MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Rival accuses BetaPlayer of copyright infringement

PocketTV Team · 02-15-2005, 12:47 AM

> Until recently (which was last week and definitely after I had made this post), Pocket TV did NOT support Intel 2700 hardware acceleration.

PocketTV with Intel 2700 hardware acceleration was released about a week ago.

> In addition, you are misquoting me. I did not talk about PocketTV Classic, but about PocketTV, which also implies the $49.95 Enterprise Edition.

Your article involved Betaplayer (a freeware) and PocketTV, but it was hinting that PocketTV was not freeware:

You wrote: <<PocketTV, another video player for Pocket PC, which is not freeware>>

In fact he vast majority of people using PocketTV are using the freeware version of PocketTV, which provide an alternate choice for people playing MPEG files. Yes, there also an Enterprise Edition, which is for commercial use.

> And what was your gripe with that? Were you one of the other developers who were affected by the missing copyright line?

Are you suggesting that giving credits to others for their work is a minor detail ?

> And again, please don't put words into my mouth. Subject of my article was not the missing copyright lines, but your accusation that Picard was not allowed to use the Intel 2700 plugin without a proper MPEG LA license.

You are mixing several things:

- Missing copyright statement (Picard fixed that, to his credit).

- Closed-source Intel 2700 plugin (At one point, Picard released the Intel 2700G plugin as closed-source code, and this is not allowed by the GPL license of Betaplayer. Picard corrected this too, to his credit). This was the subject of the posting that you were refering to (by your "accused" link).

- MPEG LA license (nothing to do with Intel 2700).

> And what is your part of this? How does PocketTV relate to all of this? Why your constant accusations?

We think it's important for the entire community i.e. the users, the open-source comminity and the software industry, that everyone "play by the rules" and respect licensing terms and copyrights. Betaplayer did the right thing and they get a lot of credit for that.

The point of my previous posting was only to correct some mis-staments and inaccuracies in your article, not to start another flame war.

02-15-2005, 12:47 AM	#4
PocketTV Team Junior Member Posts: 2 Karma: 10 Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA	> Until recently (which was last week and definitely after I had made this post), Pocket TV did NOT support Intel 2700 hardware acceleration. PocketTV with Intel 2700 hardware acceleration was released about a week ago. > In addition, you are misquoting me. I did not talk about PocketTV Classic, but about PocketTV, which also implies the $49.95 Enterprise Edition. Your article involved Betaplayer (a freeware) and PocketTV, but it was hinting that PocketTV was not freeware: You wrote: <<PocketTV, another video player for Pocket PC, which is not freeware>> In fact he vast majority of people using PocketTV are using the freeware version of PocketTV, which provide an alternate choice for people playing MPEG files. Yes, there also an Enterprise Edition, which is for commercial use. > And what was your gripe with that? Were you one of the other developers who were affected by the missing copyright line? Are you suggesting that giving credits to others for their work is a minor detail ? > And again, please don't put words into my mouth. Subject of my article was not the missing copyright lines, but your accusation that Picard was not allowed to use the Intel 2700 plugin without a proper MPEG LA license. You are mixing several things: - Missing copyright statement (Picard fixed that, to his credit). - Closed-source Intel 2700 plugin (At one point, Picard released the Intel 2700G plugin as closed-source code, and this is not allowed by the GPL license of Betaplayer. Picard corrected this too, to his credit). This was the subject of the posting that you were refering to (by your "accused" link). - MPEG LA license (nothing to do with Intel 2700). > And what is your part of this? How does PocketTV relate to all of this? Why your constant accusations? We think it's important for the entire community i.e. the users, the open-source comminity and the software industry, that everyone "play by the rules" and respect licensing terms and copyrights. Betaplayer did the right thing and they get a lot of credit for that. The point of my previous posting was only to correct some mis-staments and inaccuracies in your article, not to start another flame war. Last edited by PocketTV Team; 02-15-2005 at 01:19 AM.