Sigma Designs/XVid Update

Reagen Ward and many other people have written in with updates to the Sigma Designs/XVid situation, reported a few days ago. Sigma has replied in email and a press release that they intend to make the source code available, however, they seem to be paying lip service at best to the terms of the GNU Public License. Grant Gross from Newsforge has been pursuing the story and in a story yesterday and another today lays out the current situation.

NS2k cards and stuff

[renehollan]

I have a Sigma Designs Netstream 2000 card, complete with Linux kernel source drivers. But, the user-space library, while having a reasonably documented API, is available binary only, presumably because of CSS and Macrovision issues.

The kernel drivers appear to be little more than marshelling/unmarshelling stubs to let the user space library communicate with the card. While register-level documentation is available, it isn't developer friendly, as there is no designers' guide that would help a non-hard-core video hardware embedded developer to write their own code: maybe it's just me, but I find the lack of context establishment in the register-only documentation limiting.

People have found Sigma's proprieteray user-space code somewhat buggy, and the present situation makes it difficult for the community to write its own. While I can sympathize with Sigma Designs' predicament following the apparent mistake of a rogue programmer, one way they can "make it up" to the community would be to go beyond the minimal legal GPL requirements and release more source and documentation for their other fine products.

What a crock

[sydlexic]

I'm so tired of hearing the 'evil loner' excuse from companies. Make someone responsible. Fire their asses or have someone resign. Show the world this crap won't be tolerated. Instead what we get is this lame excuse that we're not to blame because of some rogue employee. When employees fail, it's management's responsibility.

Re:Source code

[jonathan_ingram]

Yes, they have made the source code available. However, they nowhere state that it is a derivative work of XviD (although they state that it was 'inspired' by XviD) - they are claiming complete copyright over it.

Why should you care?

It's not a licencing issue - it's a copyright issue. If a have some GPL code, and I own the copyright, then I have the right to relicence the code any way I wish (including giving a company the right to use it in a closed source application - probably for a fee). If I have GPL code which I do *not* own the copyright for, then I have *no* rights to relicence.

This is a similar situation to that facing Mozilla a few months ago - they wanted to relicence the code, but couldn't unless they could contact *every single copyright owner* to get consent (and in Mozilla's case this meant every contributor of a significant patch).

Sigma Designs have taken someone elses code, and claimed copyright over it. This copyright claim (if it were correct) gives them the right to use the stolen code in closed source applications -- and it *is* being used in closed source and hardware applications.

So it doesn't matter that Sigma have opened the source to the stolen code. That's the smaller evil.

Re:Lip service?

[innocent_white_lamb]

Releasing the affected code under the GPL is lip service?

Releasing the affected code under the GPL only after being caught and soundly spanked in public is not what is supposed to happen.

I'll attempt to conceal this pair of pants under my other clothing and attempt to remove it from the store. If the security guard catches me then I'll pay for them at that time.

Re:Source code

[jonathan_ingram]

Happier now. Note that they've changed their position on this at least 3 times. I'm glad that they've finally given credit to XviD. However, this doesn't change the problem.

They didn't ask the XviD authors for permission to offer the GPL-derived work under a non-GPL licence (of course, it could be that all uses are licenced under GPL now, which might be interesting - as it would mean they'd have to GPL all the software which is aggregated with it as well).

Sigma loses all right to use the code from now on

[tankrshr77]

Read the GPL, clause 4:

• 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and
• will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

Therefore, even if Sigma has released the code, they are still violating the GPL, and have lost all rights under the license in the future. Sigma has to remove all the GPL code from their product!

The whole idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

of the GPL is to get as many individuals/companies/organizations as possible using GPL code. I think it's a really good sign that a media company saw that using the GPL code was advantageous. Too bad they had to steal the code in the first place, but as long as the code base is opened and credit is given to XVid (and any other group(s) that may be involved), I think it's a very good thing.

Having companies using GPL code benefits us ALL.

Remember why we're doing this.

Re:The whole idea...

[tankrshr77]

Having companies using GPL code benefits us ALL.
Not necessarilly. If all the company does is change copyright notices and doesn't add anything of value to the code (besides mixing it up to make it look like it's not pirated), it does not benefit the community at all.

RMS says a socket is enough separation

[yerricde]

as it would mean [that Sigma would] have to GPL all the software which is aggregated with it as well).

Wrong. The GNU General Public License "infects" only other code that runs in the same process space, not code that's merely aggregated onto a storage medium with GPL code or code that interacts with GPL code through message-based interprocess communication such as a pipe or socket using a well-defined interface. Read more in this section of the GPL FAQ [gnu.org].

Re:question;

[Sancho]

I'm more inclined to think that they're doing this because of the huge backlash they got. This story got published all over the place, both before and after Slashdot. They knew they screwed up, and probably they knew that they were in legally questionable waters. In any case, they saw a bunch of people saying, "I'll stop buying from Sigma," and all this combined probably contributed to their current course of action.