Quantcast MovieStacker: Program Sources, Please? - Page 4 - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #61  
04-24-2004, 09:51 AM
jorel jorel is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brasil - MG - third stone from the sun
Posts: 5,570
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
V, you are my friend,everybody here knows about that!
muaddib is my friend too and everybody here knows that too!

i know muaddib before the first MovieStacker.
i know why he did MovieStacker and i saw his steps.

his first intention was to help newbys (like me) to do perfect scripts
in very easy way.....and MovieStacker do more than this!
he teach me how to use it all in pms...thousands pms!
i never saw in any place someone do that like he did for me,
extreme patience, explaining step by step with precise details.
i know the muaddib intentions and his great personality.
he never think to take anything from someone else.

and your arguments are the best that was posted here my friend V:
"And shh, this thing "even if he removes the GPL code I'll only belive if I see the code" is plain ridiculous. Looks like one of those "gilty till proven innocent things". If Muaddib ever releases a version where he clains he removed the GPL code, you should take an Hex Editor, Disassembler, Debugger or whatever and try to prove he's still using GPL code. He doesn't have to prove he's innocent, you have to prove he's guilty. That's the way it works in most countries."

@ shh
like i told you i repeat.
what is your nobody will take.
do like the vmesquita recomendations and take the proove....if have any!!!
if you find the proove, i'm at your side in what you have rights
but
before you or someone find the proove(if any), i can't accept any accusations!

like you can easily see, i'm not against you !
see that in d9 i "shoot" against some bad ideas that they post to you
and they will "kill me" after my rigor but truthful post there.
i have my own opinion and don't matter if some "urubus"
are waiting for this "taurus" die to get my flesh!
malediction from slim "urubus" don't kill fat "taurus" !
they need to fly to the stratosphere to digest what they eat
and are trying to scare us but against me it don't work.
they do a big reunion when want destroy or post bad things against someone
but not to help newbys or who ask simple questions.

they are "helping" you like a gang, not like a forum or community.

but in doom9 i have good friends...my friends there are the "no cynics"
and are special...you can easily recognise who they are!

i have friends in lots of forums and they don't go to doom9 cos they got
only bad treatment....it's well-known in the whole world...everybody feel it!
you see more "guests" then "members" in that forum all day long
lots of people can't login or register....is the law of bad treatment working!

a news for you shh and all:
in differents forums i have some differents usernames.
some members from d9 that treat me bad there,
give me good treatment in that forums cos they
don't know that i'm the same person with another username!
:lol

for this reason i post there:
"seems nazys, racists and too much wise in your own visions!"

best regards!


i'm tired to write and read my dictionary...
excuse my english and some wrong words please!
Reply With Quote
Someday, 12:01 PM
admin's Avatar
Site Staff / Ad Manager
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
  #62  
04-24-2004, 10:32 AM
rds_correia rds_correia is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Chinese Democracy starts now!
Posts: 2,563
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi,
Message understood loud and clear here friend Jorel.
I'm still dizzy why Mr. Wilbert at doom9 said he would erase your post just because you're off topic.
Well, I've seen him around here (I didn't know our Wilbert was Doom9 Wilbert).
Here he seems like a regular user. But there he shows a different character. There he is a "Doom9 Team Member".
Is that the reason why there he has to play by the book?
In that case and on that same thread, many have gone off topic when they started attacking kwag and calling us "bad" names here.
Isn't that considered off topic too???
God I can't understand a thing there...
Cheers
__________________
Rui
Reply With Quote
  #63  
04-24-2004, 10:55 AM
jorel jorel is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brasil - MG - third stone from the sun
Posts: 5,570
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
correia,
about Wilbert:

he is member here a good time and is a good person too!
he is mod there and have his orders to follow,
he is doing his paper there like local recomendations!
here is different, i'm a mod without knowledge and don't have
any Kwag's "recomendations" to thread any member good or bad,
no matter the situation or problem..(problems are rare here)
here the members are my friends...Wilbert include!

but he ask me to edit my post.....(i understand his paper there)
i don't will do that cos i don't post opinions or lies, only the true.
i post that i save the thread...you know, i always do that in everywhere,
and i have lots in my hd of backup...things that the foruns don't have no more!

from Wilbert last post "talking" about me:
"He posted his frustration about the way he thinks he is treated in this forum."
was not frustration or what i think that was posted
...was the true and
i have the posts where i got bad threatment before editions!
i'm only waiting for news and if needed i send the pages saved here or
and the links there after editions.
some of them can't have a good memory but i have good memory and backup!

here in kvcd forum is posted lots of menaces that i got from d9 forum.
but just a little....i have tons!


but this is not important...
i'm only feeling that they are trying to change the target, got?
Reply With Quote
  #64  
04-24-2004, 11:03 AM
rds_correia rds_correia is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Chinese Democracy starts now!
Posts: 2,563
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi Jorel,
Got your message again.
I already suspected that Wilbert behaviour there had to do with him belonging to the TEAM there.
Anyway no more Doom9 reference from me here.
BTW any need for further posting in htis topic?
From my understanding all has been sorted out hasn't it?
Until we ear from any FSF or from Shh we don't really need to keep posting here, right?
Ah! Going back to work on a great product that is under GPL license: MPlayer/MEncoder.
Cheers guys.
__________________
Rui
Reply With Quote
  #65  
04-24-2004, 12:11 PM
glänzend glänzend is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 257
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcellus
@kwag
Well, apparently the pile of **** goes bigger with every post so I have to remove myself from this environment.
Too bad, so sad, is never good to loose someone, but you know what? you are not the first and you won't be the last, so good by and good riddance to you I would tell you that we are better off without you but you see, YOU prove my point that we follow the gides of a democracy, you are more useful here

Quote:
Originally Posted by marcellus
I was bulls*itted myself in thinking that the GPL was enforced. Well, it isn't. MovieStacker is not removed from distribution but this forum is now calling itself an "organization".
We have been since we started, we just don't go around saying anything because it is not relevant. In THIS particular case was relevant to explain to our users that as an organization we are complying with GPL in the way we are going about MovieStacker, we said it once, that was enough, this thread is about MovieStacker and FitCD not anything else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marcellus
I didn't know that by signing in here I will become a member of any organization and I don't believe in fact a word of this crap. Your forum registration is no different (at least wasn't when I registered) from other's.
Sorry to tell you this, but that you didn’t know or do not believe, does not mean we are not, and as I said to muaddib, “ignorance is no excuse”. When you registered you agree to follow rules and guidelines, in other forums like Doom9, may not have any. But we do. We do not allow illegal activities, we do not allow insults and disrespect to other members, and we don’t allow misdirection, in any way, what you believe is immaterial, again you don’t like it TA, TA, so sad, so bad seeee youuuu.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marcellus
I should consider them all as being "organizations"?
Again, what YOU consider them is irrelevant they are what they are, in spite of you, THEY tell you what they are, you don't tell them what they are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marcellus
...If I was considered a member of an organization without my knowledge or tricked into become one, well, this very thing I think is breaking the law, and if I had more time, interest and resources I asure you this would have legal consequences on you - assuming that your "organization" gettaway is holding.
NOBODY, ask you to join KVCD, NO ONE told you to, YOU join on your own and when you did you read and agree to abide the rules, so no one trick you into anything.




