Hi Muaddib, let me thank you personally (I'm sorry I didn't before) for your great tool you provided to us.
But regarding this thread I have some questions.
Well, if developers think that GPL licensing is bulls*it, what we, the normal users should think?

Let's say I want to distribute MovieStacker to friends or whatever (it's not the case, I use it as an example). According to GPL that came with the program I myself have to provide access to sources if I am asked to. Well, I cannot do that. So, I'm unable to comply to GPL.

Should I care or not? I let you to answer to that.

I'm not very fond seeing GPL disregarded in such way, it's (openly and frankly) not in my best interest.

I think GPL is really important, it made possible great pieces of software that we are all using every day (too many to even begin to enumerate, MovieStacker including). For example I noticed how ideas, algorithms and code pass from one avisynth plugin to another (or to avisynth itself). It's a living process and the result is that we have the best tools possible at this moment. Did you notice how carefull is sh0dan in telling people to release the sources and enforcing the GPL? It's for a reason.

I think you have to do something about it. GPL gives you too some responsabilities, is not bulls*it. If you didn't think about it now it's the time. And it's not a matter between you and shh, anyway, it concerns us all.

bye
marcellus

Hi,
@all
I've changed a bit my opinion on the subject.

@shh,
I'm completely convinced that if it wasn't for you we wouldn't have such 2 fine tools to help us with our movies.
So, when you created 1st FitCD builds and shared the code under GPL you may have given a lot to a community.
But then you've made several changes to your code and have never (so I'm told) released the sources
for the later builds.
I don't know a thing about licenses but I'll tell you my point of view: if GPL forces everyone to share the
sources this should even apply to the author of the 1st source (ie you shh).
So if you haven't done so for more than one year I don't see why muaddib would have to do so.
Anyway as I've said before: this is more a 2 person subject. You 2 should find a way to talk about this in private.
I even don't understand why you posted such a topic for the whole community to read.
Were you affraid muaddib wouldn't reply?
We all know Moviestacker's roots.
Now, if I was muaddib, I'd take all FitCD code from Moviestaker and I would change it to whichever
type of license doesn't make us go through this kind of topic.
Even if that means removing all Moviestaker download links from the Inet and waiting for a new release in several months.
And no. I wouldn't give up on my code for anybody if more than 50% of it is my code.
50% of Microsoft's Office would be something like Winword and Excel right?
Imagining that all MS Office was GPL who would go and tell Microsoft to release the code for 2 of the
worldwide most used applications?
Do you think they would "buy" it?
Naaa! Don't think so, right?

__________________
Rui

Forgive my ignorance on this matter I know nothing of the GPL licensing and really dont wish to know anything about it.

My main concern is why so much effort is being wasted here on what is basically Freeware, i mean I could understand if muaddib was charging for MovieStacker then shh would have a right to demand to see the code to see what of his code was incorporated into ms but its Freeware and only a hobby for muaddib and he has helped the KVCD community including myself so much with his tool I rely on it a lot.

I hope this debate can be drawn to conclusion soon.

Btw I mean no disrespect to any1 in this thread im just expressing my opinion.

__________________
Regards.

Michael.

Hi Marcellus,
Unfortunately I don't seem to agree with you.
I would if I would have heard someone else complaining that MovieStaker's source code wasn't available although it's GPL licensed.
Muaddib was "out-of-office" for nearly one year and I didn't see anyone interested in going on with his work.
For longer than that we haven't seen any interest from shh in muaddib's work or it's source code.
So it (noone's interest) clearly makes this a personal subject and not a forum/community subject.
But now that Moviestaker 2.1.0 was launched and that it's got a reasonable "edge" over FitCD we see shh claiming for sources.
Why?
I don't like to make much judgements on issues that I don't know much of, but it seems pretty unffair what we're reading shh asking for.
Though I must say that I completely agree with what you said about GPL having given us so many good tools.
That's why I think muaddib should make moviestaker 100% free of FitCD sources and move it to a different kind of license.

