[vlc-devel] End-display time of dvb-subtitle and subtitle in teletext
andy wang
wandy817 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 1 10:30:51 CET 2010
Hi All,
I have one question about dvb subtitle in vlc. I know the 'PTS' field is the
start time to show the subtitle, but i don't know when to end-display the
subtitle(when disappear it). I have read the specification but i cann't find
anything about the answer. It's from any field in the PES, or just a
constant, e.g 10ms? Same question with subtitle in teletext.
Thanks
2010/11/1 <vlc-devel-request at videolan.org>
> Send vlc-devel mailing list submissions to
> vlc-devel at videolan.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/vlc-devel
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> vlc-devel-request at videolan.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> vlc-devel-owner at videolan.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of vlc-devel digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: [PATCH] demux/ts: beatify warning digital format when
> dump invalid header of pes (M?ns Rullg?rd)
> 2. [LONG] VLC on iOS and legal analysis (Jean-Baptiste Kempf)
> 3. Apple AppStore infringing VLC media player license
> (Stephen Norman)
> 4. Re: Apple AppStore infringing VLC media player license
> (Stephen Norman)
> 5. Re: [PATCH] demux/ts: beatify warning digital format when
> dump invalid header of pes (wucan)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 23:17:12 +0000
> From: M?ns Rullg?rd <mans at mansr.com>
> Subject: Re: [vlc-devel] [PATCH] demux/ts: beatify warning digital
> format when dump invalid header of pes
> To: vlc-devel at videolan.org
> Message-ID: <yw1xeib60x6v.fsf at unicorn.mansr.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> wucan <can_wu at cnbvcom.com> writes:
>
> > Subject: demux/ts: beatify warning digital format when dump invalid
> > header of pes
>
> Do you know what beatify means? The dictionary says "to declare to
> have attained the blessedness of heaven and authorize the title
> Blessed and limited public religious honor."
>
> Not bad for an error message.
>
> --
> M?ns Rullg?rd
> mans at mansr.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 00:28:07 +0100
> From: Jean-Baptiste Kempf <jb at videolan.org>
> Subject: [vlc-devel] [LONG] VLC on iOS and legal analysis
> To: vlc-devel at videolan.org
> Message-ID: <20101031232807.GA5976 at videolan.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> tl;dr version: lawyers are boring, FSF is FUDing, AppStore terms have
> changed,
> answer is not simple. Jump to Conclusion of II. and III.
>
>
> Longer version
>
> So, a lot of press, a lot of bad faith and FUD has been around.
> This mail tries to detricate this s**tty mess.
>
>
> Personnal DISCLAIMER:
> ---------------------
> Let's start by my opinion, since, as not being a robot, I am biaised.
> Also IANAL
>
> I dislike AppStores, because they make me more work, for no benefits.
> But, let's face it, AppStore are going to be more and more common,
> MacStore (10.7) and WinStore (Win8), not to mention iOS, Android, and Ovi.
> And those will be the natural way of installing software. If you don't
> beieve so, you should really speak to users...
>
> But my political opinion on AppStores is not relevant to the legality of
> VLC on those AppStores. And guess what, nor is FSF political opinion!
>
> I really dislike when people use VLC to advance their _own_ political
> agenda. And that is true when it is Apple, Microsoft, Google or the FSF.
> There is a minimum of politeness that is essential and that was not
> respected...
> And I HATE bullshitors...
>
> I really like RMS past work and actions, but I don't like how the FSF is
> using the situation here.
>
> I also strongly believe that the freedom is to open VLC on as many
> platforms as possible.
>
> And as VideoLAN does not force copyright assignments, I believe VLC is
> more open that many FSF/GNU projects...
>
> Finally, and more importantly, if there is any actual legal issue regarding
> VLC and one AppStore term, it should be removed from this AppStore.
>
> Oh, and btw, I do not thank people who force me to write such posts,
> when I have better to do, like working on Blu-Ray playback...
> Oh, and btw?, the next person that says it is obvious and simple, I will
> force them to compile VLC+Contribs for Win32 3 times.
>
>
> 0. Introduction:
> ----------------
> Now, that you have read the necessary disclaimer, let's start.