Quote:
Originally Posted by marcellus
@All
If I'm sorry of anything is seeing Muaddib involved in this kind of mud bath. I'm sure he is a reasonable man but his fault is his blind confidence in kwag's opinions and assumptions that if he would comply to GPL would be ripped of his intellectual property and rights and that is a malicious intention behind honest shh's request. Kwag's attitude anyway has many signs of paranoia.

Beyond this is very sad that I'm only one on this forum that seemed to care about a GPL infringement. The attitude of people that stood behind kwag's back (as true b*tt kissers)and of the others that saw this thread but preffered not getting involved is a slap in the face for the developpers of the fine and free GPL-ed programs that I'm sure they are using every day. But I think it is still time for taking the right attitude.

Don't expect to see me around anymore.

@shh
good luck, I'm still supporting your action in GPL enforcement, but not within this "organization".
bye
marcellus
And please keep in mind, that KVCD is NOT the owner of MovieStacker, or FitCD.
We don't have the last word on the subject only muaddib and Shh have the power to reach an agreement.
Ciao
Glänzend
Reply With Quote
  #66  
04-24-2004, 01:54 PM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
Ah! Going back to work on a great product that is under GPL license: MPlayer/MEncoder.
Cheers guys.
Yep. Me too

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #67  
04-24-2004, 01:57 PM
glänzend glänzend is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 257
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hey

Quote:
Originally Posted by vmesquita
...And shh, this thing "even if he removes the GPL code I'll only belive if I see the code" is plain ridiculous. Looks like one of those "gilty till proven innocent things". If Muaddib ever releases a version where he clains he removed the GPL code, you should take an Hex Editor, Disassembler, Debugger or whatever and try to prove he's still using GPL code. He doesn't have to prove he's innocent, you have to prove he's guilty. That's the way it works in most countries.

I didn't want to get involved in this, but I felt that this was the time to give some supppot to muaddib.
Here, Here,
Reply With Quote
  #68  
04-26-2004, 10:55 AM
GFR GFR is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 438
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by glänzend
Hey

Quote:
Originally Posted by vmesquita
...And shh, this thing "even if he removes the GPL code I'll only belive if I see the code" is plain ridiculous. Looks like one of those "gilty till proven innocent things". If Muaddib ever releases a version where he clains he removed the GPL code, you should take an Hex Editor, Disassembler, Debugger or whatever and try to prove he's still using GPL code. He doesn't have to prove he's innocent, you have to prove he's guilty. That's the way it works in most countries.

I didn't want to get involved in this, but I felt that this was the time to give some supppot to muaddib.
Here, Here,
Assino em baixo.

I subscribe that.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
04-26-2004, 02:48 PM
shh shh is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 23
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
After a valuable dicussion at doom9, who are quite exerienced with GPL issues many facts have been pointed out:
(I also wrote an email to the FSF to ask about license-details, but they seem to be busy elsewhere - yet)

This is more or less addressing muaddib, because he in the end is resposoble for his release.

Point 1: MovieStacker got the GPL-licence attached in readme.txt and copying.txt
Such thing generally means that the whole program is released under the GPL by the author. This time it not, apparently by mistake. MovieStacker wants to be closed-source.
But this isn't possible because GPL-code is (still) in MovieStacker.
Btw, MovieStacker is hard-linking against the avsWARP.dll by aquaplaning. That DLL shows something of „Copyright: GNU“... Is that another GPL-violation, or is the DLL under LGPL?

Point 2: GPL-code is (still) in MovieStacker
Nobody has questioned that the GPL-code still is in the program. So MovieStacker cannot be public, without violating the licence. Actually MovieStacker is under the GPL, because it contains GPL-code (also because of the attached licenses). So if any distribution of MovieStacker exists, the source-code must be accessible also.

Point 3: "organisation":
Since this "organisation" (is it the Softronex Corporation?) is open to nearly anybody to register, a distribution in that kind wouldn't exclusively be non-public.
But as somebody already mentioned before, the "organisation" in the FAQ is just an example. The original copyright-text is quite clearer, it talks about "distribution" of the software. And if still uncertainness remains, a court would decide for the meaning of the copyright, not the uncertainness someone wants to interpret into it.

Point 4: Removing of the GPL code:
Because of the GPL-violating and my concession to not demand the opening of complete MovieStacker, I wanted the code-removal in reasonable time.
Muaddib told something about 10% of FitCD-code.
When I calculated the 10 weeks, I already regarded muaddib's programming as a hobby. I was counting the whole hobby-weeks of 14 months. But some (many?) features have been implemented before these 14 months, so I should have counted much more months for the whole 90% of MovieStacker's extensions.
10% of the 14 months are 1.4 months = 42 days = 6 weeks of hobby-programming.
But again I've rounded to muaddib's advantage, and nearly doubled the time to 10 weeks.
Also, code-removal does not mean that all the functionality has to be achieved with the GPL-free version. You(muaddib) can decide yourself when you want to reimplement the code. It isn't necessary (for me), that you release the full functionality after 10 weeks, but the violating code must be removed until then.
Really, I have no clue why these 10 weeks aren't reasonable time, and not acceptable.