__________________
Rui

Good for both of us Michael

Wise words buddy

So do I and most probably all of us. In fact there was no need to call for a debate in the 1st place, don't you think so
A simple PM would have done the trick.

__________________
Rui

Oh Boy
I don't want to argue with you Marcellus.
I really appreciate and respect your help here at the forum.
But look at what you say.
Go ask shh for latest FitCD sources since it's GPL.
You think he will give it away?
Well it even could be, if he wins by forcing muaddib to show his sources.
Do you get my point?
GPL is GPL. It applies to my code, to your code, to anybody's code.
Where are FitCD sources???
If Fit2Disk is based on FitCD which is GPL licensed I want to see Fit2Disk sources.
I'll repeat myself: I just love both tools and I give credits to both programmers.
But I think that now it's a real BANG time to ask for sources
Why didn't this happened in the past?
Pose yourself this question.
Cheers

__________________
Rui

Hola

Yes, I agree, that is the first thing everybody should do.


Did you see the answer that Shh gave above? and I quote:
This is probably, (and please Shh correct me if I'm wrong), that Shh woke up to the fact that his code is his and nobody elses, he can profit from it wheather in credit or in money and I for one applaud him for it.

Holding back the source code does leave some power in the hands of the developer, but how can this be prevented in a free society? McDonald's withholds the recipe to its secret sauce. That gives them some power over other people because it makes it difficult for anyone to duplicate it. Mutual fund companies presumably have strategies, information and formulae that they withhold from their customers so that their customers are not in a position to run their own funds. Individuals and organizations have a right to secrets, whether that secret be code or chemistry.

On the other hand, in the absence of copyright law, a developer's would be left with the choice of whether to distribute code as source or binary. So the GPL goes somewhat beyond merely negating the effects of copyright law. If we wanted to achieve the equivalent of the GPL in a country without copyright we would have to make a law that it is illegal to distribute code without source. I'm curious whether you or Stallman actually believes that we should have such a law.

I think in the very end, It would be between Shh and muaddib after all they are the creators.
Hasta Luego,
Gläanzend

All BSD developers (me included) KNOW the GPL is bullshit
Why will Linux never reach the heights of other OS's
Because of GPL.
The best example is Max OS X, probably the best OS right now, which is based on FreeBSD. Not on Linux
VERY smart choice for Apple Computer, because they can use the code, modify it, and keep what THEY created proprietary. Just the way muaddib should, because MovieStacker's +90% of the code is his creation, and nobody elses.
Again, and I'll repeat, he gave all due credit to shh for what he did, and that should be good enough. But then, it's funny that shh hasn't shown for way over a year, and all of a sudden comes here and starts to enforce the license "for the benefit of everyone" I don't think so, but let's leave it there. Then go purchase Fit2disc, which you won't be able to give to a friend, because even though it was once free, now it's not I'm fond of seeing the GPL torn to pieces (as it will probably be ), for all the inconsistencies it has.
I have a written copy of GPL license, printed in the back of the book "The GNU Library Reference Manual", which was printed on August 1999.
The license reads: Version 2, June 1991.
The current version posted here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html still reads: Version 2, June 1991, but it's been changed ALL OVER THE PLACE
What kind of license is that
To me, and probably to any court of law, this is bullshit
You can't revise a "legal" document, and not change it's version numbering.
THIS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A LEGAL DOCUMENT, because when you revise a legal document, the revission is submitted as an "adendum", so don't you find this a little confusing and biased to their side and not yours
I'm not even going to tell you all the loopholes it has ( I'll save that as ammunition, for special cases ) but I'll tell you right now, if GPL ever goes to court, the judge is probably going to laugh his ass out, and tell everyone to get out of his court room That's true, and all (most?) of those GPL pieces of code, will never make it to commercial products, like the BSD counterparts. CISCO, Mac OS X, Sun Microsystems, SGI, etc. It is. To keep the code on GPL ground, so we'll never see AviSynth code in commercial products.
On the other hand, SansGrip's filters, which he released as "Free", could already be incorporated in commercial products, maybe even in a DVD player which whoever buys it, will benefit. So GPL is VERY poor for consumer applications. BSD is EXCELENT for both free and for commercial applications.
Which is the largest web server in the world
Apache , and it's NOT GPL.
The biggest SQL database MySQL, which is GPL, and I'm sure it will change with time.
I said the biggest, but not the best. The best is PostgreSQL, which is NOT GPL. http://www.postgresql.org/licence.html
PostgreSQL will probably take ove MySQL with time, just because of the license issues.
Operating Systems, FreeBSD, which runs all Yahoo servers, is NOT GPL.
So is NetBSD, OpenBSD, PicoBSD, and others.
Read here, so you get the REAL meaning of GPL, from a developer's perspective: http://www.cons.org/cracauer/gpl.html
Anyone releasing code as GPL, is simply afraid that he's code will be used in a commercial product, or simply doesn't understand the license and the consequences.
To me, if my BSD code would be integrated into a commercial product, would mean an honor, because the GPL license deprives me of just that.
From a user's perspective, a GPL or a BSD license shouldn't matter, because either way, you are getting free software, which is what you want anyway. Don't worry, it concerns me a lot, and a solution is on the way which will keep the best interests in both parties (muaddib and shh)

