally posted by Rovastar

Equivilant features (in say VJ software) are like playing video, doing 3d effects on the video, etc. Not copying features 'exactly' the same with the same parameters down to the final pixel. I see a big difference.


Who is proposing to do that?

ProjectM, which sparked this debate, seems to be aiming to do more than just replicate MilkDrop exactly. In fact according to this from the ProjectM site:


projectM already does some things Milkdrop does not (like infinite custom shapes/waves).


They are already adding new features.


Surely you're not saying that supporting a file format is equivilent to piracy?

Dan.

[Rovastar]

I was talking about more general issues (for the last couple of days).

[syzygy]

Yes indeed, but I think we can only really understand whether general principles work once we apply them to specific situations.

I'm interested in which side of your personal ethical/unethical line you think projectM falls on, given the dicussion we've had.

Do you think that their supporting the milkdrop file format and using that as a base to create new features is on the piracy side of the line or on the reusing good ideas side of the line?

Dan.

[Rovastar]

I think the level of copying features/commands was too much and fell onto the copying or 'piracy' line.

The MilKDrop file format is (obviously) the main basis of the program.

Copying an idea would be like creating computer graphics that go too the music.

If I look at the brief history of visualization a backwards step would have been taken if new visaulziations looked like Cthugha and devolpers like Ryan Geiss, Andy O' Meara et al simply copied and tweaked a little. Things would have been slower going forward.