DVDDecrypter – Deceased ! Who´s next ? What to do ?

[Darksoul71]

Dear all,
it´s really sad to hear that Lightning UK has been forced to stop development on the famous DVDDecrypter. This tool has "earned" a place on my PC. Not solely for DVD Ripping purposes but mainly for burning and verifying ISOs. I can fully understand Lightning to cease development because it would cost his money and energy to continue the development and risk a law suit.

Once again this issue has raised my attention to a sad fact: Most freeware authors tend not to release the source code of their work. IMHO that is actually a bad thing. Why ? I´ll try to explain:
Once in a while we see applications staggering in development (e.g. when have we seen the latest update to DVD2SVCD, DVDShrink, etc). While the reasons for this are mostly fully understandable (the author of the program just doesn´t have the time any more, needs to earn money for a living), the reasons for not releasing the source code are mostly not obvious for me.

Software puts you as the author in a unique position compared to all other "physical" things we deal with every day: You can share your work with others without really giving something away ! Try sharing your car with thousands of other peoples and you get the picture. Now back to the reasons for "I don´t want to release my source code". To put it frankly: For me most of those reasons sound pretty ridiculous.

Just to name a few reasons I´ve heard and my comments:
"I´m not releasing the source code because some evil company could take my sources and include them in a ripping tools and sell them".
Comment: Well, would this hurt you ? No ! At least only in a moral aspect. You can be still confident and proud of your work. Even if this would suck, I guess you have still learned a lot during coding and I, personally wouldn´t care, if someone takes my sources for payware. If you have a problem with the financial aspect of selling a part of your work, I would suggest you sell either licenses of your code or sell the application itself (at least if you are confident enough that your work will pay off).

"I don´t want other peoples to see my ugly code !"
Comment: Well, if someone else doesn´t like your code, he should shut up and go on building his own application in what he calls "non-ugly" code. Personally I would rather like having a look at ugly code to see and learn how someone solved a problem instead of solving / developing everything new from scratch.

Ask yourselves, fellow developers:
Haven´t you learned a lot by looking at the code of other peoples ?
Wasn´t there often a small code segment / snippet from the source of another programm or someone sent you, that saved you fifty hours of work ?
Didn´t you experience problems where you wished to have a closer look into how Program <A> or <B> solved this ?

If you answer one or more questions with yes, then you should think about releasing your code if you haven´t already done so.

Want an example how open source could easily generate a new great application ?
Well, take the import module of AutoGK, mix this with the great resizing of FitCD, add a few drops of DVD Mastering with DVDAuthor, muxing with MPLex and burning with DVDDecrypter (or Nero) and there you have a good alternative to DVD2SCVD. All it would require would be the sources of AutoGK.

The source code release of DVD2SVCD could result in a new build which incorporates the RobShot-Bach-Functionality of DSBoba plus better resizing based on the FitCD sources ?!?

Please be aware that I don´t think that every freeware developer "owes" us his code. It´s the right of every individual to decide wether to release the sources or not.

Nevertheless, I tend to compare open source with a river head and the lifecyle of projects as the flow of the river. Some rivers never reach the sea (-> the project dies because of lack of interest, whatever), where as other rivers reach the sea and grow bigger. Does this metaphor match ? I think so, because without river head (read: Open Source) the river will never flow !

Sincerely yours,
D$

[Sirber]

good points.

IMHO, people seems to want the source just when the software is stopped being developped. No one help programming living projects. When others do the updates for ya... :)

Note: not talking about codecs ;).

[unskinnyboy]

Good post! Hopefully this will start off a healthy debate and change some minds. :)

When DVDDecrypter went down, the first thing which crossed my mind is this - Who's next? and my mind said AutoGK (God forbid), because that is indeed the next popular closed-source but free popularware and in the eyes of the 'Powers-that-be', another 'partner in crime' in piracy (!@#%). To add to the mess, len0x is also based out of UK, doh! I shiver at the thought of AutoGK being taken down, even though I am not a 'user' per se. I am concerned for the many thousands who use it. If only len0x would consider all these and release the source...It need not be like GordianKnot, as a SF project with a CVS, and it need not even be for every beta, but at least if the code was available for the last stable, someone could carry the torch and never let the flame die, should anything/anyone threaten len0x. :(

@Darksoul71, One thing which I disagree to, is that fact that you took the issue of some evil company commercializing your code very lightly. I would be very very pissed if that happens to me, because they are cashing in on my sweat & blood and I am not a rich person. And I am also pretty sure we don't have many millionaires in here writing open source code! The current laws protecting GPL (if any) are very weak and do nothing to help the impoverished developer (look here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=93615) for a typical situation). That has to change. Till then, just this fact should be enough to make any developer hesitant in releasing his code.

[Darksoul71]

@Sirber:
No one help programming living projects. When others do the updates for ya...
At least from my perspective I can provide aonly speak for myself, I can provide at least one counter example:
I contacted TheWef one or two years ago and offered him my VirtualDub-Cutpoint-Import Function for use inside GKnot.
Additionally I guess closed source doesn´t really invite people. Again solely speaking for myself, I wouldn´t even think about helping out a project before I can have a look at the source code in order to judge wether my skills are sufficent to participate anything to this project.


