Has Mediacoder thread disappeared?

[BigDid]

Hi,

Unless mistaken I was following in the past 2 days a thread on the last 0.71 mediacoder rev.

It seems this free program has been modified and now includes an adware (or more) in the last version. The adware has been also noted by other sites and at least one french download site now points to an antepenultem version.

Does the wipe results of the OP will or from doom9 board?

I believe any information that can help the members evaluation of this tool is welcome hence this thread.

Did

[Dark Shikari]

Hi,

Unless mistaken I was following in the past 2 days a thread on the last 0.71 mediacoder rev.

It seems this free program has been modified and now includes an adware (or more) in the last version. The adware has been also noted by other sites and at least one french download site now points to an antepenultem version.Add to that the fact that it distributes software illegally (Both NeroAAC and mplayer are distributed in violation of their licenses) and it really does not belong on this forum, or for that matter, anywhere.

[Guest]

We don't want to be a marketing vehicle for a program that violates licenses and pushes unannounced adware. If the concerns are addressed, it could be welcome again.

[BigDid]

Hi,

So, I suppose the answer to my question ( has the forum board decided to wipe the thread?) is yes, it is the decision of the forum board /or moderators.

Thanks you for your answers.

Did

[deekey777]

Add to that the fact that it distributes software illegally (Both NeroAAC and mplayer are distributed in violation of their licenses) and it really does not belong on this forum, or for that matter, anywhere.

And the CUDA encoder has disapeared - due licence issues.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

And the CUDA encoder has disapeared - due licence issues.

Why is it that I'm not surprised? :rolleyes:

[gldblade]

Well, it's been a very long time since I've been on this forum :)

I'm curious, is Mediacoder still banned? From reading the FFmpeg issue tracker (http://roundup.ffmpeg.org/roundup/ffmpeg/issue1162), it seems that the author put in serious effort to become GPL-compliant, but the FFmpeg developers simply told the author to "Read the **** License" rather than list out the specific violations. That doesn't seem pleasant to deal with.

The author also made official statements here (http://blog.mediacoderhq.com/mediacoder-serious-statements/) and as far as I can tell, there aren't any major GPL issues.

So what's the current status of things?

[Dark Shikari]

Well, it's been a very long time since I've been on this forum :)

I'm curious, is Mediacoder still banned? From reading the FFmpeg issue tracker (http://roundup.ffmpeg.org/roundup/ffmpeg/issue1162), it seems that the author put in serious effort to become GPL-compliant, but the FFmpeg developers simply told the author to "Read the **** License" rather than list out the specific violations. That doesn't seem pleasant to deal with.The developers are not going to give free legal advice to someone who illegally rips off their product and sells it for $399 each. Someone who makes that much money illegally should be able to afford a lawyer.

It's very hard to expect people to show goodwill towards someone who has profited by ripping off their work, gloated about doing so, and generally treated the developers like complete crap at every possible opportunity.

Also, MediaCoder is still illegally bundled with x264, so the fact that it's violating the GPL hasn't changed; he merely removed ffmpeg from the bundle (and nothing else).

[gldblade]

Ah, I wasn't aware that they were charging money for it. I didn't see that when I was perusing the website.

I'm just curious since I only came across MediaCoder recently and someone was saying that the MediaCoder developer was trying to become GPL-compliant, but no one was telling him what exactly he was violating.

gloated about doing so, generally treated the developers like complete crap at every possible opportunity

I didn't really see this in the issue tracker I linked to. Was this done on the author's website/in now-deleted threads?

Also, MediaCoder is still illegally bundled with x264, so the fact that it's violating the GPL hasn't changed; he merely removed ffmpeg from the bundle (and nothing else).

Out of curiosity, if he stopped bundling x264 and other GPL-software, would this be acceptable?