-kwag

seems out of topic but please,anyone answer me cos i really don't know:

this GPL laws are internationals?

please, post the answer (i repeat, i really don't know)

after this, answer me i'm only thinking ....:
why laws exist? what is the target?
for control or for rights?

thanks in advance! (it means that i'm waiting answers please)

I agree with you kwag Mac OS X is an awesome operating system that really impressed me and great at multitasking. Those guys at Apple were always smart cookies.

__________________
Regards.

Michael.

@rds:
I don't understand, what is with those 50% percents? How you can even measure something like that anyway? By quantity of bits, by importance?

Anyway, If I suposedly make a program that has 0.0001% GPL-ed code and the rest is mine -> I have to comply with it's license to be able to distribute it, if I like it or not - it's not a matter of my decision. If I want to get off GPL I have to make sure that my program uses 0.0000% GPL-ed code. At least that is what I understand from reading GPL. If you understand something else, point that out.

So when I start to develop a program I must know in advance when I use GPL-ed code that I will not be able to hold the sources only to myself and still distribute it. The "well, I didn't know" stuff simply doesn't work, we are not children.

shh (or anybody else) used GPL-ed code (meaning other than his own creation) in his releases? Then he must too provide the sources as anybody else, or is breaking the GPL. Has he released his own software under GPL without sources? Well, if so, his GPL licensing is void. Is simple as that. I'm taking no sides here.

The example with m$, what does it mean? That if I'm big and strong I don't have to follow any rule untill somebody is strong enough to make me to? Well, that might be true in real life but it doesn't make it right.

@kwag:
I don't think I was discussing the goods and the bads of GPL. I myself wouldn't go that far, is well over my head. But what I can figure out as a simple user is that once somebody says that his software is licensed that way (or another), well, he have to make sure he knows what is talking about. Why me as a user have to comply with any licence anyway since developers seem not to care? Aren't rules for everybody?

If you think GPL is useless and old, let's then everybody ask nicely developers to not include it anymore in their distro's, it might save some bits for bandwidth that way. Nobody seem to care about so why bother with it? Is that right?

@All:
I'm not minimizing in any way the gratitude and respect I owe to Muaddib for his great tool and I don't see how pointing out that GPL (and any other license for that matter) must be respected (in the first place by the publisher) might be offending for anybody.

I don't have anything personal with muaddib, shh or anybody else, don't get me wrong, I was just pointing out some questions of principle. I know it's hard to comply to rules, but is in common interest in the long run. I mean if we start breaking licences as GPL, voiding them of meaning, where will that lead in the long run? What's next? Please, tell me because it's getting interesting. Or we can break only licences we know nobody could practically force us to comply to?