Point 5: Checking of code-removal:
If the GPL is enforced, it would be easy to open the code now, just to check, how much of GPL-code really is in MovieStacker.
But I'm not generally interested in your (muaddib's) code. I don't want to imply that you don't want to remove the code. For obvious reasons (FitCD is simply the base of MovieStacker, [nearly] all of kvcd.net try to deny my rights and find excuses), my trust has gone.
Nevertheless, I want to trust again, and don't want to demand on the sources anymore. (Although I cannot speak for others, who perhaps want to see the code of the GPL-distributed v2.10)
But, showing me the code of your reimplementations would just save me (and you) time and nerves. Perhaps showing just parts of the code is enough to convince me. Please rethink your statement about the code.
Because I'd oversee the code-checking afterwords, allow me suggest some stuff.
I suggest, that it's easiest to remove the complete code first, and then step by step add the new features, until the program reaches the old functionality.
Otherwise bugs may just get reimplented, and many of FitCD's stray code will stay in the program. (what can be identified later). Experienced programmers will also tell you, that writing code from scratch is often faster implemented that rewriting parts. Perhaps the release of a version lacking some of the resizing- and bitrate-calculating-features may come handy.
It would be better to „do things in another way“ to gain a new algorithm. The bitrate- and resizing-core is very special for example. Well, my algorithms are of course a bit of „simple math“, but there are many other ways to get the wanted result. If the same number of variables are used, or just seem to be renamed, will make me (everybody) think the GPL-code is still in there. - And will start the flame again.

My proposals are:
1. Code-removal until 1st of July 2004:
This means, that the violating code is removed in reasonable time.
Then I'd even tolerate the semi-public download (pm to kwag) of the violating program until that date.
But the download-possibility must stop at that day.
If you want to release a fully functional GPL-free MovieStacker on that day is of course your decision.

2. No code-removal until 1st of July 2004:
This means that the violating code is not removed in reasonable time. Then also tolerating of the semi-public downloading via pm is not acceptable.
It rather means I'll have to accept the GPL-violation for unpredictable time.
That's of course not acceptable, and then I must rethink my statements & concessions regarding the actual version of MovieStacker. Well, I have to think about ugly ways how to enforce my intellectual property.

3. Complete vanishing of MovieStacker:
Nobody would like this and I don't want this either!
But if all download possibilities to receive a MovieStacker version vanish, the case would also be closed (for me).
Reply With Quote
  #70  
04-26-2004, 03:11 PM
rds_correia rds_correia is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Chinese Democracy starts now!
Posts: 2,563
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi Shh,
And you find that reasonable my friend?
What I don't find reasonable is seeing you still posting in public what clearly is a private matter of both you and Muaddib.
Have we seen anybody else claiming for the sources????
You can ALWAYS use PM in this forum.
And Mod will treat you with respect, we guarantee you.
Also PM always has a way of being copied to harddisk if what you're affraid is being deceived by Muaddib.
About the formulas for the resize, etc - shall I remind you that maths is not your property or anybody on this planet.
So even you you could patent it anybody could reach the same formula as you did so I suspect that's not an option.
From now on I'm not asking you to go private.
I'm begging you to do so.
This is between you and Muaddib.
Otherwise you will only be collecting adversaries here as already shown so far.
The odds on reaching an agreement are much much much higher in private than in public.
Though I feel inclined to advise muaddib to remain still for the moment and wait for someone skilled (lawyer, judge) to give him his opinion on the matter.
10% or not, if GPL is enforced, muaddib will always have to give out the sources, but then my friend don't call your intelectual property to just 10% of code.
Of course this we're talking here is complete nonsense as we already agreed that there is no way to proove if it's 10%, 20%, 5%, etc.
That can't be measured unless you count the code characters or lines of code what doesn't seem to be fair also.
Sorry almost forgot one thing: in such a case we can't also use math to make up a reasonable amount of time to remove the GPL sources from Moviestacker.
That my friend can only be a court decision.
I don't think we should be heading that way.
Even because although a German court accepted GPL, doesn't mean other courts will do.
I for one from what I've read so far don't give a dime of credit to it although I think there should be an option to it: BSD?
Who knows: haven't read that one yet.
Thank you so much for your time.
Cheers
__________________
Rui
Reply With Quote
  #71  
04-26-2004, 03:31 PM
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 0
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
You have recently lost a number of members due to recent events. But you have at least in the very short term gained a few as well. I come to you today outside my duties on the many forums which I frequent or moderate. To put it simply I come as one of you to speak to you. And what have I come to speak on you might ask? Why the General Public License (here after referred to as the GPL) and user rights and responsibilities of course. Along with many issues raised within this conversation thread.

To do this I have decided to break this into several sub sections all pertaining to a single ideas and issues. The first of which being why should I care about licenses? What is the GPL? What is BSD? Etcetera.

Free software is free software. Why should I as a regular user bother to care about the license? As adults we live in a world built largely on respect, tolerance, and rational thought. As an adult those are things we should all be behind. As a rational, respectful, and tolerant adults we create guidelines for our lives. Basic procedures to follow to live in harmony with our neighbors. Procedures like rules and laws. Like licenses and copyright. Without those or similar concepts would be anarchy. And in anarchy it is hard for much of anything to thrive. You don't always have to agree with them. But as a citizen of a society it is your responsibility to obey them. There are instances where laws etc do more harm than good and people fight to change them. Of all the licenses that stand to do more harm than good the GPL is the least after the BSD. Therefore it is your responsibility and duty to observe and respect the provisions put forth in those licenses. To further clarify the issue who are GPL authors. They are mothers, sons, daughters, fathers, brothers, sisters, cousins, and friends. They are the people you meet on the street. They are the heads of highly successful corporations, they are the minimum wage worker in a service job. THEY ARE YOU AND THEY ARE ME. And we should respect each other. Coppish? By disrespecting the license you disrespect all those who use it. And I don't like being disrespected.

What is the GPL. The GPL is one of many opensource licenses to be found on the Internet. The complete text of which can be found at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html. The GPL is a legally binding document under international law. Having been defended numerous times in the United States and most recently in Germany( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04...cence_germany/ ). The GPL is specifically designed to address issues that many other opensource licenses neglect. Licenses such as Berkly Software Distribution style licenses (here after referred to as BSD( http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php )). What does the GPL do that is so unique or necessary? The GPL in essence enhances and extends the ideas put fourth in th BSD license system. Providing large scale equality between the developer and the user. While at the same time allowing the developer to retain some control over their project not previously offered under the BSD. Outside of those control's for the projects owner the GPL extends the same rights to the users as it does the developers. And ensures that those rights will continue to be recognized that others may continue to benefit. Unlike BSD code. Who's modification need never be published.

