Quantcast MovieStacker: Program Sources, Please? - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #1  
04-19-2004, 03:45 AM
shh shh is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 23
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
May I ask, where can I download the program sources for the new MovieStacker version? Or, well how do I get them?
Thanks.

Best regards
shh
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
  #2  
04-19-2004, 08:12 AM
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 shh
May I ask, where can I download the program sources for the new MovieStacker version? Or, well how do I get them?
Thanks.

Best regards
shh
I thought we've been through this before
From the last release of MovieStacker, the source code branched off the original FitCD sources. So all of muaddib's code "calls" external modules.
The sources are posted here: http://www.kvcd.net/downloads/MovieS...v1.1.1_src.zip
That was the last code modified by muaddib, before he separated your GPL sources from his propietary sources.
His sources will not be released, as they are propietary code.

Edit: It was all explained here: http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3044 back around Feb 2003.

Regards,
-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #3  
04-19-2004, 02:56 PM
shh shh is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 23
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hello Karl!

First I want to ask for a bit indulge for my [following] phrasing and maybe insulting words. My English isn't the best.

> I thought we've been through this before
> Edit: It was all explained here: http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3044 back around Feb 2003.

I know this thread and unfortunately we've not been through this yet.
I also wrote this:

kwag> hooking to external, non GPL code
shh> Yupp, I also think that this would be conform to the GPL.
shh> Of course this won't go the other way round (see the Vidomi-GPL discussions).

I meant hooking to external/proprietary code, but only if the GPL-program still works without the proprietary code. (what is not the case)
Vidomi's program e.g. didn't work without the GPL-code so it was -well- dammed for that and later forced to release also their private sources.
But I was wrong. Even linking/hooking to external code forces all program-code to be under the GPL:
Please read this: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq....LModuleLicense
It is also the other way 'round (Vidomi's case):
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq....IfLibraryIsGPL
And here's another point:
If one part doesn't work without the other, it's _one_ program, and according to the GNU GPL, this new extended program must also be under the GNU GPL (including sources).
This also was the reason, why I released my sources to the public: I wanted the people to use my code if they want, but the other people should also profit from the enhancements, one includes.
I think you've mixed up the difference between LGPL & GPL in that thread, thinking that linking to some external stuff is allowed. Well, and I was also confused afterwords and didn't want to bug further, because muaddib later mentioned he wants to release the sources.

The sources I received later were just half of the program.
(I think I've furtherly discussed this via email with someone, but unfortunately I don't have the correspondence any more)
So there never where complete sources of the "extended" GPL-Program FitCD, which is now called MovieStacker, nor can I find sources from the actual version.

Please read also this:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq....cePostedPublic
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq....difiedVersions
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq....TheGPLAllowNDA
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq....OCFSWithNFLibs
Last one means: GPL soft can link to non-free libs, if the libs don't have any licence that prevent their use in GPL-soft. But again, muaddib's "hooks" as you call them, are extensions to the GPL program there is no external library by muaddib. If they are processed/programmed/typed/linked in an external .pas-unit isn't relevant. The whole program has to be under GPL.
...and also the linking against aquaplaning's GPL avsWARP.dll forces to release the complete program under GPL.

Here is the sad thingy what happens to all GPL code.
The work isn't done with releasing code to the public. One still has to use much effort to _keep_ the code free.
... and people blame the code-releaser for claiming his rights.

And one last thing:
The readme writes, that the program (meaning the entire MovieStacker distribution) is released under the GNU GPL. (what is correct btw.)
Also if he wouldn't use my sources, it would mean that he wants to release his sources - as the GNU GPL requires.

But let's see what muaddib writes himself.
This issue also should better be discussed by email.

I'm sorry to compain about my rights again, but I want this issue resolved this time.
If muaddib cannot publish all code I must insist on removing all of my copyrighted GPL code from the project. Meaning a complete reimplemetation of the main program, user-interface and input-handling, calculation routines for bitrates, resizing, and the basic avisynth-scripting without using any which my code-lines.

