Program sources, please?
 

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

Re: Program sources, please?
 

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

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

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 :arrow:
"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

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

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?


Again, why should it be done in several weeks?
why the pressure, is it because of money,
sorry, I just don't understand :oops:


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 :oops:

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?

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
:arrow: ...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!
:wink:

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: Don't you think so shh :?:
-Karl

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 :wink:

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

Sorry but I still don’t understand, :oops:

I think this is just a MISSUNDERSTANDING... :roll:

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. 8)

sorry, i forgot to post important details:
I don't know shh in person I must admire his person and work!
:wink:
I also admire muaddib's work and friendship!
:wink:

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? :?

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".

marcellus,

Please read my previous post very carefully.

-kwag

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. 8O

Best regards,
shh
shh(at)sysh.net

@ 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:
:arrow: your works are fantastics and it's create results not problems and fight.
join your work and creative power! "

this will change the "panorama" !
:wink:

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
:wink:

...forgot # 2:
21- april is holiday in Brasil, maybe he don't came today!
:wink:

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.

Hello

So sorry :oops:
But since in your site you can't download the program without the donation, I thought that was what you were talking about. :oops:



What does kwag have to do with anything?, pardon my ignorance :oops:
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 :oops:


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 :oops:

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 :bawl:

:ole: Bravo good for you Shh, nobody wants that here, I'm sure.

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. :oops:

Maybe but I think we can all try to keep the discussion calm, and in a way for all of us to bennefit

:ole: 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

How about if we wait for muaddib's answer :?:
I'm pretty sure a couple of solutions are already coming up ;)

-kwag

buonasera

How is it a matter of principle?, what is a matter of principle?,

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 8)

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…


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.


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.


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.


Actually was less then that. But that was the entire (or the only) source code related to FitCD.


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.


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. :wink:

You got to be kidding again! :D


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.


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.


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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

bye
marcellus

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

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

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

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

I hope this debate can be drawn to conclusion soon.

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

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

Good for both of us Michael :)

Wise words buddy :)

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

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

Hola

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


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

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

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

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

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

-kwag

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

this GPL laws are internationals?
:?
please, post the answer (i repeat, i really don't know)

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

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

:!:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

bye
marcellus

WOW!!!
 

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

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

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

Cheers!,
-kwag

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

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

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

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

Are you sure! 8O Because while I was reading your post, I was thinking: Man, this guy must be a lawyer... :wink: :wink:

Cheers!,

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

@muaddib,

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

-kwag

It sure does! 8O

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

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

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

bye
marcellus

Hallo


I agree with you there.

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

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

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

Auf Wiedersehen
Glänzend

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this acceptable? :?

Best regards,
shh
shh(at)sysh.net

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

@shh
Hi shh,
When you wrote "Latest FitCD release" you surely meant "Latest FitCD GPL licensed", right?
I have freeware FitCD v1.2.1 installed on my PC.
BTW when I wrote that I forgot to mention also Fit2Disc.
It is based on FitCD source code, right :?:
Doesn't GPL mention that software based on GPL code is bond to have it's source code released too?
In such assumption anyone could ask you for Fit2Disc sources.
If Fit2Disc is not based on FitCD sources, and that's a reason for not releasing it's sources, prove me that I'm wrong.
@all
Anyway, I don't really care about this whole issue anymore and I don't want to be part of this discussion anymore.
For both code writters (muaddib and shh) please understand that no matter my feelings for this discussion I am very gratefull for your work.
It would be a really different encoding world without your tools 8) .
In such sense I'll leave you all until this matter is solved.
Hope both code writters can come to an agreement very soon.
I'll come back though when the matter is settled to see it's outcome :wink: .
Cheers every1

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