The BSD software license is a very compatible license posing little to no restriction on how third parties may use it. As such BSD code is perfectly at home being re-used and re-licensed in GPL licensed programs. The BSD license can never be revoked for the BSD parts. But it does not conflict with the GPL. Further the BSD license is so compatible it is used in many commercial softwares you may have heard of. Microsoft Windows for instance. The original MS Windows NT TCP/IP stack was built largely from the BSD TCP/IP stack. It has evolved considerably since that time. But portions of BSD code are sure to still lurk within the heart of MS Windows. But how many of you knew that? Not many I would hazard. And do you know why? Because the only restriction on use of BSD licensed code is that some place some where credit should be given to it's original authors. Which Microsoft has managed to stuff in the fine print on obscure pages no one reads. Anyone can do basically anything with your BSD code and you have little or no say in the matter. The following three points lifted directly from the BSD license template are the entire core of the license!

Quote:
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
Those three points alone comprise the entire essence of the BSD license. The license does not even specify that the notice required by the BSD need be provided in a human readable format such as ASCII text or in an easily accessible place like an individual text file. Going by loosest definitions you would be in compliance placing it in a binary encoded string in the program itself. Or working it in to the background of your program's splash screen graphics. But that would be dishonest and immoral. So why does it often turn out in that exact manner?

The BSD is not a bad license. Neither is the GPL. On the spectrum of licensing they simply comprise two parts of a generic three part scale. The BSD license being the least restrictive license aside from having no license at all. [Artistic license perhaps?] With commercial licenses like those for MS Windows being the most restrictive of all. The GPL comes in the scale somewhere between the two. Trying to preserve the openness of the BSD license within reason while providing the author basic controls over how the licensed work may be used much like some commercial licenses. In other words it tries to provide a more balanced approach. I over simplify the scale here simply for the hope of fostering understanding. As there are things like L-GPL licenses, amended BSD licenses, and quasi-opensource licenses like Microsoft's shared source initiative. But that discussion could comprise a whole other article.

I have heard people say that the GPL is a “viral” license. Is this true? Of course it is not. Does a virus walk up to you and say “Hi I am a virus. If you use me you might get sick or worse die.”? A virus does not ask permission. A virus is “virulent” due to the way it aggressively goes out and seeks unwilling hosts in which to replicate. The GPL license does replicate itself. But only in willing hosts. Is replication qualification to be classified as a virus? Sure if you want to consider all living cells viruses. That would classify yourself as a virus. Your pets would be viruses. And all plants would be viruses. The GPL's virulence is a fanciful wives tail. And was first uttered by Microsoft if I am not mistaken. It was later picked up as a mantra for incontinent dregs in the BSD community who felt indignation that a young upstart like the GNU and Linux could burst on the scene and receive so much attention. Leaving the wonderful BSD projects largely unknown. We all know life is not always fair. But should we whine about it like children? Many in the BSD community think so. Thank goodness they are the minority.

Someone claimed that if a software was ever released under the GPL it must always be released under the GPL. Is this true? Most certainly not. The GPL license may never be revoked on any version of a programs source code previously released under the GPL. The author may however at their discretion release future versions under any license they chose to the exclusion of the GPL. But this may only happen if the owner owns all rights to the code in question or can do so without violating the license of any included third party code. Further the GPL license is not exclusive. Meaning that the author can at his discretion release any source he has rights to under any license he chooses. But the rights and privileges afforded by the GPL may not be revoked by additional licenses after the fact.

Someone once said that including non-GPL licensed code in a GPL licensed project revokes that projects GPL license. Is this true? Not in the least. This is an urban legend used largely to scare the uneducated masses. Anyone with a small bit of insight on the subject can quickly recognize such claims as what is known as proverbial “bullshit”. Further they often can immediately recognize that those claiming such things have ulterior motives and are trying to twist the truth to fit their fantasy world. Truth is the GPL is not directly compatible with many licenses. This is a non issue since the GPL allows the author to additionally license the same code in individual cases under any license the author chooses. All that is required is the authors consent.

How large a percentage of GPL code must reside in a project before it is required to be issued under the GPL? Any amount of GPL code in a project no matter how small requires that all relevant code be licensed under the GPL as per the GPL. What constitutes “relevant code”? Relevant code is any code that depends on GPL licensed code or any code that relies on code that uses GPL portions. Including but not limited to code libraries, DLL files, shared object binaries, program modules, and plug-ins.

Someone I trust said that GPL source may not be used in commercial closed source programs. And that GPL licensed code is unattractive to commercial companies like CISCO, Apple, Sun Microsystems, SGI, etc. Is this true? It is in fact quite false. You should seriously re-evaluate your trust of anyone who makes such claims. Some of those same companies develop, support, and distribute Linux and GPL products. Most recently Sun Microsystems announced that they would begin selling IBM-PC clone machines loaded with Linux and Sun's Java One desktop environment at the worlds largest retailer Walmart. Many more corporations, small business, and government bodies use Linux and GPL software including but not limited to IBM, Novell, Sun Microsystems, Linksys, Kiss, Nuteson, Sony, HP, Dell, Gateway, Compaq, Erricson, Celestix, Filanet Corporation, Toshiba, Hitachi, Nokia, Diamond Multimedia, Motorola, Sylvania, TiVo, Sharp, Transmetta, the US Department Of Defense[DOD], NSA, CIA, and FBI. You can find links to many pages that prove this claim at http://www.linuxdevices.com/. It is however much harder to find commercial products actively using or at least claiming to use BSD licensed code in any commercial software or many hardware devices.

I recently heard someone claim that more websites including most of the biggest all run BSD based operating systems. Is this true? No this is not true. BSD has walked the Internet since the Internet began. Perhaps even before. And since that time BSD based systems have seen a very slow but steady increase in their numbers. But according to the most recent breakdown by operating system published for Netcraft's web server survey in September 2001 of the 32,398,046 sites surveyed 29.6% ran Linux, 7.1% ran Solaris, and the combined percentage for all BSD based systems came to 6.1%. Since September 2001 the number of sites surveyed has increased 65% to 49,750,568. In that time the number of Linux, MS Windows, and BSD servers have increased steadily for the most part. In order for the total number of BSD based servers in September 2001 to increase to match the total number of Linux systems at the same time would have required a growth of almost 500%!!! That would be phenomenal growth numbers for Microsoft for a whole decade let alone under 3 years and being BSD.