>
> First, and foremost, the issue is not regarding VideoLAN... But between
> the submitter on the AppStore and VLC developers.
>
> Then, VLC is using GPLv2+ for some reasons, that one can see on
> http://www.videolan.org/press/2007-1.html VLC is not using GPLv3
>
> A few documents are MAJOR and need to be read now, in order to stay
> factual and not BSors:
> - VLC GPLv2 license http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
> - Latest AppStore terms:
> http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html#APPS
>
>
> I. FSF statement:
> -----------------
> The FSF post http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/vlc-enforcement/ speaks
> about "VLC developer takes a stand against DRM enforcement in Apple's
> App Store" and I don't see any post regarding DRM. VLC and VideoLAN have
> been projects that have fought DRM since a long time, as the libvdcss
> integration shows.
>
> The post refers to
>
> http://www.fsf.org/news/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement
> which is the important document, and was about the Gnu GO thing.
>
>
> And this second post emphasis one 2 quotes:
>
> 1) "In the App Store Terms of Service, the programs that you download
> from the App Store are called "Products" (the definition is in section
> 4). In section 9(b), the Terms set out "Usage Rules" for the software:
>
> You acknowledge that Products contain security technology that
> limits your usage of Products to the following applicable Usage Rules,
> and, whether or not Products are limited by security technology, you
> agree to use Products in compliance with the applicable Usage Rules."
>
> 2) "Some people have pointed out that the App Store Terms of Service
> say that a separate license to the software is provided to you by the
> developer, and that's true. But the Usage Rules are imposed on you no
> matter how the software is licensed. The Terms themselves make this
> explicit this in section 9(c), which says:
>
> The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the
> Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been
> established between you and another party.
>
> That's the problem in a nutshell: Apple's Terms of Service impose
> restrictive limits on use and distribution for any software distributed
> through the App Store, and the GPL doesn't allow that. This specific
> case involves other issues, but this is the one that's most unique and
> deserves explanation."
>
>
> And guess what, the AppStore terms have changed!
> --------------------------------
>
>
> Try to grep "Products contain security technology" and "in addition to any
> other"
> on the above document.
> If you don't know how to grep, try "man grep" and "man curl"
>
> Maybe the FSF statements made Apple change the ToS, maybe R?mi's
> complaint, maybe... $(put whatever you want here).
>
> Conclusion of part I.
> ---------------------
> The FSF statement is not valid anymore, and therefore the
> http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/vlc-enforcement/ is just plainly
> wrong (or FUD)
>
> Therefore, we need to analyze ourselves... Nice.
>
>
>
> Analysis of the AppStore terms part II and part III
> ===================================================
> The part named:
> C. APP STORE AND IBOOKSTORE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
> is relevant to the discussion.
>
> And especially
> "ADDITIONAL APP STORE TERMS AND CONDITIONS"
> with 2 subitems:
> 1) "LICENSE OF APP STORE PRODUCTS"
>
> 2) "APP STORE PRODUCT USAGE RULES"
>
>
> II. Analysis of the AppStore terms - part 1 ("LICENSE OF APP STORE
> PRODUCTS")
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> My comments starts with ->
>
> 'The software products made available through the App Store (the ?App
> Store Products?) are licensed, not sold, to you. There are two (2)
> categories of App Store Products, as follows: (i) those App Store
> Products that have been developed, and are licensed to you, by Apple
> (the ?Apple Products?); and (ii) those App Store Products that have
> been developed, and are licensed to you, by a third-party developer (the
> ?Third-Party Products?). The category of a particular App Store
> Product (Apple Product or Third-Party Product) is identified on the App
> Store Service application.'
>
> -> VLC on iOS is a ?Third-Party Products?. No discussion here, I guess.
>
> 'Your license to each App Store Product is subject to the Licensed
> Application End User License Agreement set forth below. You agree that
> the terms of the Licensed Application End User License Agreement will
> apply to each Apple Product and to each Third-Party Product that you
> license through the App Store Service, unless the App Store Product is
> covered by a valid end user license agreement entered into between you
> and the licensor of the App Store Product (the ?Licensor?), in which
> case the Licensor?s end user license agreement will apply to that App
> Store Product. The Licensor reserves all rights in and to the App
> Store Product not expressly granted to you.'