[Dark Shikari]

Ah, I wasn't aware that they were charging money for it. I didn't see that when I was perusing the website.He charges $399 for a "Premium" version of Mediacoder--a commandline interface, I think.Out of curiosity, if he stopped bundling x264 and other GPL-software, would this be acceptable?If he didn't bundle any software for which he was incapable of obeying the licenses (not just GPL), it would be acceptable, but it would be preferable if he made an apology for his illegal behavior.

[samepaul]

He charges $399 for a "Premium" version of Mediacoder--a commandline interface, I think.If he didn't bundle any software for which he was incapable of obeying the licenses (not just GPL), it would be acceptable, but it would be preferable if he made an apology for his illegal behavior.

With all respect to you and your work I must disagree with you.

Mediacoder does not violate GPL/LGPL. According to GPL the author can freely redistribute GPL'ed executables. Since no GPL code used inside Mediacoder, it can stay proprietary software.
Regarding to payment - author wants money for his proprietary non-GPL software and it is his sole right to do that. Inclusion GPL tools in the package does not violate license as in GPL clearly stated that distributor may charge for delivery if he wants. Of course if he was selling just set of GPL'ed tools this would be illegal. But he sells his OWN tool. GPL tools come along free of charge ;)

It DOES violate Nero license, which prohibits redistribution at all, and RSL (Helix MP3 Encoder), which permits redistribution only for research purposes. And Mediacoder (even free version) is definitely commercial product, thus requires separate commercial license for Helix as well.
But I don't see how Nero and Helix make Mediacoder "GPL non-compliant" :)

ps: And responses on FFMpeg tracker are really unpleasant. I agree that it is not their duty to give free advices. But Stan didn't ask for advices. He asked to point out what exactly Mediacoder violates. And he deserves this answer from people who *accuse* him in violation.
Anyone can accuse anybody for anything. But if one accuses, he should prove his words and not just say "go f*ck yourself and read criminal code". The facts you mentioned in the issue are insufficient for such accusations.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

According to GPL the author can freely redistribute GPL'ed executables. Since no GPL code used inside Mediacoder, it can stay proprietary software.

Correct. But the violation, as far as I know, is (or at least was) that he distributes binaries of GPL'd software which contain custom patches. Patches he doesn't (didn't) make public.

But according to the GPL you must distribute the sources along with the binary or at least make them available on request!

Also he redistributed NVidia's GPU-encoder, initially without their permission. And he refused to reveal any information about it, making it appear like that encoder was his own work...

[samepaul]

Correct. But the violation, as far as I know, is (or at least was) that he distributes binaries of GPL'd software which contain custom patches. Patches he doesn't (didn't) make public.

But according to the GPL you must distribute the sources along with the binary or at least make them available on request!


I'm not aware that Stan refuses to share patches. On the tracker he was pretty eager to publish his diff...
Is there any thread/message where he was requested to publish sources of customized Mplayer and he refused?


Also he redistributed NVidia's GPU-encoder, initially without their permission. And he refused to reveal any information about it, making it appear like that encoder was his own work...
Well, he wrote DLL frontend. But seems that using NVCUDA SDK impose some limitation on the final product. Anyway, CUDA still has nothing to do with GPL.

However, I checked previous releases of Mediacoder and must admit, that original licenses (GPL/LGPL) were not included in package, thus making it sublicensing under arbitrary EULA. Which is illegal indeed... Good he fixed that too. Maybe we have chance to make him to transform Mediacoder to GPL as well? :D

[roozhou]

Maybe we have chance to make him to transform Mediacoder to GPL as well? :D
I am afraid never. MediaCoder used to be open-source, but it no longer is. In China there are hundreds of free but closed-source software which use OSS but do not follow GPL/LGPL, including the those produced by top SW companies. MediaCoder is just one of them. They make money from ads. Once they make their SW open-source, their code will soon be stolen by their competitors.

[lych_necross]

It's a shame that companies who violate GPL cannot easily be held accountable for their actions (especially in other countries). In addition to Chinese developers, I've also noticed Korean software vendors violating GPL on several occasions. Nicht gut.