@unskinnyboy:
One thing which I disagree to, is that fact that you took the issue of some evil company commercializing your code very lightly.
Hm, agree ! May be this wasn´t a good example. This just came to my mind because of a discussion with Lenox over in the AutoGK Forum.

-D$

[Nematocyst]

I can see why people might want to keep the source closed. For one thing, unless you are totally sure that it will remain free, it makes some sense to keep the source closed-- you hurt your own ability to make money otherwise.

While it is true that all code is born with a copyright, it is extremely difficult to enforce (read detect) against those who steal your code once you open it up, no matter what sort of restrictions you place on its use.

You lose control of the code once you open it up. Sure, you can run the project, but if people don't like your standards, they may end up with their own open-source tree which eventually diverges greatly from yours. They may use more risky coding styles, introducing bugs, or whatever.

Not that open-source is bad, mind you. I'm just saying there are some valid reasons for keeping it closed. Certainly open-source has its advantages too, especially when the project is a likely target for extermination by "some company."

[dwflo]

Open scource has many advantages. The best example I can give is Linux. Seems no one worries about "their code", they all improve on what someone else had done.
Could greed be a factor here?

[dwflo]

Hey Nematocyst,
Noticed your location...greetings neighbor. I'm off Tramway and Central

[Gurm]

I was just having this very discussion with my wife and a couple friends - closed source freeware makes precious little sense... ESPECIALLY when it's freeware that is on the "most wanted" list of the "powers that be".

I mean, if you write a nifty little freeware app that resizes GIFs, that's one thing. But when your program is "illegal" according to the DMCA and similar laws worldwide... then you need to consider that ONE of these days, someone is going to send you a C&D.

People who swipe your code? That's what lawsuits and copyright were invented for. And you don't even have to make it fully "open source". Just release your source in a ZIP file once in a while, make sure that a couple people on different continents have access to it... use some common sense.

If I were writing a program that did something that the MPAA considered "dodgy", I'd be damn sure to make sure my hard work didn't go up in smoke if/when they sent me a C&D.

I think it's a "control" issue, honestly. Or maybe LightningUK! always sort of thought maybe he'd make it shareware someday. Or maybe he was waiting to see how the wind blew. Who knows?

[ukb008]

Definitely. Why elso would one hang on to the code of what is a freeware? Many commerciallyl successful softwares (e.g., TMPGEnc) started that way. A successful freeware has a definite commercial potential, no question about it. Look at AGK - recent time's freeware phenomenon. The code's not been released. Of course, len0x is careful regarding legal implications, that's why he hasn't included a ripper/decrypter in his setup bundle; but with these legal blokes (most lawyers don't recognize code from gibberish typed by a monkey) you never know.

Read Doom9's newspage for the latest on DVDDecrypter issue. Here's what he wrote:

Finally, since I was "blessed" by an official information email that the company that shut down DVD Decrypter development demanded be sent, I can let the cat out of the bag: it's not the MPAA, it's not Sony as initially rumored. It's Macrovision - the company that has given the world video signal corruption since the 1980's. The email states that we're dealing with a case of copyright infringement, which I find hard to believe. On a DVD, there is no Macrovision signal. There is a flag in the bitstream that tells your player to turn on the signal that screws the automatic gain control on your VHS recorder, and DVD Decrypter can remove that. But it's not like DVD Decrypter is the only program to do that, there are a great many programs out there, some of which cannot even decrypt DVDs, that can remove the Macrovision flag. And it's not like the flag matters when you make digital copies, you could simply keep it. For instance if you're creating a DVD±R from a store bought DVD, if you don't touch the flag, you couldn't make a VHS copy of your DVD copy.
I'm unaware the DVD Decrypter would be able to add the Macrovision flag to a ripped video. That would be something else since in order to use Macrovision ACP, you have to pay a license fee, and without paying it, you'd be committing some sort of violation (likely a patent violation since ACP is patented). And Macrovision has sued at least one other company over this issue in the past: 321 Studios. That case didn't go to trial because 321 Studios eventually shut down operations under pressure from a previous lawsuit by the MPAA. And as far as the DMCA is concerned, a simple bit in a stream cannot possibly be considered an effective copy protection mechanism as defined under the DMCA, unless you have no idea about technology (obviously most lawyers fall into that category). This is even more laughable than using ROT-13 "encryption" (and still, ROT-13 was used as "encryption" by Adobe).

[Shinigami-Sama]

well I"m sure lightness send "cpoies" of the source to a few friends by now so it might not be comptley dead after all ;)

[Gurm]

well I"m sure lightness send "cpoies" of the source to a few friends by now so it might not be comptley dead after all ;)

He may not have. Part of the agreement with Macrovision was that he has to appear to be acting in good faith in regards to curtailing his activities. Another copy of DVD Decrypter popping up would be very bad for him. :(

[Shinigami-Sama]

wow I maimed that posts something good, no more late nights for me
of course it wold be under a differnat name, and country, but you;re probaly right