Someone recently exclaimed that unless we break things nothing will change. Is this true? History shows that this is largely false. One need only to look to the worlds largest software developer to find several cases where breaking things caused real change to slow to an almost non-existent crawl. Who is this company? Why Microsoft of course. Though Microsoft has never called it “breaking”. That is the term which many in the BSD and GPL communities reserve for their actions. No Microsoft calls it their “embrace and extend” principle. Via bundling Internet Explorer with every new version of MS Windows sold and at the same time embracing and extending the HTML specification applied to IE's document parser Microsoft has slowed the real growth and change in HTML so much that Internet Explorer has yet to implement many standards ratified in 1997! In fact to this day all versions of Internet Explorer have never been compliant to the minimal feature set put forth in Tim BernersLee's HTML 1.0 standard specification released at the start of the 1990's. Internet Explorer by default renders many HTML colors incorrectly causing page designers to often have to design two different page versions depending on the browser just so that all end users see the same colors! These are by no means isolated occurrences. Microsoft's crusade against oops I mean “embracing and extending” of the Java programming language practically killed Java's adoption and hurt most users of the Internet in ways they can't comprehend. But it's alright. Microsoft has re-invented the wheel [see .net] and now they are in control and don't have to worry about breaking piddly open standards or satisfying their ignorant sheep I mean consumer base.

I have been getting legal advice from a friend. And he said that since the amount of GPL code in my program is small say 10% or less that I should just remove all evidence of the GPL license, close my source, and simply call the project “free software”. Then at my leisure remove the remaining GPL code. Is this legal, moral, or right? No that is very illegal, quite immoral, and definitely not right! Either this friend is not a lawyer and or is not really your friend. This “advice” is at best just plain illegal in what it suggests.

I am a member of a public forum and my site administrator recently claimed that he was forming an organization that included the entire forums membership. I never agreed to be a member of such an organization. I was never even asked if I agreed with this “organizations” views. Is there now a real organization created from this and am I a part of it? No. An organization can not be formed just because one person says so. Furthermore no one may be a member of an organization which they have not agreed to join. Creating an organization implies that there is some sort of exclusive membership or exclusion on who may join that is regularly enforced and checked for validity. In the absence of such measures an organization again can not be formed. It is impossible to incorporate the entire membership of a public forum in any legally recognized organization. Furthermore such activities constitute illegal if not criminal action. If your forum administrator takes such action he is putting you in danger and you should take action.

The situation over here at KVCD.NET(ORG? LOL) is getting pretty bad. And what's worse is that it is mostly the administrators fault. You the forum members are being put in danger all to fulfill his agenda with which you may or may not agree. Though you should not agree. I have recently heard the advice of many lawyers. All of which say that it is impossible to form an organization from the membership of a forum without their explicit consent. Further it is impossible to do so on a public forum such as this in the first place. These are the words of 5+ career lawyers who are out in the field getting paid for their work. Muaddib has never been in compliance with the terms of the GPL license. His so called proprietary external modules are not stand alone programs in their own right. They are code libraries which depend exclusively on the main program and it's GPL code. Meaning that those code libraries “MUST” be published with full source to comply with the terms of the GPL. The treatment of shh here has been truly awful. Kwag for instance has taken great joy at slandering, defaming, shh for no reason simply to turn the forum against him. Such actions in the US alone would be enough to charge Kwag for “liable” and sue him regardless of his GPL violation. It would not matter if shh had not brought this up till a year from now he is within his rights. Saying that shh has violated the terms of the GPL license by not publishing recent versions under the GPL is also wrong. Saying that shh only wants Muaddib to publish his full source so that shh may use it in his closed source program is laughable for many reasons. First of all Muaddib should publish that code in the first place. Second shh could not use the code in his closed source program for the same reason Muaddib may not. It would be GPL code and in order to use it shh must also re-license his code under the GPL. No one could steal anything.

This situation is also much worse than you might think. Unless you the forum members demand Kwag do the right thing someone could report his hosting of software outside it's license. Also known as warezing and most definitely in violation of the TOS for his web host. This could result in the shutdown of the forum. Also installed with Muaddib's program are a number of GPL licensed Avisynth plug-ins. Several of who's authors I have spoken to and are none to happy about the situation. I doubt the rest of them would be either. I just have not spoken with them in the last week or two where I moderate. The idea of blocking all referrals from both KVCD.NET/ORG to Avisynth and other related works was discussed in passing. Not to mention that no one has been nice enough to post this situation on slashdot. That alone could bring the forum to it's knees for several days, and possibly exceed the forums bandwidth for the rest of the month. Which would either make the forum unaccessible till the first of next month or cost Kwag or whoever is paying for hosting [his mother perhaps] massive extra charges for exceeding bandwidth.

This has all been rather benign discussion in this thread till this point. But this issue needs to be taken care of soon before someone less kind than I decides to take creative action. And only one of three things can be done to save the web site. Either Muaddib and shh come to an agreement. I am sure I might know some people who would assist in arbitration. Second Muaddib releases his complete sources. Third Kwag and Muaddib remove the program totally from distribution. The one exception would be that Kwag and his site “moderators” could reasonably satisfy the terms of “organization” and distribute the program amongst themselves. But not the general membership.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
04-26-2004, 04:32 PM
glänzend glänzend is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 257
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hey Hello,

Quote:
Originally Posted by shh
After a valuable dicussion at doom9, who are quite exerienced with GPL issues many facts have been pointed out:
All they seem to be experience in, is insulting other people. Hence the way they treat Jorel and the way they speak about kwag, ect. But if you prefere them to us that's fine it is your choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shh
(I also wrote an email to the FSF to ask about license-details, but they seem to be busy elsewhere - yet)
Good, maybe they can clarify for us, why they change the lettering of the license, from books written by them like "RUNNING LINUX" by Matt Welsh and Lar Kaufman Apendix E page 524 in which the license varies so, from that one in "USING AND PORTING GNU CC" by Richard Stallman which on page 509 the GPL and it is still version 2 June 1991, and still diferent from their version of it on their internet site. In MHO when you change a legal document, and you submit it again either you make an ademdum to it or you change the version of said document.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shh
This is more or less addressing muaddib, because he in the end is resposoble for his release.
Good too, I'm glad you understand that muaddib has the last word, in all of this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shh
Point 3: "organisation":
Since this "organisation" (is it the Softronex Corporation?) is open to nearly anybody to register, a distribution in that kind wouldn't exclusively be non-public.
But as somebody already mentioned before, the "organisation" in the FAQ is just an example. The original copyright-text is quite clearer, it talks about "distribution" of the software. And if still uncertainness remains, a court would decide for the meaning of the copyright, not the uncertainness someone wants to interpret into it.
I can clarify that misunderstanding for you, Softronex Corporation is a separate organization, dedicated to something else entirely.

kvcd is a separate organization but an organization nevertheless, and not everybody can join, not everybody can post anywhere, you have to register, to register you have to have a valid e-mail adress you have to read the "REGISTRATION AGREEMENT TERMS" agree to comply with it, and once in the forums follow and compy with those rules, otherwise the moderators will boot you out.