>
> -> _Important_ part:
> "unless the App Store Product is covered by a valid end user license
> agreement entered into between you and the licensor of the App Store
> Product"
> This means that if VLC has a "valid end user license agreement",
> the Apple "Licensed Application End User License Agreement" does not
> apply to them.
> If it doesn't, then, this Apple LAEULA applies and are obviously not
> compatible to the GPLv2
>
> 'You acknowledge that the license you purchase to each Apple Product
> that you obtain through the App Store Service is a binding agreement
> between you and Apple. You acknowledge that: you are purchasing the
> license to each Third-Party Product from the third-party licensor of
> that Third-Party Product (the ?Application Provider?); Apple is acting
> as agent for the Application Provider in providing each such
> Third-Party Product to you; and Apple is not a party to the license
> between you and the Application Provider with respect to that
> Third-Party Product. The Application Provider of each Third-Party
> Product is solely responsible for that Third-Party Product, the
> content therein, any warranties to the extent that such warranties
> have not been disclaimed, and any claims that you or any other party
> may have relating to that Third-Party Product.'
>
> -> for VLC on iOS, "Apple is not a party to the license
> between you and the Application Provider with respect to that
> Third-Party Product."
> Nothing blocking the GPLv2
>
> 'You acknowledge and agree that Apple and its subsidiaries are
> third-party beneficiaries of the Licensed Application End User License
> Agreement or the Application Provider?s end user license agreement,
> as the case may be, for each Third-Party Product. You also agree that,
> upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of the license to any
> such Third-Party Product, Apple will have the right (and will be deemed
> to have accepted the right) to enforce such license against you as a
> third-party beneficiary thereof.'
>
> -> "as the case may be" => not applicable.
> Apple has the right of enforcing 3rd party licenses on the AppStore
> Nothing blocking the GPLv2
>
> 'Certain App Store Products may include functionality that enables you to
> purchase additional services, or licenses to additional functionality or
> content for use within the App Store Product ("In App Purchases"). In
> App Purchases that are consumed during the use of the App Store Product
> (for example, virtual ammunition) cannot be transferred among devices;
> can be downloaded only once; and after being downloaded, cannot be
> replaced. Once a consumable In App Purchase is purchased and received
> by you, Apple shall be without liability to you in the event of any
> loss, destruction, or damage. All In App Purchases are deemed App Store
> Products, and In App Purchases made within Third-Party Products are
> deemed Third-Party Products, and treated as such, for purposes of these
> terms and conditions.'
>
> -> VLC iOS is not concerned by "additional services or functionality"
>
>
> Conclusion of II. Analysis of the AppStore terms - part 1
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> The AppStore terms don't seem to block any open source application.
>
> To me, it seems that this part resolves to the question
>
> If the GPLv2 is:
> "a valid end user license agreement entered into between you and the
> licensor
> of the App Store Product" ?
>
> GPLv2 ?0 says:
> "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
> covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running
> the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is
> covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program
> (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that
> is true depends on what the Program does."
>
> This can be interpreted as an VEULA ("The act of running the Program is
> not restricted") and can be interpreted differently. I have to say that
> this is a kind of grey area to me, not to mention what "valid" means?
>
> If this really matters, submitters of the iOS application on the
> AppStore can add a very simple VEULA that is compatible to the GPLv2.
>
>
> III. Analysis of the AppStore terms - part 2 ("APP STORE PRODUCT USAGE
> RULES")
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> My comments starts with ->
> APP STORE PRODUCT USAGE RULES
>
> '(i) You may download and sync a Product for personal, noncommercial use
> on any device You own or control.'
>
> -> I don't see any restriction on usage , "may not", "should not", "not
> allowed to"
> or anything restricting the user freedoms.
>
> '(ii) If You are a commercial enterprise or educational institution,
> You may download and sync a Product for use by either (a) a single
> individual on one or more devices You own or control or (b) multiple
> individuals, on a single shared device You own or control. For example,
> a single employee may use the Product on both the employee's iPhone and
> iPad, or multiple students may serially use the Product on a single iPad
> located at a resource center or library.'
>
> -> Again, I don't see any restriction on usage, any "may not" or "not
> allowed to"
>
> '(iii) You shall be able to store App Store Products from up to five
> different Accounts at a time on compatible iOS-based devices.'
>
> -> Here I don't understand the "from up to", so I have a very hard time
> answering this part.
> Does it mean that "whatever license of the Product, you shall always
> be allowed to store the Product on at least 5 iOS devices" or
> "You are not allowed to store the Products on more than 5 iOS devices" ?
>
> '(iv) You shall be able to store App Store Products on five
> iTunes-authorized devices at any time.'
>
> -> This is mostly the reverse same question.
>
> '(v) You shall be able to manually sync App Store Products from at least
> one iTunes-authorized device to devices that have manual sync mode,
> provided that the App Store Product is associated with an Account on the
> primary iTunes-authorized device, where the primary iTunes-authorized
> device is the one that was first synced with the device or the one that
> you subsequently designate as primary using iTunes.'
>
> -> No restrictions here
>
>
> The GPLv2?6 seems to say
> "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise
> of the rights granted herein", and those rights are "copy, distribute or
> modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions"
> I don't see the GPLv2 saying "You may not impose any further
> restrictions on usage"
>
>
> Conclusion of III. Analysis of the AppStore terms - part 2
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Well, I believe this part is more tricky and the lawyer-language is made
> to f**k normal people understanding.
> (i), (ii) and (v) are not restricting anything on VLC on iOS usage
> (iii) and (iv) are subject to interpretation, and I still have a hard
> time on these part.
>
> Both (iii) and (iv) seem to grant rights, "shall be able to" and
> not restrict "DO NOT ALLOW" (as used in the rest of the AppStore
> document.
>
> It also seems one can create as many iTunes account as he wants.
> Moreover, I have a hard time understanding if the GPLv2 forbids
> adding extra restrictions on usage or not.
>
>
> IV. Conclusion
> --------------
> Concluding is quite hard here. The AppStore terms may or may not be
> compatible with the GPLv2 and VLC license, depending on the
> interpretation.
> See Conclusion of II and Conclusion of III.
>
> Conclusion of part II seems to be work-aroundable, whatever the
> interpretation.
>
> Conclusion of part III probably needs Apple to detail more what they
> mean with part (iii) and (iv) of USAGE RULES of APPSTORE PRODUCTS
>
>
> Also, it should be noted that the VLC on iOS source code and binaries are
> on the videolan.org website, and anyone can modify and recompile VLC for
> iOS at any time, and redistribute it, through the mean he wants.
> And that are the important rights of GPLv2.
>
>
> I did my best to be objective, please do not flame me.
>
>
> PS:
> And I have to remind that "the issue is not regarding VideoLAN... But
> between
> the submitter on the AppStore and VLC developers."
>
> PPS:
> The submission terms are a private contract between the submitter and
> Apple,
> and, are not relevant to the terms of redistribution and usage, like for
> normal Xcode developer account.
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Kempf
> http://www.jbkempf.com/
> +33 672 704 734
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 15:46:29 +1100
> From: Stephen Norman <stenorman2001 at me.com>
> Subject: [vlc-devel] Apple AppStore infringing VLC media player
> license
> To: vlc-devel at videolan.org
> Message-ID: <C650C16E-403F-418B-BB70-0ACB8D2DA440 at me.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Apologies for bringing this up again and I just wanted to add my two cents
> here.
>
> Firstly, why is everyone blaming Apple for this violation? Aren't Applidium
> the distributers of this app as they submitted the application to the App
> Store? That would mean that Apple are re-distributing the application, which
> doesn't seem to necessarily fall under the same area as distributing.
>
> Secondly, Apple have made their terms of service very clear in the license
> agreement. If an application is submitted to the App Store, does Apple not
> have the right to expect that the developer has obtained the necessary
> permission to distribute the application on the App Store? I think it's a
> little rude to expect Apple to chase down the potential license holders for
> every single app placed on the App Store and check that they are ok with
> that?
>
> Sure, there are some things regarding Apple TOS that I would like to see
> changed, and maybe they will, but as others have said, using this potential
> violation of the GPL as an excuse to target Apple and it's App Store
> policies is a bad way to go about it and makes those involved look
> opportunistic.
>
> A somewhat concerned user of VLC (and VLC for iPad),
>
> Stephen
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 15:49:27 +1100
> From: Stephen Norman <stenorman2001 at me.com>
> Subject: Re: [vlc-devel] Apple AppStore infringing VLC media player
> license
> To: vlc-devel at videolan.org
> Message-ID: <AEF9603D-C34A-46AB-BCDB-47F010325DBC at me.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Just a quick note too, would it simply be easier to ask Applidium to remove
> the app from the App Store, informing them that by distributing the
> application via this method they may be infringing on the GPL?
>
> On 31/10/2010, at 3:46 PM, Stephen Norman wrote:
>
> > Apologies for bringing this up again and I just wanted to add my two
> cents here.
> >
> > Firstly, why is everyone blaming Apple for this violation? Aren't
> Applidium the distributers of this app as they submitted the application to
> the App Store? That would mean that Apple are re-distributing the
> application, which doesn't seem to necessarily fall under the same area as
> distributing.
> >
> > Secondly, Apple have made their terms of service very clear in the
> license agreement. If an application is submitted to the App Store, does
> Apple not have the right to expect that the developer has obtained the
> necessary permission to distribute the application on the App Store? I think
> it's a little rude to expect Apple to chase down the potential license
> holders for every single app placed on the App Store and check that they are
> ok with that?
> >
> > Sure, there are some things regarding Apple TOS that I would like to see
> changed, and maybe they will, but as others have said, using this potential
> violation of the GPL as an excuse to target Apple and it's App Store
> policies is a bad way to go about it and makes those involved look
> opportunistic.
> >
> > A somewhat concerned user of VLC (and VLC for iPad),
> >
> > Stephen
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 20:43:30 +0800
> From: wucan <can_wu at cnbvcom.com>
> Subject: Re: [vlc-devel] [PATCH] demux/ts: beatify warning digital
> format when dump invalid header of pes
> To: Mailing list for VLC media player developers
> <vlc-devel at videolan.org>
> Message-ID: <1288529010.12170.6.camel at wucan-laptop>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 12:18 +0200, Rafa?l Carr? wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:25:18 +0800
> > wucan <can_wu at cnbvcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > I had see these debug message in vlc output:
> > > ts warning: invalid header [0x5b:83:4:1c] (pid: 102)
> > > ts warning: invalid header [0x4d:29:e7:c9] (pid: 102)
> > > ts warning: scrambled state changed on pid 102 (1->0)
> > > ts warning: scrambled state changed on pid 102 (0->1)
> > > ts warning: invalid header [0x98:d6:84:1a] (pid: 102)
> > > ts warning: invalid header [0x8c:d7:49:f1] (pid: 102)
> > > ts warning: invalid header [0xe1:6:85:25] (pid: 102)
> > > ts warning: scrambled state changed on pid 102 (1->0)
> > > ts warning: scrambled state changed on pid 102 (0->1)
> > > ts warning: invalid header [0xae:87:3e:3] (pid: 102)
> > > ts warning: invalid header [0xab:e8:57:c0] (pid: 102)
> > > ts warning: invalid header [0x35:a6:3a:ab] (pid: 102)
> > >
> > > The "invalid header" digital is not format with %02x, but %x, so
> > > please apply this minor patch.
> >
> > The patch doesn't apply, your mailer broke the lines longer than 80
> > characters.
> >
> > Can you send it again attached?
> >
> I'm leave for a while(oh, some days), sorry, but I found R?mi had
> already applied it some hours ago when I online again.
>
> --
> wucan
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> vlc-devel mailing list
> vlc-devel at videolan.org
> http://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/vlc-devel
>
>
> End of vlc-devel Digest, Vol 42, Issue 1
> ****************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/attachments/20101101/e3c44bf9/attachment.html>
More information about the vlc-devel
mailing list