AutoGK and the GPL

[stax76]

I'm a GPL coder at heard. While I cannot prove any GPL violation by AutoGK I just feel something ain't right. AutoGK is a frontend for almost exclusively GPL software and it uses the name of a very popular GPL application. As the author of a similar application I'm having a very strong assumption the author gained a lot knowledge by various GPL projects and used that knowledge for the application. Again, I cannot prove a GPL violation but I hardly believe any open source supporter respects this, at least not the ones that don't use the application and know what RMS means.

stax

[Carraway]

I seriously doubt that AutoGK contains any direct GPL violations. I also have no proof, but I've seen len0x react negatively to possible open-source (GPL or otherwise) violations in the past -- I'm thinking specifically of the IFO parsing code that was used for testing in pre-1.30 versions. Len0x said that he implemented the IFO code, which I can only assume was open-source, that he found on the web in order to test the internals of AutoGK early in its developemnt. Once the application was stable, he was quite vehement about removing it and refusing to re-implement it because it could cause "problems down the road" (or some quote to that same effect). So I assume that len0x feels the same way about any open-source code as he does about the IFO code. Doesn't prove anything really, but it does show that in the past he's been against having open-source code used in his program. In any event, I'm going to trust len0x on this one unless someone has proof of otherwise.

[Wilbert]

I never used AutoGK, but I always had the impression that AutoGK was a stripped (meaning the same but with less features) version of GordianKnot? Or is it totally rewritten?

[Doom9]

AutoGK has been rewritten from scratch.

as for the rest, that's better discussed in the thread started in the development forum.

[stax76]

I've examined AutoGK before I started this thread, there is no indication it links directly to a GPL library, ripped code 1:1 or something like that, there is nothing in it that is hard to implement like a decoder/encoder or something like this. Just wanted to let off my feelings about the application.

[Doom9]

Just wanted to let off my feelings about the application.You do realize though that you're almost starting a witchhunt, and your initial post basically insinuates that there's a hidden GPL violation somewhere in AutoGK.

For the rest, check my posts in the development forum.

[stax76]

your initial post basically insinuates that there's a hidden GPL violation somewhere in AutoGK.


maybe it could be understood like this, it wasn't my intention however, which parts do you mean?

[Doom9]

While I cannot prove any GPL violation by AutoGK I just feel something ain't right.
Again, I cannot prove a GPL violation butThat means.. there is a violation but I cannot prove it. Why bring up GPL violations in the first place, and twice, if you do not think there's one.

[stax76]

sorry for didn't make this clearer, I should have said "there is no indication" instead of "I can't prove", with "I just feel something ain't right." I didn't mean I suspect a violation, I meant AutoGk don't fit to my morals regarding open source.


Why bring up GPL violations in the first place, and twice, if you do not think there's one.


actually I said that to make clear this thread is not about a possibly violation, unfortunately it was understood as the opposite

[Carraway]

Originally posted by stax
actually I said that to make clear this thread is not about a possibly violation, unfortunately it was understood as the opposite

My apologies if I misunderstood what you wrote.

To clarify, was your intention to simply note the ethical dubiousness of having a closed-source application that relies almost entirely on open-sourced GPL software?

[stax76]

It's more a accumulation of different facts and assumptions. I'm not assuming a GPL vioaltion, other things that don't make me happy.

[mrdutchie]

Stax.... why don't you just buzz off..... :devil:

[len0x]

Just got back from a couple of days of vacation and found this fantastic thread :) Isn't this just what every developer wants to see? :) I'm glad things got clarified but to be honest I don't understand: why would anyone who uses free tools with his own free tool would want to even look at the sources of those auxiliary tools if they do the job he requires already? I see no benefit for AutoGK in knowing how Avisynth, DGIndex or VDubMod works...

P.S. And yes AutoGK is not based og GK's source code, although I was developing GK for 10 month before started AutoGK project, so obviously I gained a lot of knowledge during that period. Actually I wanted to simplify GK first, but its source code is so non-flexible and complicated so I prefered to write everything from scratch (and in fact AutoGK and GK has nothing really in common now, apart from extrenal programs that they are using, in a different way...)

[len0x]

Originally posted by stax
other things that don't make me happy.

Lets hear them! Anything to do with milestone development? (noone was saying anything before that) If so, then please don't start this again as we already got the portion of "Lets don't waste any more time on AutoGK" from darksoul71.

[Doom9]

Lets hear them!He actually did.. it's about using the Gordian Knot name, and AutoGK's 3rd party software being mostly open source. Though by the same token, he'd have to object to dvd2svcd or besweet and the likes. Since there are so many tools that are concerned, I don't get how there can possibly be a problem.

And as far as the name goes, I'll dig up TheWef's email and ask him.. if he does not object, everybody else should give it a rest, too.