Free-codecs.com violates the GPL (now corrected!)

[neuron2]

http://www.click-now.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3089

[Sirber]

Did they modify it? If not, IIRC they are not obligated to release the source, since it's your unmodified source.

[neuron2]

It doesn't have to be modified. If they distribute the binary, they have to offer the source.

[celtic_druid]

They are obliged to provide source when asked. That is my understanding anyway. I don't have source on my site, since most is just built from publically available source, but I will provide it to anyone who asks. If there were numerous requests, then I would just add source to everything. Fact is that no one has really asked for source anyway and I have provided patches to any modifications that I have made to anything.

What about VSO? I asked for the source of avcodec, etc. since they have modified it and a stock build won't work here with ConvertXtoDVD. The reply was that it simply wasn't availble. It since occured to me that since they have enabled liba52, etc. that it is GPL and not LGPL. So since ConvertXtoDVD doesn't run without avcodec.dll, that would make the entire app GPL right? If they hadn't enabled any GPL components then that would make avcodec/format LGPL, so the rest of their app would be safe and they would only have to provide object files to modifications, not actual source.

[neuron2]

No, they have to explicitly offer the source code. It's quite clear in the GPL.

Please don't confuse this by bringing in other cases and different licenses. I want to keep this focused on Free-Codecs.com to encourage them to comply. Thank you.

[check]

it's always dissapointing when this happens - adding sources would be incredibly easy for them. What reasons did they offer for not hosting the sources? They could surely not be space or bandwidth, or even time issues...

[neuron2]

"For God's sake we don't have a developers' community here!"

"we can't link to source code because our site isn't oriented to software developers"

They refused me a simple link labeled 'Get the source code here' that would point to my source code ZIP or to my home page. After I sent them the relevant part of the GPL license, they are now ignoring all further emails from me.

This site just links free tools to draw people so they can get ad revenue. I wouldn't mind it if they would play by the rules.

[celtic_druid]

With a bit of thoughtful design I'm sure they could avoid all the complaints from people downloading the source instead of the binary and complianing because they can't get it working.

Guess I'll set aside some time tonight to package and upload the source for everything on my site. Lead by example and all of that.

[neuron2]

That would be good of you. Or just put a generic statement offering it.

The design there already allows for minor links at the bottom under a heading "Notes", and they have done it for some others but not with a text like "source code here". It's things like "if you have problems with this software, go here", which leads to the author's web site. I don't want that, I want compliance with the GPL, i.e., offer the source code.

[berrinam]

I don't know what it was like before, but http://free-codecs.com/download/DGMPGDec.htm now has a link under the Notes section:

- If you are developer and need the source code, you can get it from here. <This links to your site>

[neuron2]

Ah, it seems the power of Doom9 has had its intended effect!

I salute the Free-Codecs.com team for supporting the open source community. :)

I've updated the title here and edited my posts to tone them down a bit.

[fccHandler]

I'm afraid this is like that whack-a-mole game. There are a ton of sites offering downloads of GPL software which do not offer the source. This is especially true of VirtualDub and modified versions. It would be a full time job to pester them all... :(

[Sirber]

I bundle several GPL app with RealAnime and I do not post the source with them. Would be mad to include the sources of ffdshow, mpc, avisynth, x264, mkvtoolnix, mp4box, etc. ;)

[unmei]

Wouldn't for something like RealAnime be enough to put a well visible text on the download page along the lines of "includes compiled binaries of OSS X,Y and Z whose sources can be obtained from X.net/downloads, Y.org and Z.moo" ? It would make that clear while keeping your main package clean of subfolders that confuse end users.

[fccHandler]

You need not bundle the source yourself, unless you modified it. But you're supposed to offer some means for people to obtain the source. I think linking to the home page complies.

[Sirber]

I could add all taht info in the about form, when I make it.

@unmei

The end user shouldn't have to play with what I bundle and where I put it, else they charge back to me and complain coz they broke it :)

[dragongodz]

getting slightly back on topic i checked out if they had QuEnc 0.70 aswell yesterday. they do and also do not give a link to source code or anything. so i emailed them asking they add a link in "notes". hopefully they will comply with that aswell.

does make a person wonder how many other GPL programs they have that they havent bothered to give a source/homepage link for.

[CruNcher]

aren't the guys from radlight are behind free-codecs.com ?