Best regards,
shh
Reply With Quote
  #4  
04-19-2004, 09:24 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
Hello shh,

After evaluating your message, here is my decision, and the final answer is still pending and will be muaddib's decision:

I personally know that the code of FitCD left in MovieStacker is now less that 3-5% of the total magnitude of MovieStacker, so I think that it would be unfair to muaddib to release his propietary sources.
As for your statemend of reimplemetation of the main program, user-interface and input-handling, calculation routines for bitrates, resizing, and the basic avisynth-scripting without using any which my code-lines., welll, I am sorry to say that the user interface of FitCD 1.03 ( the version where MovieStacker was spawned), doesn't look not even closely to what MovieStacker looks like today.
The input-handling is Delphi's handling, so it's out of the question.
The bitrate calculations (which are wrong BTW in FitCD), are plain math, just like I implemented in CalcuMatic, and also the incorrect frame counting, which I also implemented correctly in CalcuMatic and muaddib re-implemented in MovieStacker. So that's out of the question too.
AviSynth scripting Well, all I can say is that FitCD doesn't even come close to the scripting, filtering, parameters, configurability, source preview, source comparison, presets, templates, etc., of the current state of MovieStacker.
I think it's obvious, just by running MovieStacker, that it's a complete different beast, compared to FitCD.

muaddib was very kind to give you credit for what you did, but it's clear that MovieStacker has a complete life of it's own right now, with minimal similarities to FitCD 1.03.

So to comply with GPL license, and to be fair to muaddib and to you, I've recommended to muaddib two things:

#1) Release the complete source code of MovieStacker, as per GPL license TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION Section 3 point a
"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

* a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,


#2) Remove all stray code from FitCd 1.03 for the next release of MovieStacker, which will make it "GPL Free", and he will choose whatever license he may want to.

Please note that the source code released will compile and create a fully working binary file.
This way, we comply with the GPL license, and everyone is happy.

It's my best interest to keep everyone's work credited to who deserves it, and personally, my opinion (and others too) is that GPL is a "viral" license.
So I never use GPL (I use BSD license)

I hope this clears all licensing issues permanently.

Regards,
-Karl
Reply With Quote
  #5  
04-20-2004, 07:13 AM
shh shh is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 23
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
To take the conclusions to the front:

> So to comply with GPL license...
> #1) Release the complete source code of MovieStacker under GPL as 3.a

This would be my personal wish, because people could also profit from muaddib's work.

> #2) Remove all stray code from FitCd 1.03 for the next release of MovieStacker, which will make it "GPL Free", and he will choose whatever license he may want to

This is acceptable for me if:
- the following GPL-free version is released "quickly". Which should be done in several weeks, if FitCD's code part really is just 3-5%.
- I have the possibility to look into the closed source to check if the GPL-parts have been removed.
For what "removal of code" of course means a reimplemetation of the algorithms and not just variable-renaming or copying/encapsulating code into another struct.

---------------

> I personally know that the code of FitCD left in MovieStacker is now less that 3-5% of the total magnitude of MovieStacker, so I think that it would be unfair to muaddib to release his proprietary sources.

How did you come to this conclusion?
Simple GUI comparisons show that the complete
- resizing core
- bitrate-calculation core
- GUI of resizing
- GUI of bitrate-calculation
- Option-saving core (ini)
are from FitCD. Also nearly all QuickHints are my typed words.
It's easy to imagine what MovieStacker would be without these components. This also isn't a question of unfairness, and surely not of my unfairness. Holding back the sources harms the whole community for which the sources were meant for.

> ... that the user interface of FitCD 1.03 ... doesn't look not even closely[..]
> The input-handling is Delphi's handling, so it's out of the question.

It's not that easy. Nearly: ~95% of all resizing- & bitrate-fields are directly from FitCD. Also the code what handles it's events & messages like OnClick & OnChange are FitCD's. Well, MovieStacker is simply based upon FitCD. Simple drag&drop into some page-control component doesn't change much or make anything new.
The input-handling btw is code of the main.pas - under the GPL.
And also the Main.dfm was released under GPL.

> The bitrate calculations (which are wrong BTW in FitCD), are plain math

Of course they are pain math. But my implementation of this math is under GPL.
In the sources of MSv1.1.1 they where still complete from FitCD.
If the new MovieStacker has got a new implementation, it would only be necessary to remove the TImageStruct + INI-references, what is still referenced my the calculation core (due to the ini)
But since all input-fields for the calculator are the same... I'd love to see _new_ code of CalcuMatic, which isn't the one of FitCD.
In CalcuMatic I also don't see options for
- multiplexing – which is essential for bitrates
- ExtraData
- authoring overhead
- additional matrices
- ... well I should stop here.