Also talked to your friend "wilbert" he will tell you that people can not post anywhere in the KVCD site without the approval of the owner. He tried it and his post was rejected.
This two organizations belong to the same owner. That's all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shh
... Well, I have to think about ugly ways how to enforce my intellectual property.
I'm sure you are not threatening anyone, that would be so sad
KVCD is only trying to protect and help one of its own, in this forum we take care of our own, specially one who has helped, many newbies, and others as well, so we are just trying to return the kindness, mind you, he has the last word in all this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shh
3. Complete vanishing of MovieStacker:
Nobody would like this and I don't want this either!
But if all download possibilities to receive a MovieStacker version vanish, the case would also be closed (for me).
No one wants that,

Last but not least, I wanted to ask you, now the "organization part is not valid because they are in the FAQ, does that mean that what you said in your post in page 3 and I quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shh
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.
This is not valid also, because all your links are to the FAQ. How does that work?
Ciao
Gländzend
Reply With Quote
  #73  
04-26-2004, 04:47 PM
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 0
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
Hi Shh,
And you find that reasonable my friend?
What I don't find reasonable is seeing you still posting in public what clearly is a private matter of both you and Muaddib.
The GPL involves us all. As such public is a good place to discuss it. Besides this is not strictly just between Muaddib and shh anymore anyways. Kwag if anyone has done the most harm in this case. He is taking massive legal liberties and endagering the entire membership of the forum. I was taking a risk just joining to post this here!

Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
Have we seen anybody else claiming for the sources????
Yes several times. And I add myself. Muaddib I would like a public link to your complete source containing all external program modules/libraries source as per the terms of the GPL license of your program.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
About the formulas for the resize, etc - shall I remind you that maths is not your property or anybody on this planet.
Math? Since when was math an issue?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
So even you you could patent it anybody could reach the same formula as you did so I suspect that's not an option.
Pattent? Pattent?? You are the first to bring up pattent. Shh has pattented nothing. Nor did he ever claim to. This is a "license" issue. Not a pattent one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
Otherwise you will only be collecting adversaries here as already shown so far.
Yes Kwag has done a decent job turning the uneducated members of the forum against their friend shh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
The odds on reaching an agreement are much much much higher in private than in public.
Considdering the public sentement displayed so far I can guarontee you that private discussions would have gone nowhere. Kwag alone has made a public fool of himself not that many here seem to have noticed. So if he has nothing to fear from you the public what would be his motivation in a private discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
Though I feel inclined to advise muaddib to remain still for the moment and wait for someone skilled (lawyer, judge) to give him his opinion on the matter.
The matter is clear. Muaddib needs to take action to correct his situation and stop listening to Kwag in this matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
10% or not, if GPL is enforced, muaddib will always have to give out the sources, but then my friend don't call your intelectual property to just 10% of code.
Incorrect. Even if the code is released under the GPL once all external GPL code is removed Muaddib may close the source of those versions and license them as he wishes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
Of course this we're talking here is complete nonsense as we already agreed that there is no way to proove if it's 10%, 20%, 5%, etc.
Actually it is easily proven and not nonsense in anyway. In fact if Muaddib and shh would be agreeable I might be able to procure the services of the man who did the exact same thing for the Xvid Vs. Sigma Designs case. I heard from him last night and he has already done a comparrison on the binaries. His work is even included in Muaddib's program install if I am not mistaken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
That can't be measured unless you count the code characters or lines of code what doesn't seem to be fair also.
Not fair? What's not fair has been the forums treatment of shh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
Sorry almost forgot one thing: in such a case we can't also use math to make up a reasonable amount of time to remove the GPL sources from Moviestacker. That my friend can only be a court decision.
I agree that "math" should not be used to set the time to remove the remaining GPL code. Not that I think that was what shh was doing in the first place. I think he was making a suggestion trying to start a dialog to come to an agreement. But as you can see. Kwag and by association Muaddib seem quite unagreeable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
Even because although a German court accepted GPL, doesn't mean other courts will do.
It has been upheld several times in the US alone. It is recognised as a legal document in Japan, Russia, France, the UK, Spain, Germany, and many many more countries. Even China recognizes it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
I for one from what I've read so far don't give a dime of credit to it
That is because you don't understand it. I offer my services. Bring any part you don't understand to the forum and I will do my best to help you to understand it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
although I think there should be an option to it: BSD?
BSD is not an option. I see Kwag has had influence on you here. Which is unfortunate. BSD does not even come remotely close to providing 1% of what the GPL provides. I have read and fully understand both. And I am telling you that it is in all honesty not really an option in this case. Not that there is anything wrong with BSD.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
04-26-2004, 05:07 PM
incredible incredible is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,189
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to incredible
Quote:
All they seem to be experience in, is insulting other people
Sorry ...I didnt knew the deeps of GPL and so on before, BUT I do get in here as I do think this gets total out of control!
The quote above is not adressed to its author Glänzend alone or to members from here or doom9, its just an example of "argumantating ping-pong" and does not have something to do with the main subject.

This in here is very complicated and VERY sensible NOW so everything could heat the situation UP DEFENITELY! What do I say? Its already heated up, which hasn't to be! The solution is NOT to take part for someone by fightning and "offensive/defensive" argumenting, the solution is that shh and muaddib should come to an agreement! And thats clearly spoken out in here --- its a thing between them and the rights/laws will show who has to be what to do.

I am member here and there and in many other forums and there's NO REASON for offense talk/fights and IF things get in trouble we are old enough to come to a conclusion - maybe not in an easy way BUT with the avoiding OF CHAINREACTIONS.

So other participants else then shh or muaddib should calm a bit down, like also recommended by MugFunky at doom9.

Conclusion: This subject is not a challenge of loyality .... its a problem of shh and muaddib which can be solved - and it has to be.

Im passing so much time in here or at doom9 that this makes me really worried as I like both places and for shure the members of both places.
And I DONT WANT one day hear "you have to decide to whom you belong to " as this would be make no sense .... cause the situation gets more hot every response in here or at doom9.

I do quote many members from here and there:
FRIENDSHIP IS ALL!

Best regards
Inc,
(Andre)
Reply With Quote
  #75  
04-26-2004, 05:10 PM
Wilbert Wilbert is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 45
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
kvcd is a separate organization but an organization nevertheless, and not everybody can join, not everybody can post anywhere, you have to register, to register you have to have a valid e-mail adress you have to read the "REGISTRATION AGREEMENT TERMS" agree to comply with it, and once in the forums follow and compy with those rules, otherwise the moderators will boot you out.
There are no general rules (except the age) on which persons can be rejected, are there? That should answer the question.