Obviously, I don't have a special interest in MovieStacker's sources (and any other program for that matter) since I'm illiterate in programming and I wouldn't know what to do with them. So I don't ask MovieStacker sources for myself, I have no interest in getting them personally. If Muaddib would make them avaiable for download I wouldn't bother to download them (and I didn't download on purpose any source ever, when they were in separate packages). But lacking of freedom to do so, when GPL says I can bothers me and it should bother anybody. What started me is seeing that many people fail to understand that GPL licensing of free software is what's keeping it free, developing and continually improving (other licensing system might be better, but this is another discussion). They say they like free software but they don't know how to encourage that. Even when I write this post it may exist somebody in the world that have the knowledge, time and interest to make also a tool based on MovieStacker, a tool we even cannot imagine right now, but he can't without sources. Why throw this opportunity away? Wasn't the case in the first place with FitCD turned into MovieStacker by Muaddib? That is I'm talking about.


@jorel:
I don't know anything about legal stuff, I don't know what concrete power have GPL in legal terms, and in what countries.
Anyway I was talking from the John User point of view, just using my common sense.

To end my post, it's maybe a lot of noise for nothing. People are breaking rules every day (me included) so why making a big deal anyway? I think I'll go to sleep.

bye
marcellus

You're sure you're not using other code
Actually, I was browsing your code today ( File Main.pas, for educational purposes, of course ), and I stumbled on something very curious and interesting.
Or maybe you forgot to take the following lines out of your "original" GPL FitCD 1.0.3 sources

Well, that's well documented, in your own words
I wonder if there are any more undocumented lines of code, because I stopped right there, as that was good enough for me.

You see, this can now bring many "questions/ramifications/doubts" to people, related to your work/requests

Cheers!,
-kwag

I never said that GPL is bullsh*t. Please, read my post again.

Exactly! And all I’m trying to do here is show what I think that is right. That is releasing the modified FitCD source, but not the code I’ve made from scratch.

I sure not! Especially if it is a matter of principle. You and shh seems to be holding on legal issues. I’m holding on your good sense. I can not believe you really think that something is true and correct just because it is written in somewhere... Come on, “we are not children”. Even constitutional laws are bended, corrected and re-written uncountable times in the name of justice.

That will lead into better ones. If we not “break” anything, nothing will ever change.
Please, keep in mind that I didn’t say that this kind of thing is going to happen. You did.

Are you sure! Because while I was reading your post, I was thinking: Man, this guy must be a lawyer...

Cheers!,

I did say that
And I will say it again: GPL IS Bullsh*t
And after evaluating my last post (and statement), I truly believe that the original FitCD license ( GPL supposed to be license, 1.03, where MovieStacker branched off), is totally flawed
shh took some "lines" from "other" developer (I don't care if they were copyrighted or not), which invalidates his original GPL distribution, and now he removed the sources, and he claims he didn't use anyone elses code (which I REALLY doubt, after seeing his sources with clear comments on "other" developer's functions, which makes me think that FitCD's original license IS INVALID )

@muaddib,

I think you should just remove ALL GPL copyright from your latest MovieStacker version, remove the source code from the site, and simply state that MovieStacker is "Free Software" (in your next revision), with NO license, but keep the source code to yourself.
And then simply remove and rewrite all the "minimal" stray (<10%) code left from FitCD, at your convenience, and SO BE IT
If shh took 14 months to come back here to demand the (full) sources, then I think it's fair you can take 14 months to rewrite the "minimal" <10% of the code, and make it FitCD "free" code.
Doesn't that sound fair to you
I think you've done an excelent job, and I stand behind you, because it's not fair (and I don't care about what the GPL license says) that you have to give out your 90% of your code .
Come on people, shh was given credit for his work, but now he want's the other 90% of the COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AND NEW CODE that muaddib wrote
That's what I call ********* and it's not a matter of principle
That all software should be free, as the FSF says That's bullsh*t too
We're in the year 2004. Not in "Woodstock" in the 70's (If anyone knows what I mean )

-kwag

It sure does!

