Teppefall Labs

Hi,

How have you gotten Sun to augment it's JavaFX license to allow you to redistribute JMC components you use for this media player? I refer to the following section of the JavaFX license:

5. Restrictions.

(a) The copies of Software provided to you under this Agreement are licensed, not sold, to you by Sun. Sun reserves all rights not expressly granted. (b) You may make a single archival copy of Software, but otherwise may not copy, modify, or distribute Software.

I released this code just to see how long it would take before someone whined about the license issue. We had the scene graph debacle a while back and that set the standard for Sun developer transparency.

The JMC is accessible through JNLP extensions. To comply with the current Sun JavaFX license I would have to wrap the whole thing as a Web Start application and code sign it. If that is the only option, I will probably kill the project. Also, JMC is a part of Java 1.7, but beta testing that is impossible.

I am just being pragmatic. Maybe the Sun, ON2 and MPEG lawyers will hunt me down. If they do, then we all know the future of JavaFX and I do not have to waste any time on it. In the future the JMC will be part of the JRE, but I can not test something that does not exist. And yeah.. waiting six to eighteen months for Apple to support Java 1.7 will be great for Sun in the current economic climate.

Look at this and look at the date. I read this when it was posted.

http://weblogs.java.net/blog/chet/archive/2007/05/media_frenzy.html

Whined? Yes, we all read Chet's post, as well as Kirill's original one about JMC rendering that sent a few of us off to write our own players.

I have talked to Tony Wyant on the JMC team, and JMC is NOT part of 1.7 and right now no one can say when, or even if JMC will be part of the JRE. No one would like it more than I do, but the reality is that it violates Sun's license. I didn't write it, I don't agree with it, but that's the way it is.

You're free to release what you like, and since you're not charging for it, I doubt Sun will come after you, however this sends a confusing message to other developers who might not realize they can't use your mediaplayer in their own apps without violating Sun's license.

There is no JMC code in the current Media Player build. The build you are talking about was a preview that ended up as news.

Dude, we are probably very similar people. I just did this to wait for yet another frustrated soul to express his emotions on this website. So now, instead of deafening silence and IBM takeover rumors, we can debate the issue like grownups.

I am sick and tired of the "he said, she said" nonsense. I do not trust you and you should not trust me. I do not care that Bob and Sally said X about Y and that Z is fine. That is not reality. In the real world you are responsible for your own actions. It does not matter what I do. It has no bearing on your legal status.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound ? Well, I am just pointing out that the forest is running out of trees.

Chet Haase on Java FX, Update N and JDK 7
"we're gonna solve the ... problem by actually integrating into core (JRE) a media player component"

http://www.infoq.com/presentations/haase-javafx-jdk7

So you have removed JMC after this discussion began. Why?

Chet's quote, from a year ago, does not reflect the current reality. The only "he said" that is relevant is:
a) the wording of the JavaFX license
b) what members of the Sun JMC team say TODAY regarding the future of JMC in the JRE.

Your contention that the JMC will be part of 1.7 is wrong. Don't take my word for it, contact (email removed) and ask him yourself.

No, your inclusion of the JMC inside your media player does not authorize anyone to use it despite the licensing, however, in theory, blogs and projects like yours exist to enlighten the community, not muddy the waters and add to the confusion. All of which would have been alleviated by a simple caveat on your part regarding JMC licensing in the first place.

You have already said that this excercise was a fishing expedition to see if anyone is paying attention. Obviously, not many. What if it hadn't turned up anything, would you have continued distributing as is?

Well, I do not redistribute JMyron. A native open source video capture library that I support in Capture. It is free, open source and included into several other projects. And it is the only capture engine that I support. So why do I not go all "JMC" on their ass and include the library ? I am obviously so busted by the karma police.

I just wanted to show the world the reality of being a Sun Java programmer. You read some PDF's, wait a couple of years for the library and then nothing happens and nobody tells you anything. First the scene graph was toxic. And now you say that JMC is toxic. So we can conclude from this little talk that JavaFX is a toxic project for anyone who writes Swing code until Sun says otherwise.

Why should I contact some Sun developer who might not be there in three months ? I have read papers, emails and websites written by Hans, Chet, Romain, Scott, Bill, Jeanette, Jeff and none of those people now work for Sun.

You were including JMC before I raised the issue. I wouldn't of raised it had I not downloaded your distribution and seen the JMC there. Your distribution seems to have changed since the beginning of this discussion.

JavaFX is toxic to Swing development is exactly what I'm saying. It's important that people read it here. As for following up with Sun engineers, it's valuable so that you know what you're talking about, like whether or not JMC will be part of 1.7, and so you can make informed decisions about how to architect your own software accordingly.

To me JMC is like JOGL. And I redistribute JOGL. But I do not want to redistribute this if I do not have to. I pay for bandwidth and my email and file server is more important than a bunch of extensions. But I might include JMC again in a later build if Sun does not start shipping a JavaFX desktop runtime. There are also other "creative" opportunities that can be explored.

Sun is shopping itself around while telling us to “just hang in there”. I do not really care that much, but I like creating controversy on my b-log/web-log/home-page/textual-life-stream. After all, waiting for Sun costs thousands of Euro. This is turning into an expensive hobby rather than a business.

"To me JMC is like JOGL."

Except that they absolutely are not since you are free to redistribute JOGL under the terms of its license:
http://opengl.j3d.org/licenses/sun-BSD.html

And you are not free to redistribute JMC according to the terms of its license.

You seem to be making things up as you go along in whatever fashion suits you.

The real problem is Thomson/Fraunhofer royalties on the MP3 decoder embedded into the ON2 VP6 engine. This is the reason why I removed the beta code. Sun changed the license from 1.0pre to 1.1. When Sun said "video support is coming" I sort of assumed audio was part of the package. How silly of me.

When I compare JMC with JOGL it is from a technical point of view. Setting the correct java.library.path, supporting the Windows Vista security model, etc. Sun put a GPL license on a scene graph and then told everyone to "go test it out". And people scratched their heads wondering if anyone is reading the legal text anymore.

The reason I am arguing with you is because this issue needs to be debated. If I was afraid of your words I would just delete or alter your comments. I do not make this up, I am just early to the party and not everyone is wearing pants.

The legal wording is that a “finished end user or ready-to-use final product” requires an MP3 license. I do not understand how JavaFX users can use JMC without signing up. Does the guy who wins the $25k JavaFX coding challenge end up with $25k in debt because he released a 1.0 of his product ? Or is Web Start a magic carpet of legal indemnification ?

From javafx.com
“Applications must be developed as a JavaFX desktop application that works both within a browser as an applet and on the desktop as a standalone application, and/or a JavaFX mobile application. ”

Well, yes, jars and native libraries have a well-known means of integration, but I don't really see how that's relevant.

My understanding of MPEG-LA licensing is that the issue revolves primarily around codec redistribution. This is precisely why Sun currently insists in JavaFX users linking to JFX via jnlp and libraries hosted by Sun.

This prevents developers from distributing MPEG-LA codecs and thus frees them from any royalty liability.

Of course the problem, as you point out, is that desktop application developers are left high and dry. Clearly the wording of the JavaFX competition is wrong when it comes to "standalone applications" since I don't think there is any legal way to actually create and distribute such a thing.