Besides even if this site would be an organization, Muaddib is still the copyright owner, not kvcd.net (I'm talking about v2.1.0, not about future versions). That Muaddib is a member of your so called organization is not relevant.

Quote:
Also talked to your friend "wilbert" he will tell you that people can not post anywhere in the KVCD site without the approval of the owner. He tried it and his post was rejected.
My news post? It didn't surprise me it had to be approved (and was rejected).

Quote:
This two organizations belong to the same owner. That's all.
Strange, your boss is saying otherwise
Quote:
And for your information, here's the public information, which is available to anyone on the Internic database:

Code:
whois -h whois.crsnic.net kvcd.net ...
Redirecting to MELBOURNE IT, LTD. D/B/A INTERNET NAMES WORLDWIDE

whois -h whois.melbourneit.com kvcd.net ...

Domain Name.......... kvcd.net
Creation Date........ 2002-04-13
Registration Date.... 2002-04-13
Expiry Date.......... 2005-04-13
Organisation Name.... Softronex Corporation
Organisation Address. PMB 33
Organisation Address. P.O. Box 70171
Organisation Address. San Juan
Organisation Address. 00936-8171
Organisation Address. Puerto Rico
Organisation Address. UNITED STATES

Regards,
-Karl
You didn't know that, did you?
Reply With Quote
  #76  
04-26-2004, 05:20 PM
glänzend glänzend is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 257
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo-Neko
You have recently lost a number of members due to recent events. But you have at least in the very short term gained a few as well. I come to you today outside my duties on the many forums which I frequent or moderate. To put it simply I come as one of you to speak to you. And what have I come to speak on you might ask? Why the General Public License (here after referred to as the GPL) and user rights and responsibilities of course. Along with many issues raised within this conversation thread.
You win some, you loose some.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo-Neko
And I don't like being disrespected.
No one does, and you should start by not disrespecting others!!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo-Neko
I have been getting legal advice from a friend. And he said that since the amount of GPL code in my program is small say 10% or less that I should just remove all evidence of the GPL license, close my source, and simply call the project “free software”. Then at my leisure remove the remaining GPL code. Is this legal, moral, or right? No that is very illegal, quite immoral, and definitely not right! Either this friend is not a lawyer and or is not really your friend. This “advice” is at best just plain illegal in what it suggests.

I am a member of a public forum and my site administrator recently claimed that he was forming an organization that included the entire forums membership. I never agreed to be a member of such an organization. I was never even asked if I agreed with this “organizations” views. Is there now a real organization created from this and am I a part of it? No. An organization can not be formed just because one person says so. Furthermore no one may be a member of an organization which they have not agreed to join. Creating an organization implies that there is some sort of exclusive membership or exclusion on who may join that is regularly enforced and checked for validity. In the absence of such measures an organization again can not be formed. It is impossible to incorporate the entire membership of a public forum in any legally recognized organization. Furthermore such activities constitute illegal if not criminal action. If your forum administrator takes such action he is putting you in danger and you should take action.

The situation over here at KVCD.NET(ORG? LOL) is getting pretty bad. And what's worse is that it is mostly the administrators fault. You the forum members are being put in danger all to fulfill his agenda with which you may or may not agree. Though you should not agree. I have recently heard the advice of many lawyers. All of which say that it is impossible to form an organization from the membership of a forum without their explicit consent. Further it is impossible to do so on a public forum such as this in the first place. These are the words of 5+ career lawyers who are out in the field getting paid for their work. Muaddib has never been in compliance with the terms of the GPL license. His so called proprietary external modules are not stand alone programs in their own right. They are code libraries which depend exclusively on the main program and it's GPL code. Meaning that those code libraries “MUST” be published with full source to comply with the terms of the GPL. The treatment of shh here has been truly awful. Kwag for instance has taken great joy at slandering, defaming, shh for no reason simply to turn the forum against him. Such actions in the US alone would be enough to charge Kwag for “liable” and sue him regardless of his GPL violation. It would not matter if shh had not brought this up till a year from now he is within his rights. Saying that shh has violated the terms of the GPL license by not publishing recent versions under the GPL is also wrong. Saying that shh only wants Muaddib to publish his full source so that shh may use it in his closed source program is laughable for many reasons. First of all Muaddib should publish that code in the first place. Second shh could not use the code in his closed source program for the same reason Muaddib may not. It would be GPL code and in order to use it shh must also re-license his code under the GPL. No one could steal anything.

This situation is also much worse than you might think. Unless you the forum members demand Kwag do the right thing someone could report his hosting of software outside it's license. Also known as warezing and most definitely in violation of the TOS for his web host. This could result in the shutdown of the forum. Also installed with Muaddib's program are a number of GPL licensed Avisynth plug-ins. Several of who's authors I have spoken to and are none to happy about the situation. I doubt the rest of them would be either. I just have not spoken with them in the last week or two where I moderate. The idea of blocking all referrals from both KVCD.NET/ORG to Avisynth and other related works was discussed in passing. Not to mention that no one has been nice enough to post this situation on slashdot. That alone could bring the forum to it's knees for several days, and possibly exceed the forums bandwidth for the rest of the month. Which would either make the forum unaccessible till the first of next month or cost Kwag or whoever is paying for hosting [his mother perhaps] massive extra charges for exceeding bandwidth.

This has all been rather benign discussion in this thread till this point. But this issue needs to be taken care of soon before someone less kind than I decides to take creative action. And only one of three things can be done to save the web site. Either Muaddib and shh come to an agreement. I am sure I might know some people who would assist in arbitration. Second Muaddib releases his complete sources. Third Kwag and Muaddib remove the program totally from distribution. The one exception would be that Kwag and his site “moderators” could reasonably satisfy the terms of “organization” and distribute the program amongst themselves. But not the general membership.
Please abstain yourself from making accusations against kwag, you are putting yourself in a position in which legal action can be taken for libel and defamation of character, not to mention you are harassing one of our members and you, yourself are a member of this organization since you decided to join voluntarily. You want to let your opinion be known? There’s nothing wrong with that, but please comply with the rules and most of all refrain from harassing other members and please stop making accusations, that constitute slandering and defamation of character. Your false statement is defamatory, meaning that it actually harms the reputation of kwag, as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive.