> D2V: number of frame-numbers wrong
> bitrate-calculations wrong

That's interesting. I know of that D2V-bug, what's fixed in the newer versions.
But you don't think, that this bugfix means a new implementation, do you?
But I don't know of wrong bitrates. Do you have any further info about this (link?). I can't find the thread with a search here.

> AviSynth scripting

The filtering is new, of course. The rest including the main TClassAVS class is "old" FitCD.

Unfortunately I don't know how much FitCD-code was removed in MS v2.x - I don't have the code.
We're talking here about new & old code. You talk about 3-5% old.
But this isn't relevant.
Derivated code also has to be released under the GPL.

> muaddib was very kind to give you credit for what you did,

Yes, that was very kind of muaddib - and I respect muaddib's work too.
But my code was released under GPL, not the BSD licence where "crediting" is necessary and getting credits also wasn't in my mind when releasing the sources.
I've released my code under the condition, that following stuff of it would also be free.

> but it's clear that MovieStacker has a complete life of it's own
> right now, with minimal similarities to FitCD 1.03.

This minimal similarities you call them are the complete resizing and the followed resizing-scripting part. Also bitrate GUI part, multiplexing- & authoring-part, INI-part and also the program-core and my core-classes which have been extended.
But "minimal" & "maximal" doesn't count for GPL anyway, and if FitCD's part really is just 3-5% it could be easyly removed, couldn't it?

> personally, my opinion (and others too) is that GPL is a "viral" license.

Well, „viral“ has a bit too negative touch to my understanding.
Without the GPL and without the force to release derivated work, we wouldn't have DVD2AVI, avisynth, vcdimager and all the good code from ffmpeg & mjpegtools for example.
That's why the GPL exists: To prevent that code gets closed after some versions. To prevent that people use the work of others, but don't want to provide their work. Well... I must say: let other people work for them, but they don't want to work for the community in return.
The people don't need to use GPL code, if they don't like to release their added work.
But I myself have stopped releasing my sources under GPL, because I don't like these involving fights about the code. All time I have to reclaim my rights and have to defend my position and my work.
The GPL is a great licence and all would be fine if the people also respect it when they take code from that pool.

> I hope this clears all licensing issues permanently.

This is also my wish.

Best regards,
shh
shh(at)sysh.net
Reply With Quote
  #6  
04-20-2004, 10:26 AM
glänzend glänzend is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 257
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by shh
To take the conclusions to the front:

> So to comply with GPL license...
> #1) Release the complete source code of MovieStacker under GPL as 3.a

This would be my personal wish, because people could also profit from muaddib's work....

I'm sorry to interrupt, but I just want to understand, what this is all about,
Is this because you are not getting enough profits?


Quote:
Originally Posted by shh
...This is acceptable for me if:
- the following GPL-free version is released "quickly". Which should be done in several weeks, if FitCD's code part really is just 3-5%.
- I have the possibility to look into the closed source to check if the GPL-parts have been removed.

This is also my wish.

Best regards,
shh
shh(at)sysh.net
Again, why should it be done in several weeks?
why the pressure, is it because of money,
sorry, I just don't understand


What are you implying that muaddib is not being honest here?

And that is not possible for him to have done his own program on his own knowledge?

And now he is being force to defend himself ?

You say that you are not releasing your code anymore now, is it because you understand that GPL is extremely unfair?

And like the rest of us you understand that something’s are not enforceable?

Like the number 7 for instance?

I’m sorry I just want to understand

To quote from, "Freedom or Power?
by Bradley M. Kuhn and Richard Stallman 08/15/2001"

"But a choice of masters is not freedom" are you trying to force us to use only your fitCD, no I don't think you are,
are you?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
04-20-2004, 11:07 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
glänzend wrote:
"I’m sorry I just want to understand"
in this case is better have doubts cos
for me is worse my friends....i think that i understood....
but i will be wrong ...truly!

my opinion is that IF someone IS wrong, he have to repair it ....
can we wait for solutions and not for accusation?
seems that we're waiting for muaddib answer the accusation that
...i, shh, kwag..."no matter who".... think"!?!?

he will came here to answer some questions or big accusations
think in his position please,
he is a great friend of mine and believe me, deserve our respect!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
04-20-2004, 01:10 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 glänzend

