@Prodater64
Yes, this seems to be the case IMHO :wink: .

Hey,

How do we know that is a fact since you did not say the first one had a part from someone else?(which it did BTW)

But you are saying that muaddib says he is not using your code anymore and he is not to be belived because you say so?, his word that your code is not there anymore is not enough?

I certaintly hope not. We have no reason why not trust muaddib's word.
Ciao
Glänzend

El problema compañero es levemente obvio, Shh despúes de un año de o mas de no aparecer en estos foros, ahora viene pidiendo el codigo de MovieStacker, esto evidentemente es para hacer un mejor programa para el.
Esta es mi humilde opinion.

Glänzend

For english speaking folks, and quoting Glänzend:

"The problem my friends, is fairly obvious. Shh, after one year being away from this forums, has come back to ask for Moviestasker's code, which obviously is for himself to make a better program.
This is my humble opinion"

end of quote.

-kwag

And that was your biggest mistake :!:
You treated a piece of code as public domain, without actually knowing what license it had, and you released your code as GPL.
And I'll say it agan: You used it in your sources, but you claimed that ALL sources are yours, and that's why you could change the license.
You see, your credibility is gone down the drain, for me, and probably for everyone reading this.
I'm sorry, but you say that you would sign a non-disclosure agreement :?:
Sorry, but I cant trust you AT ALL, after seeing the reality of what you said about your "original code" and the TRUTH about findings of other people's code in your source code.
If I were muaddib, my choice would be now VERY clear. Your license is unclear, it's NOT GPL, and I would just delete the sources posted on this site and recompile moviestacker.exe without any GPL references, and start to work on a "FitCD" code free base.
You got your credits mentioned, fair enough. No more, no less.
Again, you've opened a pandora's box by mentioning your source was original, when in reality, I can clearly see it's not, and who knows how many other functions and procedures you've "borrowed" from others.
Don't waste your time trying to get aroud this issue, because this issue is CLEARLY visible and documented in my post, referencing your source code. And I'm sorry to say this, but YOU broke the GPL license, when you added someone elses code, without actually verifying it's copyright origins.
So here's how it works (at least how I think it works). Because your work was before MovieStacker, and it's NOT a valid license (I can clearly see it that way), any derivate work that follows the same code base, also make MovieStacker INVALID as GLP :!:


-kwag

quoting the quote:
This is my humble opinion too!

this is an multilanguage thread, then.....in portuguese:

esta é minha simples opinião também :!:

means.....YEAH (middle universal language)!
clear?
:wink:

I will quote exactly what the link describes, which is exactly what we will comply to:

"Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to

organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you. "

Effective immediately, as it is (up to us) our decision (KVCD.Net/KVCD.Org) because we are an organization, the source code of MovieStacker has been removed from this site, and MovieStacker 2.1 (and future versions) will be released **ONLY** to members of this organization.
Any member of our organization who want's to use MovieStacker from our organization, and that means any registered user, must send a PM to me with the subject: "Request to use MovieStacker", and you will receive instructions to receive binary distribution of MovieStacker.
The PM will include a disclaimer, clearly stating that the program is for your private use, and can not be redistributed to anyone else.
This compiles 100% with the requirements of the GPL license, when used internally by an organization, as in this case.

Hope this will end further discussions, and may FitCD, Fit2disc and MovieStacker's developments continue in complete and separate directions, protecting the code of each developer.
The file will be available once muaddib recompiles the file and removes the GPL messages in the distribution. Credit will always be granted to shh, for the "very small portion" of code that is currently compiled in the current version of MovieStacker
After muaddib removes all traces of FitCD, and rewrites the small parts that are still from the original FitCD 1.03, then and only then, MovieStacker will be released under whatever choice muaddib wants to.

-kwag

I agree with Glänzend I think Shh is trying to improve his code with the much more superior MovieStacker which is now new and improved.

If I were muaddib I would not reveal my source.

The only reason I think he may do that is if he decides he no longer wants to work on MS and offers to make it open source for some1 else to work on, but I hope he doesnt do that and keeps working on this great tool. ;)

Yes… I feel that to.

Oh boy… my poor English made me read these words a lot of times to understand what you are saying. And I’m not sure if I get there.
Well, if you mean that when I include the GPL text with the distribution of MovieStacker I’m trying to force someone to comply to GPL but I myself do not agree with this license… for God’s Sake, that was NEVER my intention. I understand that in the end I did that… but again that was NEVER my intention.

Before I started modifying FitCD’s code, I was a user of shh program. Then there was this day when I cordially asked shh if he could resize the script log window (I think some of you remeber that), and he answered in a rough way… “Do it your self!” was his words. It’s a petty that those posts no longer exist since the FitCD forum was removed. Anyway, what I want to say is that I started to change FitCD’s code, encouraged by shh him self. And so I thought: the author told me to “do it my self” (and pointed me to the sources) so I’ll do it :!:

I did some small changes and released them to the KVCD community. I never worried about GPL, sources or anything else at that time. When I was packing the zip file to release my first modification, I see some texts in the FitCD directory, and there was one named Copying.txt. I opened it and there was the GPL text. That text had 340 lines of text! I would not have the time and motivation to read all that even if it was in Portuguese... so I read the first paragraph: “The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General PublicLicense is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software”

That was enough for me. I thought: This license does let me freely make changes. Great!
Well I never had released anything (talking about software) to the public, and I simply thought that if shh program had this text, then I have to keep it in my modifications too. So I leave it there and do not worry about it until today. Well, you can call it ignorance; you can call it stupidity; and I know that is no excuse, but I had no bad faith doing that. I never wanted to “hurt” in anyway your (or anyone else) rights. But I still not going to give out my own part of the code.

[edit] Just to make my self clear, by saying that I don’t mean that I don’t take the responsibility to my self. I mean that if I have to completely remove MovieStacker from download indefinitely in order to comply with GPL, so be it. [/edit]

MovieStacker is now removed from public download. Thus meet the terms of GPL.


I thought to read that you were kidding about “several” weeks! For my understanding, 10 weeks are several weeks. So you should be making a bigger joke! :wink: And just to clarify, what took me 12 months was modifying MovieStacker to be compatible with AVS2.5... and not “program all that” as you say.

But this “counting weeks” is just non sense to me :!: I told that I’m no professional programmer, and I code MovieStacker as a hobby, and when I enjoy doing it. I would NEVER sit in front my computer daily as an obligation and think “oh man, I have to rush with MovieStacker code because shh is waiting for it”. Sorry man, but that is just ridiculous for me and the way I live my life. I have a wife, 2 kids and a job that take almost every time of my day. Don’t expect that the little spare time that I have I’ll waste rushing with MovieStacker’s code. Forget it :!:

When I read this post I was going to remove MovieStacker from download indefinitely. And take the time I want to re-write the code. After that, and if I ever finish it, cause I don’t know if I have the motivation after all this discussion, I would release another version of MovieStacker. But look like kwag has found a better alternative.


I’m afraid not. You will have to trust my world and your eyes for that. Please don’t take me wrong here, because I do respect your work and I think you have done a great job with FitCD, but frankly, while coding MovieStacker I have read (and understood) your code so many times that I think I can do it without looking to a single line of your code.

Let’s look in those topics that you said there is still FitCD’s code:
- resizing core -> I have to say that IMO that’s the most beautiful part of your work. But it’s just math. It’s your implementation of course. But again, it is just math. I read and understood your logic in the code, and I will (if ever) make my implementation of it. But (of course) I can’t change math.
- bitrate-calculation -> again this is just math. There are thousands of bitrate calculators over there. Will you want to see the code of every one of them to be sure that it’s not FitCD code? I think not.
- GUI of resizing and GUI of bitrate-calculation -> well that’s the easiest part... for me to make, and for you to check. You don’t need to see my code for that.
- Option-saving core (ini) -> come on... that is basic delphi programming. You can read examples, that are pretty much the same you are doing, inside delphi’s help. And I already did lots of changes with the “filter-preset-saving core”.

The header reading/parsing is just a mater of information. I mean information about the header, in order to read/get the correct information :confused: . BTW, I see that you know about the problem about the way you were counting the flags of a D2V project, and that you fixed that in the last FitCD version. I just want to spot (though you probably already know that) that your AVI header readings has a problem when the AVI is an XviD. And this problem still persists in the last FitCD version 1.2.1.

So, I don’t see why you have to see my code. I will take my time and will re-write/remove the entire FitCD’s code.
And as this is the problem since the beginning of this thread, there is no logic doing it in another way.
May be this never happen (as I say), but if it happens will be with a totally new code.

I hope this is acceptable. :? :?:

muADdib can't post his source......and have an acceptable reason...
his source is his brain!
:wink:

@ muaddib

I do have a question that is slightly off-topic but its just out of interest really.

Did you use Delphi to make MovieStacker as I bought Delphi 7 a while ago and im messing about with it to try and make GUI Wrappers im also looking into PB as recommended by Kwag.

I really just want to know how good and powerful Delphi is for making GUI's i hear its a very powerful tool. :)

Muaddib, please be a little patient. I wrote the following before your answer, and want to post it before this is getting more and more uncontrollable. I like to answer to your words later.

rds_correia> When you wrote "Latest FitCD release" you surely meant "Latest FitCD GPL licensed", right?

Yes, of course.

rds_correia> Doesn't GPL mention that software based on GPL code is bond to have it's source code released too?

I already answered that. Glänzend pointed you to the answer afterwords.
Since I am the copyright-holder of my code I can release my code under any licence, because it is my intellectual property.
Releasing code under GPL doesn't restrict the creator, it restricts the ones who want to use it in some kind of way. The word "other" is making the difference. If software is based upon "other" GPLed sources.
I also gave the example tuxracer, where all versions until v0.6 have been released under GPL, but the latest versions are closed source.
This point is also handled in the FAQ.

Prodater64> Then, Does ssh want to enhance Fit2Disc with Moviestacker code

NO, of course not! And I don't know, why you all keep implying me this. :(
The sources aren't even compatible, because for Fit2Disc (and post FitCD v1.1.x) I rewrote many of the program-parts into classes.
People who know me longer also know, that I always stated not to go the way of MovieStacker (e.g. being a GUI for avisynth), when somebody asked me make a button for this of for that avisynth-filter. My words are still, that no GUI can cover the mightyness of avisynth so I don't even start instead of just basical functions.
Well and perhaps you thinking about the preview.
I could easyly include an interface for mpeg2dec.dll, or dvd2avi.vfp. That could enhance many things, but it would require me to release the sources of Fit2Disc. It would also be easier to implement a new interface compatible with my current stuff.
My border detection-procedure is also so good and fast, that I wouldn't drop it for some other. And since the upcoming FitCD/2Disc version also will come with intelligent colorspace-detection and -conversion (no need for rounder-adjustments), MovieStacker's sources would be even more incompatible.
But there's no "real" future for avisynth-GUIs anyway, since avisynth distributes one on the way. (which interfaces avisynth directly)

kwag> And that was your biggest mistake
kwag> You treated a piece of code as public domain ...

I'm sorry but if you argue this way you don't have much understanding of laws.
You also don't seem to read my posts and want to understand it falsely. :(
„Public domain“ is something that everybody can use. I'm not claiming the copyright for that code (as also visible quite well in the sources). Using public domain code in an open-source project is a quite common scenario. Many GPL-softs do use public domain code.
But it's also ridiculous to argue that my remaining then isn't under my copyright anymore or that the GPL doesn't count for that anymore, or that the whole license wouldn't count anymore.
There are several court decisions (in your country also) that the whole licence wouldn't be negated.
But since MovieStacker is based upon v1.0.5 this all is irrelevant anyway.

kwag> organisation

For an organisation that would count, but forums are treated as the public (what they are) such as newspapers.

Best regards,
shh

Well, the fact you didn't wanted to doesn't mean you didn't. You have to be more carefull in reading licenses next time.

FYI (it's fresh):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04...cence_germany/

This is sad. But is fair, no program is more important than GPL, even if for particular people is only bull-anything. That is not my business (and I couldn't care less), but limiting my rights is. I can't be bribed with a free program if that means sh*tting on a beautiful concept that open source is.

Hello

No, my friend let me clarify that one for you, first of all here is the meaning of the word organization:


So you see my friend, KVCD is an organization, the fact that all the members get everything for free, does not mean that KVCD does. KVCD does business in it own right and by its own rigth.

Also, Newspapers have an owner, everyone can read them, but not everybody can write for them, and they don't publish information without the authorization of the editor, who answers to the owner.

Forums are similar, this one in particular is the property of a person, it has moderators who monitor them, and they answer to the owner, EVERYBODY can read this, but not everybody can use it, you have to register, follow a process and then you are a member, therefore part of the organization.

And in this case is even more private that the newspapers or the magazines because, you have to be a MEMBER. What you write, not only has to be within the established rules of the forum, but it also has to be within the law,

You never see in this forum, a discussion of copying movies or anything that can be misconstrued as piracy, why? Because the owner of this forum is very adamant about that.

And as a member of the organization, if you do something that does not comply with the rules you are out. If by any chance the moderators do not BOOT you when they have to, for doing something against the policy of this forum, they have to answer to the owner.

So you see my friend this is an organization, and the work is distributed evenly... *or almost*

Also let me make this quite clear, EVERYBODY that belongs to this forum, is KVCD, we all have contributed with one thing or another, making this easier, better and safer for everyone else, that is why everybody can have their say, even is some of the other members don't agree with it, hence the term "organization"
We are all members of the organization.
Ciao
Glänzend

Thank you glänzend. I couldn't have said it better (you saved me a lot of finger stress) :mrgreen:
May I contract you for our legal consultations :?: :lol:

@shh,
I stand by our decision.

-kwag

HI ,i have been reading this thread for the last few days not understanding a word but would like to say to muaddib,although this is a big pain in the a*s I would hope you don't get discouraged from making and improving Moviestaker because it is an awsome program and i would be lost without it.


Thanx

@kwag
Well, apparently the pile of **** goes bigger with every post so I have to remove myself from this environment.

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". 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. I should consider them all as being "organizations"? 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. Take that opinion for a soon former member of your so called "organization" (as soon as I finish this post).

@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

:D Good riddance!

I didn't want to get involved into this, but I think it's needed. Let's get to the point: GPL requires the source of any work based on it to be released (seeing it in a very simplistic way). I won't discuss seeing the forum as a organization which is a very valid point of view, IMHO, and should end the discussion.

So muaddib would have to deliver his sources. OK, he made a mistake by using GPL'ed code and worked so much that the GPL'ed code is now 10% of MovieStacker. From what we have seen. he doesn't fell like releasing the source. So, because of GPL, we must push him into doing that. We blindly follow GPL and throw common-sense in the garbage. Fine. Let's say muaddib gets so pissed off with this thread that he decides that release the source and never write a line of code in moviestacker again. This way we all loose: muaddib won't be code MovieStacker anymore for fun, and we will have another great discontinued program. Well, at least someone could continue his work. Really? Who? How many programmers we actually have here in KVCD.NET? Few. Would they want to improve MovieStacker? Probably no, they have their own projects. On the other hand, muaddib already said that if he decideds to drop MovieStacker, he'll release the soure.

So here, enforcing the GPL is not a winning situation, is a situation where we all loose. The idea from shh and Marcellus seems to be: he used GPL'ed code! Doesn't matter if he's giving away as freeware! Doesn't matter how he feels about releasing his code! Doesn't matter that the GPL code used is less than 10% of MovieStacker and he doesn't care to share the code of this GPL-derived works! We blindly follow the GPL and to the hell with the rest. I don't see there such a need to act like that with someone that is giving a great program for free, a project that he spent a year developing the last version. So we must be resonable with him.

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.