Come on people, I feel that we in fact agree more than it appears.
I couldn't agree more. But I'm not telling anybody to comply to a rule that I'm myself thinking it's wrong and consequently breaking/bending. And bassically is what you are doing (if you intended or not) by including the GPL with your distribution and making clear in the readme that you are distributing your software under GPL's terms.
Well, I'm not anything near... Even the fact that law systems got so complicated that we need a lawyer at every corner is not making me happy. But I think I don't have to be a lawyer to properly read and understand GPL's basic logic, rights and obligations.

That's fair and makes totally sense. It would be fair even if it wouldn't be free anymore and Muaddib would be able to actually make some money out of his own hard work. Is his work and is his choice to give it for free or not.

I didn't say anything close or if I did it's a mistake. Yes, I like free stuff like everybody else, but I really believe that everybody has to make a living and try to be as rich as he can possibly get from his own work, luck, skill and ideas. Believe me, any comunist/socialist crap is making me sick, if that's what are you reffering to. I felt that cancer on my own skin, so I really know what I'm talking about. It's in my interest that free software and free changing of ideas exist but it's also in my best interest to exist competition, developer's motivation and material rewarding. This is the natural way of things. I don't want free software at any cost. I fully understand (as it is a matter of pure logic) that if all the software would have to be free it wouldn't exist any software at all because nobody would do it simply for free. I needed to make that clear.

bye
marcellus

Hallo


I agree with you there.

I also agree, to that, I belive the saying goes, " he who made the Law made the Loophole" or " el que hizo la ley hizo la trampa"

Ahh but you see my friend, the beauty of the civilized world, or of freedom of ownership, is that you ARE free to change, your products, or your way of thinking, in this case I think when muaddib realized in good faith that the GPL did him wrong instead of good he decided to change the licensing immediately, -Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but lest not forget that the law also accounts for good faith-, and since he was free to do it, he did, you also have to consider that laws exist to prevent anarchy, that is why we have not only laws in our own countries but also international law, international treaties, and international courts. I personally think is beautiful
Bravo I think we all agree on that, don't we?

Another Bravo for you, you are starting to see the light, I mean the light of the side of us who are defending that muaddib and Shh are both owners of their work, and should profit from their work any way they feel like it.
And it is not fair for anyone else to try to pressure any of them into anything they don't want to do, furthermore I also think we should try to agree to try to help find a peaceful way to solve this in both muaddib and Shh satisfaction because we are the wants who benefit from their work and loose when they loose motivation to work.

Auf Wiedersehen
Glänzend

I'd like to come back to the point.
The longer this thread becomes, questions arise that I've are already answered.
For those of you who've got still questions, please read my previous posts.

And of course I was kidding here:
This "several weeks" was my sarcastic answer to kwag's 3-5%.
But I already stated that these "several weeks" weren't meant serious.
(Afterwords I'm sorry I did, after seeing where this lead)

And of course I was not kidding here:
FitCD's code is still baseline of the whole program.
I sign any non-disclosure und non-use agreement when looking into your code, muaddib. But I must have the possibility to check, if my code really was removed. You could tell us anything about the removal and just hide the code into some other unit. I'm not implying you to do so, but I must have the possibility to check that.

Regarding MovieStacker's code-base:
The code-base of MovieStacker is FitCD v1.0.5, not v1.0.3. This can clearly be proven by the the [partial] sources of MovieStacker v1.1.1.
I still have got the sources of FitCD v0.8x to v1.0.5. The code-base isn't v103, nor v104. If somebody like's to prove it him/herself: Below is a link to the sources.
But version v1.03 or v1.05 isn't quite interesting. Just perhaps for the point kwag wanted to know:
Regarding the function BitmapToRegion. I didn't forget to remove that piece of code. I got it from a newsgroup (one author enhanced the other's code and so on) but the snippet was not copyrighted, so I treated it as public domain.
I stated that clearly, and also my willing of the code-removal if someone doesn't like the code in there (nobody ever did). But the region handling with the foreign code was removed with v1.0.4 anyway.
The only issue what could remain is, that I released that code-piece under GPL - what was public domain anyway. But this of course doesn't affect the other code which is/was also released under GPL. Such situation seems to be ok:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq....cDomainWithGPL
(what should also answer kwag's complains about FitCD's (v1.0.3)-license to be invalid)