You say that you are not releasing your code anymore now, is it because you understand that GPL is extremely unfair?
Very good question glänzend
Indeed, where are your sources for Fit2disc and for FitCD shh
Your work is also based on other GPL code, but you don't release the sources anymore
And as a matter of fact, the GPL license clearly states: "This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs."
And Fit2disc IS your proprietary program, because you have another license that is not GPL

In your own words, from your own site:
Code:
 Fit2Disc v1.2.1
=========================
by shh
email: shh(at)sysh.net
homepage: http://www.sysh.net


License Agreement:
===================
USE OF THIS SOFTWARE IS SUBJECT TO THE SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS SET FORTH
BELOW. USING THE SOFTWARE INDICATES YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THESE TERMS. IF
YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THESE TERMS, YOU MUST DELETE THE SOFTWARE IMMEDIATELY.
"Use" means storing, loading, installing, executing or displaying the
software. You may not modify the software or disable any licensing or
control features of the software or reverse engineer the software.
Fit2Disc is released with NO WARRANTY and is NOT freely distributable.

Every version of Fit2Disc is WATERMARKED for the use with ONE specific
donator. CHANGING the program-code will BREAK the program. SHARING the
program IN ANY KIND is a license infringement and will explicitly show
who has violated the software licence. That person will be made
RESPOSIBLE for ANY COSTS and DONATION-LOSSES that may have occurred due
to the license infringement.
Don't you think so shh
-Karl
Reply With Quote
  #9  
04-20-2004, 03:41 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 to all,
Unlike some of you I'm not a programmer although I'd like to have some programming skills for home made tools.
I think I understand most of your opinions but it seems we're heading towards a dead-end.
Here's my point of view on this matter:
1-Although I don't know shh in person I must admire his work since I believe he 1st "invented" FitCD concept.
Also I already sent him some messages stating just that.

2-I also admire muaddib's work that we all know started based on FitCD's work.

3-Both tools work wonders when seen separatly. Based on latest MS developments I'm tempted to find
MS way ahead of FitCD: maybe more like Fit2Disc although I've only seen pictures of it.

4-I'd like to be able to freely choose on using any of these software.

5-GPL, BSD or whichever licenses don't mean much to me. I'm all for free software period. I don't care much
for it's license period.

6-I'd be really p***** off if this kind of argument would lead to the end of any of these software just because
it's author would feel offended which BTW is understandable.

6a-Based or not on somebody elses concept but not based anymore on it's code I'd never give my sources
to anyone period.

6b-Seeing so many resemblance between my proggy and somebody elses proggy I would (if in shh's place)
ask the other guy for proofs that it's not my work.

All summed up we can make some conclusions:
1-I don't know s*** about programing or licensing and hopefuly I can live from some other activity

2-Only shh and muaddib can work a way that nobody will feel like being robbed.

These are personal subjects.
So I think they need some other way to communicate outside the forum.
We have not much to do with their talking.
In the end I hope they can still be friends and that they don't stop developing wonderfull software that
help us so much everyday.
Cheers every1
__________________
Rui
Reply With Quote
  #10  
04-20-2004, 03:42 PM
glänzend glänzend is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 257
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Sorry but I still don’t understand,

I think this is just a MISSUNDERSTANDING...

In MHO “Shh” is asking muaddib to release a source code for something that is not under GPL, just as his code for his own program is not under GPL, and he is not giving that source code in his own words, “anymore”, and good for you "Shh", don't give out something that you are making a profit of, for anybody else to use.

Why should you?

Just don't ask anybody else to give out their secrets either, even if they are not profiting from their work.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
04-20-2004, 03:59 PM
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
sorry, i forgot to post important details:
I don't know shh in person I must admire his person and work!

I also admire muaddib's work and friendship!


i forgot someone or something?
oh yeah.....if who is wrong?
if who is right?
if yes.....if no.....maybe if....could be...but i think that.....is irrelevant.
your works are fantastics and it's create results not problems and fight.
join your work and creative power!
everybody knows who is who and what you did!!!!
or am i wrong?....maybe yes....maybe no....but if....maybe....
restarting the confusion?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
04-20-2004, 06:39 PM
marcellus marcellus is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Bucharest, Romania, GMT+2h
Posts: 73
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Since I discovered moviestacker it became "my" tool for bitrate calculations. So I am very gratefull to muaddib for making it and releasing it. As I understood this awesome tool was developed starting from shh's tool. So I think I owe shh too my gratitude. So, thank you both very much for giving us this "can't do without" tool.

That being said I have to emphasize how painfull is for me to see such an argument. But, painfull or not, I have to say my opinion.

To be short, all in shh's posts make sense. What doesn't make sense is bending the logic with aproximations like only x% is based on shh's code, how much moviestacker is better than fit2cd and so on. So be it. But to me GPL is very clear, the rest is "blow in the wind". And sorry being a selfish bitch but GPL is guarantee for me (as a lazy "non programing" skills user) that something free will remain free and not sold to me some day by m$ after adding some "fancy" proprietary code. This topic is well beyond moviestacker to accept any logic bending and subjective "taking sides".
Reply With Quote
  #13  
04-20-2004, 09:59 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 marcellus
To be short, all in shh's posts make sense.
marcellus,

Please read my previous post very carefully.

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #14  
04-21-2004, 05:05 AM
shh shh is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 23
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
glänzend> Is this because you are not getting enough profits

I'm not receiving as much donations for Fit2Disc, that it's something to be talked about. So "profit" wouldn't be the right word for that anyway.
But I know that that's not the fault of MovieStacker. I didn't get more when I started releasing Fit2Disc. The release of MovieStacker v2.x won't change this.
I wasn't talking about "money-profit" in was talking about the code. But I think I already made my point clear.

glänzend> Again, why should it be done in several weeks?

Time is something we can talk about.
With accepting part 2, I don't demand the release of muaddib's code. So this is a concession. But I'd like to have this fixed rather quickly.
I come to this time of several weeks just because of kwag's 3-5%.

> GPL unfair.

Again. The GPL is not unfair. Nobody need's to take code from the pool if he/she doesn't like to comply with the license.
It is a perfect license for projects to become big and good. It concentrates on the project (never to get destroyed or closed) not the programmers. Of course the "needs" of the programmers are placed back for that.

Jorel> accusation(s)

Please, these are no accusations! I don't like this discussion to go that way.
GPL-discussions can very easyly become flame-wars.
But regarding muaddib, you're right of course. Without his answer we could talk forever.

kwag> where are your sources for Fit2disc and for FitCD shh

Simple answer:
I'm the copyright-holder of my code. I can also release the code under other licenses. I'm not using other code, I'm using mine.
E.g. Tuxracer. It was (well still is) GPL until version v0.6. The later versions are closed-source.

rds_correia> Only shh and muaddib can work a way that nobody will feel like being robbed

Thank you.
I hope muaddib find's some time to answer, before this becomes an uncontrollable flame-war.

Best regards,
shh
shh(at)sysh.net
Reply With Quote
  #15  
04-21-2004, 07:59 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
@ shh
you wrote:
"Jorel> accusation(s)
Please, these are no accusations! I don't like this discussion to go that way. "

ok my friend this is what i mean too!
accusations take to flaming war!

see that i posted important details:
"I don't know shh in person I must admire his person and work!
I also admire muaddib's work and friendship! "
and
"if who is wrong? .....(etc).....is irrelevant. "

don't know about the general opinion but you and muaddib could think in that target,
like i posted:
your works are fantastics and it's create results not problems and fight.
join your work and creative power! "

this will change the "panorama" !


shh..i forgot:
don't need to wait "flaming war" from muaddib.
he is a magnific person, believe me!
he will "surprise" us all with his wise answers


...forgot # 2:
21- april is holiday in Brasil, maybe he don't came today!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
04-21-2004, 11:16 AM
marcellus marcellus is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Bucharest, Romania, GMT+2h
Posts: 73
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Moviestacker readme quote:
"
...
Copyright MovieStacker (c) 2003 Muaddib

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it
under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
at your option) any later version.
..."


GPL quote:
"...
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it
, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.

These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code
. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.
..."

So, it is Moviestacker released under GPL or not? How anybody "can" modify it if he doesn't have access to source? Reverse engineering? Or we are just playing with words? In case it really is GPL'ed anybody (not only shh) is entitled to demand to see the sources. It's a matter of principle. Hope Muaddib will have the same opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
04-21-2004, 11:55 AM
glänzend glänzend is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 257
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hello

Quote:
Originally Posted by shh
glänzend>
I'm not receiving as much donations for Fit2Disc, that it's something to be talked about. So "profit" wouldn't be the right word for that anyway.
But I know that that's not the fault of MovieStacker. I didn't get more when I started releasing Fit2Disc. The release of MovieStacker v2.x won't change this.
I wasn't talking about "money-profit" in was talking about the code. But I think I already made my point clear.
So sorry
But since in your site you can't download the program without the donation, I thought that was what you were talking about.



Quote:
Originally Posted by shh
...Time is something we can talk about.
With accepting part 2, I don't demand the release of muaddib's code. So this is a concession. But I'd like to have this fixed rather quickly.
I come to this time of several weeks just because of kwag's 3-5%
What does kwag have to do with anything?, pardon my ignorance
but it looks to me like you are making kwag to be performing some kind of arbitration, and I don't think that is so, is it? again pardon my ignorance


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shh
Again. The GPL is not unfair...
I respect that, only as your point of view, but I certaintly don't agree with it. Not that I have to, just giving MHO

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shh
... It concentrates on the project (never to get destroyed or closed) not the programmers. Of course the "needs" of the programmers are placed back for that.
Well, not really, you see, under said GPL you also have the choice of not doing anything at all, and not give out any work done, that would mean leaving FitCD as it was and burying MovieStacker, ofcourse this would be tragic because we would loose the valuable work that are both

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shh
Jorel> accusation(s)
Please, these are no accusations! I don't like this discussion to go that way.
GPL-discussions can very easyly become flame-wars.
But regarding muaddib, you're right of course. Without his answer we could talk forever.
Bravo good for you Shh, nobody wants that here, I'm sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shh
...Simple answer:
I'm the copyright-holder of my code. I can also release the code under other licenses. I'm not using other code, I'm using mine.
E.g. Tuxracer. It was (well still is) GPL until version v0.6. The later versions are closed-source.
This is true, you are the owner of YOUR code, and as such you can do anything you want with it, but in MHO you do not own muaddeib work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shh
...Only shh and muaddib can work a way that nobody will feel like being robbed
Maybe but I think we can all try to keep the discussion calm, and in a way for all of us to bennefit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shh
Thank you.
I hope muaddib find's some time to answer, before this becomes an uncontrollable flame-war.
Best regards,
shh
shh(at)sysh.net
Bravo again for those wishes, I'm sure he will answer you, in the meantime he can see what everybody else is thinking.
Ciao
Glänzend
Reply With Quote
  #18  
04-21-2004, 11:59 AM
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 marcellus
So, it is Moviestacker released under GPL or not? How anybody "can" modify it if he doesn't have access to source? Reverse engineering? Or we are just playing with words? In case it really is GPL'ed anybody (not only shh) is entitled to demand to see the sources. It's a matter of principle. Hope Muaddib will have the same opinion.
How about if we wait for muaddib's answer
I'm pretty sure a couple of solutions are already coming up

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #19  
04-21-2004, 12:11 PM
glänzend glänzend is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 257
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
buonasera

Quote:
Originally Posted by marcellus
Moviestacker readme quote:
"...So, it is Moviestacker released under GPL or not? How anybody "can" modify it if he doesn't have access to source? Reverse engineering? Or we are just playing with words? In case it really is GPL'ed anybody (not only shh) is entitled to demand to see the sources. It's a matter of principle. Hope Muaddib will have the same opinion.
How is it a matter of principle?, what is a matter of principle?,

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
How about if we wait for muaddib's answer
I agree, lets see, in the meantime we can try to express our opinions in a cool, calm, and collected sort of way.
Ciao
Glänzend
Reply With Quote
  #20  
04-21-2004, 03:03 PM
muaddib muaddib is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: São Paulo - Brasil
Posts: 879
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
WOW man... I swear I never thought that programming MovieStacker would end to this kind o thing. Every body here knows that I'm no professional programmer and just code MovieStacker as a hobby. Getting good feedback from the users is great, and that’s my only motivation to keep improving it. I never had thought about code rights and legal issues of GLP license. To be honest, I had not read GPL until this day, when I found this thread.

I just want to answer/clarify some points before anything else…


Quote:
shh> I meant hooking to external/proprietary code, but only if the GPL-program still works without the proprietary code. (what is not the case)
The last source, which is the FitCD part of MovieStacker is perfectly “compilable” and possible to generate the exe file. You just have to remove the external calls to my code. This is logical, because if the external code is not present then calling it it will generate an error.


Quote:
shh> Vidomi's program e.g. didn't work without the GPL-code so it was -well- dammed for that and later forced to release also their private sources.
shh> If one part doesn't work without the other, it's _one_ program, and according to the GNU GPL, this new extended program must also be under the GNU GPL (including sources).
I can compile and make work every bit of code that I didn’t release in the last source. It runs completely free from the code of FitCD.


Quote:
shh> Well, and I was also confused afterwords and didn't want to bug further, because muaddib later mentioned he wants to release the sources.
I did release it. The entire source that came from FitCD with all the modifications that I did on it. I thought that this was the correct thing to do, and this way I would be ok with the GPL license. Looks like I was sadly wrong.


Quote:
shh> The sources I received later were just half of the program.
Actually was less then that. But that was the entire (or the only) source code related to FitCD.


Quote:
shh> The readme writes, that the program (meaning the entire MovieStacker distribution) is released under the GNU GPL. (what is correct btw.)
I did it just because I thought that I need to say that in order to use your GPL code as base for my code. But I surely did not know that I would have to give away my new code made from scratch and completely not bounded to your code. As I said I did not worry about that until today.


Quote:
Quote:
kwag> #2) Remove all stray code from FitCd 1.03 for the next release of MovieStacker, which will make it "GPL Free", and he will choose whatever license he may want to
ssh> This is acceptable for me if:
ssh> - the following GPL-free version is released "quickly". Which should be done in several weeks, if FitCD's code part really is just 3-5%.
Why that? I have no rush. And even worst, I have no time. It takes me almost a year to update MovieStacker in order to be compatible with AVS2.5. You got to be kidding.

Quote:
ssh> - I have the possibility to look into the closed source to check if the GPL-parts have been removed.
You got to be kidding again!


Quote:
Quote:
kwag> I personally know that the code of FitCD left in MovieStacker is now less that 3-5% of the total magnitude of MovieStacker, so I think that it would be unfair to muaddib to release his proprietary sources.
How did you come to this conclusion?
Simple GUI comparisons show that the complete
- resizing core
- bitrate-calculation core
- GUI of resizing
- GUI of bitrate-calculation
- Option-saving core (ini)
are from FitCD. Also nearly all QuickHints are my typed words.
Well, kwag was a bit too optimist about how much of FitCD left. I did compare the sizes of FitCD source and MovieStacker source; I tell you that what is left from FitCD is less then 10% of it. And unfortunately I lost the original source of FitCD, so I used the source that already has my adding’s and modifications in the code.

About your “simple GUI comparisons” you are almost right, but not completely. In all those items there still something of FitCD (I never denied that MovieStacker was based on FitCD), but that stills just less then 10% from the entire code of MovieStacker. And I have added modifications, bug fixes and improvements in ALL those items. Changes that I would happily share with you, because those are modifications in the code of FitCD. But again, they still about 10% of MovieStacker’s code. The other 90% of code is a completely new code that has nothing with FitCD.


Quote:
ssh>It's easy to imagine what MovieStacker would be without these components.
Oh man… I’m really glad that you think this way! So there is no reason that you want to see my code, as all the relevant code (that’s your FitCD) you already have. Thank you!
So please, let me continue make my irrelevant code as just a hobby and not having to deal with all this sh*t about legal issues.


Quote:
ssh> Holding back the sources harms the whole community for which the sources were meant for.
Come on man… if you were so worried about the “community” then you’d not stopped giving them your code. You and everybody here know that’s not the problem.


Now I’ll try to speak very frankly and openly. I would like to keep my code for now. I don’t think it is fair to give it away, since it is a new code, done by my self from scratch, and is not bounded in anyway to the code or compilation of FitCD. When the day come that I have no more motivation to code it, and decide to stop coding, then I’ll sure give the full sources away so someone else could continue to improve it.

Now, with all that said, if you… and when I say you I mean only you. Don’t come with that talk about the “community” because that’s just bullsh*t. Again… if you still deeply want me to give you my “irrelevant” code. Then I’ll kindly think about sending it.


Best regards,
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 05:29 AM  —  vBulletin © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd