They noted they often hear from licensees about competitors who are not under license. We spoke with MPEGLA (H.264/H.265 licensing) and they had not heard of Blue Iris, and would be reaching out to them.
#BLUE IRIS SOFTWARE#
They said they do not have proof that Blue Iris's latest release violates their license, but noted it was not difficult for software developers to hide the use of open source libraries.
#BLUE IRIS CODE#
FFmpeg looked at the latest available release of Blue Iris and can no longer determine if they are using their open-source code or not. We talked to FFmpeg to see if they believe Blue Iris is still in violation of their licensing.
#BLUE IRIS LICENSE#
Note: It is unknown if newer releases still contain this violation.įFmpeg has an existing license violation for Blue Iris which is over 4 years old. enable-gpl -cpu=i686 -prefix=/c/msys/1.0/ffmpeg/build -enable-libx264 Libavutil license: GPL version 2 or later Libavformat license: GPL version 2 or later Libavcodec license: GPL version 2 or later Libswscale license: GPL version 2 or later Libswresample license: GPL version 2 or later “Reporter” used strings.exe to decompress the BlueIris exe file to reveal these hidden strings: The BlueIris exe release file was compressed thus obfuscating the GPL usage in it’s internal string formats. įurther details of BlueIris GPL License ViolationĤ years ago, “Reporter” analyzed BlueIris from one of its 4.0.9.x releases for potential FFmpeg license violations and was found to contain GPL code as well as x264 code. They also offer commercial licensing for $ and must be negotiated. It’s made by a different company and requires GPL licensing, not LGPL. x264 is not actually part of FFmpeg but is fully supported for integration. (Except in the case where the client software can accept individual native streams from each camera). A VMS will need an encoder if recording video that is modified from the original camera stream and to send video streams to client computers. It IS REQUIRED to release the source code of the commercial software.
#BLUE IRIS FULL#
Allows full usage of the high performance assembly language coded modules. This is where the rubber really hits the road. It is NOT REQUIRED to release the source code of the commercial software. The program must also mention "This software uses libraries from the FFmpeg project under the LGPLv2.1" in your program "about box". This requires that the FFmpeg binaries be dynamically linked at run time through the use of dll files (libswresample, libswscale, libavcodec, libavformat, and libavuti) that are very clearly marked within the executable directory. This also disables the x264 module from being included. I found that this option disables the high performance assembly coded modules and substitutes the slower C coded modules. It must be compiled without the “-enable-gpl" and “-enable-libx264” options. It allows FFmpeg usage with commercial software BUT with some very strict requirements. This is the simplest and most commercial friendly license for FFmpeg. For commercial applications there are basically 2 different licensing requirements, LGPL or GPL, depending on the options used during it’s compilation. I did some research on FFmpeg a couple of years ago for a commercial project so I’d like to offer some clarification about FFmpeg licensing as I understand it in very basic laymen’s terms (I’m not a lawyer).
It a tough sell on your end as more and more users find alternatives. The issue I have is with the misinformation.Īgain, I totally understand why you get upset that there is a 60 dollar vms that can destroy any standalone NVR and has features and functions not available on 150 dollar per camera vms. See, you get all upset when I called him out, but have no problem with him making baseless claims. This is true for across all manufactures and was my position from day one. On my forum I make it a point that I hate liars.
#BLUE IRIS FREE#
The gpl license does not require you to provide free use of the entire program you build FFMPEG into. Your implication that its for sale on our store and that is why I come to the developers defense falls flat on its face when you scroll UP and see that I did it well before the forum began selling the software.
0 kommentar(er)