Regarding my response-time:
A year before this FAQ didn't exist, also no court-decisions, which confirmed the rightfulness of the GPL. I already stated that I was wrong when assuming that linking to "external" code is ok. I also left my final decision open after the release of the partial MovieStacker-sources. I also thought that MovieStacker was "dead" according to a mail from rds_correia on 11.2.2004, who said "Muaddib disappeared".
But the project isn't „dead“ and since this time I made myself clear about the GPL before complaining, we are where we are now:
MovieStacker has to be released completely under the GPL, and actually is violating the license.
Some important links:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq....cePostedPublic
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq....TheGPLAllowNDA
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq....ExtendedBinary
And about extending FitCD to MovieStacker:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq....ereAggregation
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq....LModuleLicense
So I'm sorry muaddib, but you're completely wrong with the statements of your first post regarding the source-code-release: The code of the entire released .exe must be released (under the GPL). Not just a part of the source. Removing program-parts to make the sources compilable isn't even a point to discuss.

Muaddib,
I understand why you don't like to provide the complete sources to the public. I don't want to play down your extensions, I can imagine that they are big.
But you're using my copyrighted code in the program, what was meant for the public including made extensions - now closed - what I cannot accept.

I'm willing to oversee this issue if my GPL-code is removed. And I'm willing to oversee, that the MovieStacker can still be downloaded until this is done although known to violate the GPL. But as I wrote before: I want the code to be "quickly" removed, meaning in a reasonable time. Otherwise I must rethink my concession regarding the download of my intellectual property (I'm sorry to use this word) violating program.

kwag, I'm not taking that serious.
I could also argue, that muaddib knew from the beginning, that he has to release _his_ sources also, and demand that. The copying.txt is beeing distributed with the sources, he just should have read it.
I could also argue, that you have used my ignorance for your needs and are trying to use something new [time] again against my rights.
I am NOT doing so.

Besides, your argumentation implies that muaddib's extensions are >90%.
Let's say he programmed all that in 14 months. Then the removal [reimplementation] of my code should be possible in 1.4 months (=6 weeks).
But not to put muaddib in trouble, let's say ~10 weeks. So the deadline would be the 1st of July 2004.
Of course with the possibility for me to check if all my code was removed. As I wrote before, I 'd sign any non-disclosure agreement to publish any of muaddib's code. I could also help comparing code while these weeks so that the final checking wouldn't start this code-war again.

Is this acceptable?

Best regards,
shh
shh(at)sysh.net

p.s.
Latest FitCD GPL-sources: www.sysh.net/files/FitCD_v105src.zip
Latest FitCD release: www.sysh.net/files/FitCD_v105.zip

@shh
Hi shh,
When you wrote "Latest FitCD release" you surely meant "Latest FitCD GPL licensed", right?
I have freeware FitCD v1.2.1 installed on my PC.
BTW when I wrote that I forgot to mention also Fit2Disc.
It is based on FitCD source code, right
Doesn't GPL mention that software based on GPL code is bond to have it's source code released too?
In such assumption anyone could ask you for Fit2Disc sources.
If Fit2Disc is not based on FitCD sources, and that's a reason for not releasing it's sources, prove me that I'm wrong.
@all
Anyway, I don't really care about this whole issue anymore and I don't want to be part of this discussion anymore.
For both code writters (muaddib and shh) please understand that no matter my feelings for this discussion I am very gratefull for your work.
It would be a really different encoding world without your tools .
In such sense I'll leave you all until this matter is solved.
Hope both code writters can come to an agreement very soon.
I'll come back though when the matter is settled to see it's outcome .
Cheers every1

__________________
Rui

Excuseme, I don't understand so much english and so much bla bla bla.
Then, Does ssh want to enhance Fit2Disc with Moviestacker code?
Is this the problem?