You want to keep doing that? Go back to where you came from, I’m sure the moderators of this forum will agree with me that such behavior will not be tolerated anymore.

You want to keep posting? Do it with respect for everyone. Mind you, two wrongs don’t make a right and we will not do it to you, but we will not tolerate it either.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
04-26-2004, 05:24 PM
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 0
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by glänzend
All they seem to be experience in, is insulting other people. Hence the way they treat Jorel and the way they speak about kwag, ect. But if you prefere them to us that's fine it is your choice.
You read but have very little understanding. First Jorel is not some innocent. I don't want to start a game of who started it. But suficed to say that jorel is not innocent. On top of being quite hard to understand. Jorel have you tried babelfish? It might help. In terms of treatment of Kwag it has been rather light. Especially for the serious danger he is putting you in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by glänzend
Good, maybe they can clarify for us, why they change the lettering of the license, from books written by them like "RUNNING LINUX" by Matt Welsh and Lar Kaufman Apendix E page 524 in which the license varies so, from that one in "USING AND PORTING GNU CC" by Richard Stallman which on page 509 the GPL and it is still version 2 June 1991, and still diferent from their version of it on their internet site. In MHO when you change a legal document, and you submit it again either you make an ademdum to it or you change the version of said document.
Nope that is not a requirement. The GPL is a living license that grows and evolves to better protect those it serves. Kwag has lied to you and spread false fear, uncertainty, and doubt(FUD). Who are you going to believe? Someone who is admittedly not a lawyer and who does not even have real legal advice. Or corporations like IBM, Novell, Nokia, Erricson, Sony, Sun Microsystems, and linksys who have regimens of lawyers on permanent retainer at their disposal. Those companies all recognise and use GPL software every day. Kwag is blowing smoke. The legality of a document is not determined by it's weight or how dificult it is to read. And Kwag knows this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by glänzend
Good too, I'm glad you understand that muaddib has the last word, in all of this.
Wrong. Muaddib "can" resolve this on his own. But he has no final say on the situation. Assuming that he does not do the right thing and resolve the issue shh and those of us that support the GPL have a very BIG say in the matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by glänzend
kvcd is a separate organization but an organization nevertheless, and not everybody can join, not everybody can post anywhere, you have to register, to register you have to have a valid e-mail adress you have to read the "REGISTRATION AGREEMENT TERMS" agree to comply with it, and once in the forums follow and compy with those rules, otherwise the moderators will boot you out.
Well then the moderators need to boot me out. I am sorry but I can not exist by the non existant terms of this false organization. I have heard from 5+ professional lawyers on the subject and more legal students than I care to remember. Kwag is incapable of forming such an organization. I can abide by general forum rules. But this organization fallicy is something I will not tollerate. And neither should any forum member. Kwag has no rights to use your identity in any legal context since he has not procured consent from a single one of you. By doing so Kwag is perpetrating illegal/criminal actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by glänzend
Also talked to your friend "wilbert" he will tell you that people can not post anywhere in the KVCD site without the approval of the owner. He tried it and his post was rejected.
I am here. I did not recieve any such aproval from the "owner". Though I think he knew better than to refuse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by glänzend
I'm sure you are not threatening anyone, that would be so sad
No he isn't. But I know others who are contemplating such actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by glänzend
KVCD is only trying to protect and help one of its own, in this forum we take care of our own, specially one who has helped, many newbies, and others as well, so we are just trying to return the kindness, mind you, he has the last word in all this.
False. Kwag poses a great danger to all forum members. Shh should be included as one of "your own" and this just goes to show rampant hypocracy. I know other forums where shh is less known and has spent less time and effort on. But he is still considdered one of "their own".

In the end Muaddib has no final say in the matter. He has already proven less than reliable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by glänzend
This is not valid also, because all your links are to the FAQ. How does that work?
*snigger*did you bother to look at Kwag's link?? http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq....cePostedPublic *snigger* Doesn't that mean that Kwag's claims about being exempt because he is his own organization are equally false? [Hint. In order not to be a flaming hypocrit you need to agree with me on this]
Reply With Quote
  #78  
04-26-2004, 05:30 PM
rds_correia rds_correia is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Chinese Democracy starts now!
Posts: 2,563
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hey Mr. Neo Neko,
With all due respect sir, I have not written several paragraphs you are quoting as being my words!
Please do what you have to do to clear this subject as soon as possible.
Now didn't you all read Mr. Inc. post here in this thread??
Let's act as adults please.
__________________
Rui
Reply With Quote
  #79  
04-26-2004, 05:32 PM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilbert
Quote:
This two organizations belong to the same owner. That's all.
Strange, your boss is saying otherwise
Quote:
And for your information, here's the public information, which is available to anyone on the Internic database:

Code:
whois -h whois.crsnic.net kvcd.net ...
Redirecting to MELBOURNE IT, LTD. D/B/A INTERNET NAMES WORLDWIDE

whois -h whois.melbourneit.com kvcd.net ...

Domain Name.......... kvcd.net
Creation Date........ 2002-04-13
Registration Date.... 2002-04-13
Expiry Date.......... 2005-04-13
Organisation Name.... Softronex Corporation
Organisation Address. PMB 33
Organisation Address. P.O. Box 70171
Organisation Address. San Juan
Organisation Address. 00936-8171
Organisation Address. Puerto Rico
Organisation Address. UNITED STATES

Regards,
-Karl
You didn't know that, did you?
Is that so
What I know is that you have a reading problem.

Quote:
This two organizations belong to the same owner. That's all.
That's exactly what's printed above.

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #80  
04-26-2004, 05:38 PM
rds_correia rds_correia is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Chinese Democracy starts now!
Posts: 2,563
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Again Mr. Neo Neko,
I demand a proper action taken care here
I am not the author of several paragraphs you say you are quoting me
If you don't act accordingly I shall have to ask others to do so on your behalf
__________________
Rui
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
KVCD: Interlaced/29.970 sources? gretagun Video Encoding and Conversion 13 01-08-2005 02:29 PM
Avisynth: 16:9 from dvd sources and overscan? jorel Avisynth Scripting 41 10-20-2004 11:07 AM
Make DVD with KVCD sources? logan555 Video Encoding and Conversion 1 04-14-2004 04:47 AM
KDVD: DVDLab and MP3 sources? Jellygoose Authoring VCD, DVD, Blu-ray 1 01-10-2004 11:02 AM
Predicting for Avi Sources? Razorblade2000 Avisynth Scripting 3 08-15-2003 06:40 AM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:02 AM  —  vBulletin © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd