Please help me with suggestions about a GPL violation

[rds_correia]

Originally posted by Wilbert
I get a bit tired of you.


Quote the relevant lines of his post you are talking about here. Don't quote his whole post, because most of it is not about the subject.


He posted his frustration about the way he thinks he is treated in this forum. You don't seem to get the difference.


That's not very relevant is it. Btw, one thing is not clear to me. Did muaddib release the sources of MovieStacker v1.1.0 when shh asked for it one year ago? If not, why not?

You are only telling half of it. Shh also agreed that it was ok if muaddib replaces the relevant lines (within a few weeks). That shouldn't be too much work.
Hi Mr. Wilbert,
Sir I'm sorry I give you so much trouble, here.
1-So Jorel is only guilty of getting off topic and he is already warned that his post may be deleted? Do you call that fair? Some have done so many remarks here that ARE off topic for this subject but because they are relevant/regular members of this forum they don't get the warning?? Can you elaborate on this, please?
2-Oh I do Sir, I do get the difference and I know the rules here pretty well.
I am aware that my posts can be deleted just because they are off topic, Sir. But I also understand that it doesn't aplly to all here.
3-Relevant or not it is my opinion.
Muaddib released only the "modified" FitCD sources. His propietary code, the one he created from scratch, was never released.
He is not a professional programmer and a few weeks to erase FitCD's GPL code seems to be out of the question for him.
Anyway Mr. Shh asked for the sources even if Mr. Muaddib erases GPL code. You can say that it's fair to ask that under the law/license but not surely not as comon sense.
If after removing GPL code from MovieStacker Mr. Shh doubts from Mr. Muaddib word on it he must proove it still has GPL code, period.
Again this is my opinion on the subject and the last posted here.
If others want to share with us their opinion they can do it at Kvcd with us.
Don't expect to see much more posts from me on this subject.
I am now running many tests on too many things at the same time ;) .
Regards to all.

[Wilbert]

1-So Jorel is only guilty of getting off topic
And you keep continuing putting words in my mouth I didn't say and didn't imply. Reread my first post on this page.

[rds_correia]

Originally posted by Wilbert
And you keep continuing putting words in my mouth I didn't say and didn't imply. Reread my first post on this page.
Hi Mr. Wilbert,
I wasn't going to post anymore here, but I must answer your post.
I'm sorry if you feel that I'm putting words in your mouth.
Which ones? The "guilty" word?
That word was used by me and I never intended it to be understood as a word used by you.
One is "guilty" of breaking a forum rule once in a while.
I reread your post but I had already noticed that you did ask for civilized posts here.
Others haven't and I am grateful you did sir.
So I am assuming that, at least from now on, language and manners will be under surveilance here.
In such sense, and since I've made my point perfectly clear on this issue, I feel that I'll leave it as it is and come back in a couple of days to read some more posts.
Until then you can all find me at KVCD.
Regards to all

Rui

[Wilbert]

No. What I meant was

All Jorel is doing (probably not on purpose) is setting up our forums to each other by posting that post in this thread. He is not the only one, both parties are guilty. This is not a problem between our forums, and I hope we don't turn it into that. It's a problem between shh (and the opensource community) and muaddib.

[MfA]

Shh, there just isnt a lot you can do ... unless you want to sue him. You could try to turn this question into an "Ask Slashdot". If you do be sure to include a link to this wonderfull example (http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3044) of these people's use of GPL software (I hesitate to say it, obviously nothing they say about licensing holds much water, but this is quite obviously not the intent of the license (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF) and semantic quibling would not save you in a court of law ... binary modules arent distributed with the kernel, that is why they are exempt, not because of the abstraction).

Shaming them as publicly as possible is the best recourse open to you, and slashdot is a good start.

[dragongodz]

if people want to go to my last post i say how it could have easily been handled with no dramas but the fact is it wasnt. seeing how people that posted in the kvcd thread have also posted here and seeing how they have attacked and insulted i can sadly see why it wasnt.

I am aware that my posts can be deleted just because they are off topic
if you have been reading here for so long then you know fully well that is one of the rarest things to happen. the norm is for people to be asked to please stay on topic. posts are only deleted as a last resort when someone is delibretly being nasty and trying to start a fight, well thats my experience. compare that to the thread on kvcd where accusations and insults are thrown at shh without any just cause some time.

He is not a professional programmer and a few weeks to erase FitCD's GPL code seems to be out of the question for him.
and theres where the "reasonable time" could have been worked out by maudib talking to shh. instead kwag suggested 14 months and maudib went along with that. that is NOT a reasonable time(especially considering they say there is so little code to change) and it is NOT up to them to decide/dictate what is.

Anyway Mr. Shh asked for the sources even if Mr. Muaddib erases GPL code. You can say that it's fair to ask that under the law/license but not surely not as comon sense.
well shh can ask but maudib doesnt have to no. i dont see why you have a problem with that. it seems you are making a bigger deal out of shh daring to ask if he could see proof than is warranted.

It is my belief that GPL (after reading a bit more of it) needs all our help in order to be seen credible in a court of law.
may i suggest you read the story where the GPL has already stood up in a german court of law ? so your statement is incorrect, GPL HAS been seen credible in a court.

Please take in account that shh also took code that he didn't know which license was it using and incorporated it in his proggy.
jeez you guys like repeating that dont you ? AGAIN i say(just as shh already did on kvcd thread) that he also REMOVED that code ages ago. so you are just proving shh does know how to do the right thing. well done. :eek:

and as a final nail, Neo Neko and i have basically the same opinion on this subject. :eek: :D

[adam]

I had a long discussion with my intellectual property professor today about this. I must say, he literally laughed out loud when I mentioned the "organization" arguement, but anyway here's what he said and I'm proud to say that its what I was thinking all along, though obviously these are only our personal opinions.

There's really only a few relevant facts.

1) Fitcd is licenced under GPL.

It doesn't matter if Shh's sole reason for argument is so he can sneak a peak at MovieStacker's code. It doesn't even matter if any of his software itself violates GPL or any other public or private license. If it does then that grants THAT license holder a cause of action against him. His software was released under GPL, so its provisions apply to its distribution, period.

2. Moviestacker contains at least some portion of Fitcd's code

This was admitted. It makes no difference how much code is used, if it uses anything at all then you have to abide by the terms under which it was released.

GPL licenced code is being distributed publicly, vis-a-vis Moviestacker, and GPL requirements aren't being followed

The author admits that he isn't following GPL so the only question is whether this qualifies as public distribution. My professor said that even a public internet forum could easily qualify as a private organization, but that its fact driven. If anybody over a certain age with an internet connection can join then it clearly fails the "exclusivity test," apparantly enough so to elicit laughter.

Therefore Shh has some cause of action, insofar as GPL itself is enforceable

GPL has been enforced before, so its possible he could obtain an injunctive order or sue for damages. GPL licenses have even been upheld in the United States under common law doctrines, though admittedly moreso for trademarks then copyrights. But sorry Shh those are your only rights without a court order. You have no right to see MovieStacker's source code even if you sign a non-disclosure agreement. They don't have to show you anything without a court order.

So basically, this was our advice to you. By law he really has to remove the offending code, assuming there is any. You could sue right now if you wanted to, but reasonably you should give him some time to comply. So wait maybe 3 weeks to 1 month. If you still suspect a violation then you will have to obtain a court order to see the source code or, if you have enough evidence without access to the source to prove a violation, then you may be granted an injuction outright. Yup these things cost money. Unfortunately, I think your hands are probably tied.

[avih]

perhaps the kids can close this issue in a friendly matter? i think some ppl have climbed a higher than they wished tree, it might be the right time to offer the ladder.

get on an irc/icq/whatever chat. play nice. imho, nobody is trying to rip anyone else.

my $0.02

avih.

[MfA]

After the length of time this has gone on?

Anyone looking for loopholes to abuse the trust of someone providing him with free source code is already trying to rip someone else. Kwag is openly admitting he does this ... Im willing to cut muaddib some slack, he probably didnt know what he was doing at the start and once it was done believing kwag's soothing words was a lot easier than remedying the situation, but as long as he is listening to him he is unlikely to be reasoned with.

kwag has dug himself in so deep that changing his mind would take extrordinary courage, he admits to routinely using GPLd source in commercial projects ... and justifies this with fancifull interpretations of the GPL (avoiding the moral question along the way).

[avih]

he will find the courage if we let him.

[Mug Funky]

okay... i haven't read page 2 of this thread yet.

@ rds_correia:

sorry if i offended you. you are free to tell me of the location of my head.

however, i stand by the FUD remark - Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, coined back when IBM ruled the IT world. remarks intended to cause unease about a product, whether warranted or not...usually not, as is so in the case of this GPL discussion - it's a beautiful arrangement, and i'm sad that KVCD has not fully embraced it's beauty - making software free and keeping it free. when i say "free" i mean it literally, not just in the sense that it doesn't cost anything. free means you can take out its guts and see how it works, use it in your own projects, etc. of course this freedom comes at the price of having to respect it and release what changes you make, for the greater good of the community.

free isn't just "wow, i got something really cool and didn't have to pay for it!"

there are sticky threads here about how to properly accept a gift - something we should all read.

as far as my comments going unpunished by the mods and your fear of not being treated well for having a dissenting opinion and standing up for your friend, well all i can say is we're really not like that here.

there's certainly "3 strikes and you're out" here, and it counts for everyone here. i'm mindful of that, and took care to not write anything i considered very bad. but i'm bound to offend people if i have an opposing view.

the trick is to let go of your prejudices and accept what people have to say. that goes for everyone. i read and considered everything said in the kvcd thread, but where i stand hasn't changed... why?

because the GPL and similar public licenses are far too valuable to be toyed with. i feel that people who violate these licenses knowingly are nothing more than committing plagiarism, which is not only completely uncreative, but actively works against cultural advancement which we need more than ever (one merely has to watch an hour of commercial TV to arrive at the conclusion that we're in a lot of trouble culturally).

again, sorry if i offended you, and i'll retract my anal-centric remark if it please you. but that was merely a piece of garnish compared to my actual point, which i stand by and will continue to stand by.

(i'm off to read the rest of the thread now:))

[edit]

okay... i've read all of it now. no change... interesting that bit about an IP professor laughing out loud.

couple things i couldn't let go, as they're palpably wrong:


But then I can also see that 12 months after for shh to claim his rights is not fair and that wanting to see all muaddib's code is not fair too.


is there a statute of limitations on the GPL? when did this happen? and how is it not fair? although ssh apparently doesn't have the right to see the code without a court order, it is not unfair to want proof that GPL code isn't being used. if i were in mauddib's position, i'd let ssh see the code after signing an NDA, if only to save face and redeem myself to the public (i've told everybody about this... i'm probably not alone from the sound of things).


Anyway Mr. Shh asked for the sources even if Mr. Muaddib erases GPL code. You can say that it's fair to ask that under the law/license but not surely not as comon sense.


it's fair for him to ask. again, an NDA should handle this, though mauddib has no obligation to do so. it's best that it happen this way, simply to clear the air. there'll be no animosity if everyone settles this genially.

and to everyone, no matter which forum you belong to:
read and understand the GPL and LGPL, and any other appropriate licenses before entering into a discussion about them!

what could anybody offer on the subject if they are uninformed? i'll tell you: trolls and FUD. nothing more. nothing constructive comes from an uninformed post on subjects like these. indeed if mauddib had read more than the first paragraph of the GPL, none of this would have happened.

now, i respect both ssh and mauddib. hell, i respect everyone unless they provide me a reason not to respect them (i even respect kwag, though i concede that he's not doing too well on my respectometer).

[jorel]

excuse me again (and forgot my poor english)
:o

@ wibert
rule 16) Instructions by the moderator team are to be followed.
like you posted (and i respect):
"@all,
I advice you to keep the rest of the thread civilized. If not you will notice it."
right!
;)
please mod, take a look:

shh
"...and he/she.."
seems a guy in "life of brian" that want to "change" the side and fighting for his rights ! :p

dragongodz (final point)
".. :angry: ..."
oh, we scared! what is that? "law of fear"?

avih
"i think some ppl have climbed a higher than they wished tree, it might be the right time to offer the ladder."
"he will find the courage if we let him." :eek:
"seems" too arrogant! :-@ we need his bless?

MfA
"Im willing to cut muaddib some slack"
is needed to thanks for that judge "benevolance" ? :rolleyes:

Mug Funky (nothing against my friend, only quote parts)
"as far as my comments going unpunished by the mods and your fear of not being treated well for having a dissenting opinion and standing up for your friend, well all i can say is we're really not like that here."
" i'm mindful of that, and took care to not write anything i considered very bad."
yes my friend..is the law of fear! :(

"the trick is to let go of your prejudices and accept what people have to say. that goes for everyone."
seems a different position of what you wrote before. can i write the same? (i have doubts!)

"...but actively works against cultural advancement which we need more than ever (one merely has to watch an hour of commercial TV to arrive at the conclusion that we're in a lot of trouble culturally)."
very clear and wise my friend! :-)
write a letter to G.Bush with the same words...good idea don't? ;-)

"i respect everyone unless they provide me a reason not to respect them"
very wise my friend...as always! :cool:


only few observations (rules as used as reference only):

rule 4) Be nice to each other and respect the moderator.
right and correct! i think like Mug Funky posted:
"i respect everyone unless they provide me a reason not to respect them"

now my question and it's not off-topic:
i have posts with this "condecorations" like:
"you're an idiot!"....from some "cavaliers" here.
is needed that i post the links where i got "attribute" words like that to proove?
or do you want in pm?

rule 12)
"...Each and everyone has their own view about what's best in a certain area. The best is what works best for you!"
Fitcd is good but MovieStacker works really better !
what i do? trash MovieStacker?

Wilbert, i love forums. all that i learn about convertions is in forums. i stay all day long in forums,
sometimes i don't sleep for 3 or 4 days, i try to read everything but
google translates and others don't help too much.

I do not open hand of that I think to be certain, until the the opposite comes(with prooves)!
for the time being we are only reading blah blah blahs from here...no prooves!
thanks and excuse my poor english!

@ r6d2
if you are reading this:
best regards my freind i got your pm in kvcd forum! :)

[MfA]

His only claim to fame is build on the back of other's benevolence ... he should give thanks for any belevolence he receives, and repay in kind.

[jorel]

Originally posted by MfA
His only claim to fame is build on the back of other's benevolence ... he should give thanks for any belevolence he receives, and repay in kind.

like i wrote:
"I do not open hand of that I think to be certain, until the the opposite comes(with prooves)!"
here you don't proove anything!...and please,don't shoot!
;)

[Wilbert]

Jorel, this is not a chat forum. If you have nothing useful to say about the subsject itself, please don't say anything.


now my question and it's not off-topic:
i have posts with this "condecorations" like:
"you're an idiot!"....from some "cavaliers" here.
is needed that i post the links where i got "attribute" words like that to proove? or do you want in pm?
Like I said, but apperently you don't read very well: Contact Doom9 about this, make sure to include the links and tell him what is bothering you.


I do not open hand of that I think to be certain, until the the opposite comes(with prooves)!
for the time being we are only reading blah blah blahs from here...no prooves!

That's because you are looking through colored glasses (that is not objective). People have provided evidence, and kwag is changing his argument line because of this.
Let me summarize those arguments (as they can be found in the thread at kvcd.net and in this thread) and the responses to it:

statement 1 (Apr 19) from Kwag in response of shh asking for the sources:
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: (...)
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.

response by shh:
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.html#TOCGPLModuleLicense

Kwag dropped this argument, because it is wrong.

statement 2 (Apr 19) from kwag:
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.

Kwag nor muaddib didn't provide any evidence for this 3-5%.

shh's response
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?

Again, kwag dropped this argument, because it is not relevant.

But Kwag still being reasonable at this point, suggested the following:
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.
(...)
#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.

Apperently muaddib, didn't agree with this. Because this proposal is dropped in the rest of the thread.

An new argument from kwag

statement 3 (Apr 20):
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?

shh's response:
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.
The copyright-holder has the right to change the license. Again, kwag dropped this argument, because of that.

On (Apr 21) marcellus points out that even MovieStacker itself is GPL:
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.
..."

This implies that the sources should be available on request (to everyone).

Reply of muaddib (Apr 21) on the previous posts/points:
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.
and
Quote:
shh: "The readme writes, that the program (meaning the entire MovieStacker distribution) is released under the GNU GPL. (what is correct btw.)"

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.
Which is of course very hard to believe. But ok, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. This doesn't change anything though.

An other comment in that same post by muaddib about removing the 3-5% in a reasonable amount of time (several weeks):
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. :)
Here is where they should make an agreement.

An other comment in that same post by muaddib:

ssh: "I have the possibility to look into the closed source to check if the GPL-parts have been removed."
You got to be kidding again!
muaddib is not correct there. muaddib doesn't have to give hime the source (if he removed shh's code, as indicated in this thread), IF MovieStacker wouldn't be GPL. But it is ...

Then comes kwag again, and he throws an other argument in:

statement 4 (Apr 21):
All BSD developers (me included) KNOW the GPL is bullcrap. (...)
This is totally not relevant for this discussion.

statement 5 (Apr 21) by kwag noticing that other code is present in FitCD 1.0.3 sources:
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?

shh's response:
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.html#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL
So, shh removed that code in v1.0.4. Problem solved.

A new argument from kwag

statement 6 (Apr 22) by kwag about his private organization:
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
So, suddenly his forum is an organization. This is proven wrong on both forums: everyone can be a member of that forum with the restriction have a certain age. Hence the forum is public domain, contrary what kwag tells you on his forum. Besides this, people do not know during sign up. That's a bit strange don't you think, becoming a member of an organizing without knowing it.

Conclusions:
1) This organization argument is nonsense.
2) Therefore muaddib has to release the sources of MovieStacker upon request, because MovieStacker itself is GPL.
3) If MovieStacker wouldn't be GPL he has to either: release the source or comment out the GPL code from shh. But note, this is even not relevant because MovieStacker itself is GPL.

[jorel]

too big post...congrats!
;)

let me ask some ... like you posted:
"Jorel, this is not a chat forum. If you have nothing useful to say about the subsject itself, please don't say anything."
and what you are doing quoting posts from kvcd forum here?
if i do the same with the posts that i'm talking about i break some rule?... i will be off-topic? you can do that but i can't? (only answers understand?)

"Like I said, but apperently you don't read very well: Contact Doom9 about this, make sure to include the links and tell him what is bothering you."
seems a fantastic idea but...do you knew? Doom9 never answer my pms until now!...i will that you can read very well!

"...People have provided evidence.."
evidences don't proove anything!

"..This is proven wrong on both forums.."
only for who use hard power to think and hurt his brain!

"That's a bit strange don't you think, becoming a member of an organizing without knowing it."
no...this big post quoting kvcd forum that you posted is strange....
you can quote what you want for your arguments but i have to
"Contact Doom9 about this,make sure to include the links and tell him what is bothering you." like your recomendations
i can't do the same?
this is what is very very strange for me!

are you starting to understand me now?
;)

i respect your opinion cos i understand what you mean,but you don't understand anything of what i'm showing.
best regards Wilbert..for me you're still a friend !
like you, i only try to show my point of view!
:)
don't needed to post again that where shh have rights i recognize his rights! but i (we all together) need prooves!!!
;)

[r6d2]

Originally posted by jorel
@ r6d2
if you are reading this:
best regards my freind i got your pm in kvcd forum! :) Hmmm... No, my friend. I think you received it, but did not get it yet. ;)

[jorel]

oh sorry..was my poor english again! :o

i mean that i receive and read your pm....but now i answer you
there. please take a look...is really important!
thanks!
:)

[MfA]

Jorel, he made use of the benevolence of others by his own admission. That he does not repay in kind is clear to see for everyone too. There is nothing to proove.

[smok3]

shortly: this is all so sad and silly that it is almost funny, i cant belive all the bs that came from kwag and muaddib in that thread...:(

[jorel]

@ smok3
shortly too: nice avatar.

@ MfA
There is nothing to proove? then, what we are doing here?!?!
thread closed. :p

[MfA]

What we are doing here? Well at the moment I think Ill take some time trying to help you needing to make less excuses about your poor English ... so a small lesson in in reading comprehension seems to be called for.

Jorel, he made use of the benevolence of others by his own admission.

"by his own admission" refers to the fact that muaddib confirmed he did used GPLd source code in the past. Proof is irrelevant, there is a complete consensus on the matter by anyone of import involved including muaddib.

That he does not repay in kind is clear to see for everyone too.

He has not released his source code under the GPL. Again proof is irrelevant, there is a complete consensus on the matter by anyone of import involved including muaddib.

There is nothing to proove? then, what we are doing here?!?!

Language is not exact, you have to make some effort to try to infer to what a statement refers. Obviously when I say there is nothing to proove I mean it to refer to the factual statements made in the selfsame post. It makes as much sense to take it to refer to the entirety of the discussion in this thread as it makes to apply it to life in general.

So to sum up, the statements in that specific post rely only on facts agreed by general consensus including muaddib and hence require no proof.

I think you should stop responding with an attitude not befitting your experience ... but I wont be arrogant enough to actually tell you to do so, with or without an emoticon :p

[jorel]

irrelevant post was edited by myself.
see the next 2 posts for references.
please mod, delete if you want.
thanks!
;)

[avih]

jorel, take it easy please, and stay on topic. this is an important thread, and you're not helping.

please.

[jorel]

Originally posted by avih
jorel, take it easy please, and stay on topic. this is an important thread, and you're not helping.

please.

you're right avih!
this is an important thread.
i can't delete that post but i will edit it now (if a can do that)!
peace and best regards!
:)

[dragongodz]

if i may go off topic for just 1 moment....

jorel -if you have a problem with something somone(normal user) has said(such as a personal insult) then PM the the MOD of the section. if it is a MOD who said something you dont like then PM Doom9. pretty simple really.
also just because you dont see a warning in a post do not asume a person has not been warned privatly.

also look at your last post here. you complain people do not treat you nice or insult you but look at what you posted yourself. ever thought maybe that sort of attitude is whats not winning you any freinds here ?

oh, we scared! what is that? "law of fear"?
emoticons descriptions are there if you hold the mouse over them, left of screen when posting a reply.

sorry ,back on topic.

and what you are doing quoting posts from kvcd forum here? if i do the same with the posts that i'm talking about i break some rule?... i will be off-topic? you can do that but i can't? (only answers understand?)
there is no rule against posting something from a different forum so long as it is on topic. you are making a ridiculous statement and just being argumentative.

evidences don't proove anything!
what ? so maudib admitting moviestacker contains GPL code doesnt prove it does ? or do you mean even with such proof that it means nothing ?

don't needed to post again that where shh have rights i recognize his rights! but i (we all together) need prooves!!!
again, so maudib saying moviestacker contains GPL code is not enough proof for you ? if thats not enough then you(and whoever else you include in the "we all") will not believe anything.

Mfa - it would have probably been better to say "no more proof is needed since maudibs own admission of the inclusion of GPL code is all that was required". :)

[jorel]

ok, ok! :p

did you read my last post?
i don't want to post irrelevants words again!
your right, back on topic.
everyone can pm to if want that i edit something(cos i can't delete any post here), no problems!

i'm here and in all foruns to learn and got friends.muaddib is my personal friend and i plead in his favor but i'm not against shh in his rights....i post the same here and in kvcd forum all the time! you and all are free to read the same there too.

regards dragongodz!

[Mug Funky]

@ wilbert:
:goodpost:

unless concensus between ssh and mauddib is reached within the next 2 posts or so, there's really not much point this thread remaining open.

we certainly don't want a forum war on our hands... that'd be no fun at all, and would certainly stifle development of tools such as FitCD and MovieStacker, which too many people find useful for us to go and screw them up.

also, i fear a continuation of this flamewar could undermine the GPL and such in the eyes of some very good developers, which would be no good for anybody. we don't want potential code wizzards (discworld spelling...) going over to Microsoft out of disillusion with that nasty, bitchy opensource community :)

let's all cool down, have a beer and lie in a hammock for a while listening to miles davis. if that doesn't chill us all thoroughly out, i don't know what will :)

[Boulder]

Having read all these posts both here and at kvcd.net I feel I need to post. A very short post, however;)

(The following is _not_ meant to be offensive, I'm only writing from an outsider's point of view)

Looks to me that people don't see the point in this whole mess. If MovieStacker is published under the GPL, the sources should be available no matter what. It really doesn't matter whether people feel if it is fair or not.

The rest of the discussion is actually pointless, don't you think?

[dragongodz]

Boulder - a short reply. :)

close but no cigar. the point is maudib does not want to make his source avalaible. he has every right to make moviestacker closed source. the condition of that is that it is all just his code and does not contain anyone elses GPL code.so its either remove shh's GPL code or release all of moviestacker source. as you say it doesnt matter if some people see that as fair or not as thats what maudib has agreed to by using GPL code.

[Boulder]

Originally posted by dragongodz
Boulder - a short reply. :)

close but no cigar. the point is maudib does not want to make his source avalaible. he has every right to make moviestacker closed source. the condition of that is that it is all just his code and does not contain anyone elses GPL code.so its either remove shh's GPL code or release all of moviestacker source. as you say it doesnt matter if some people see that as fair or not as thats what maudib has agreed to by using GPL code.

Yes, I should have added "and as he has obviously used shh's code (and admitted it)". :o

[r6d2]

Originally posted by dragongodz
he has every right to make moviestacker closed source.Nope. He had the right to do that. Since he already released publicly the binary with GPL, he must also deliver the source to anyone asking for it, and must be willing to do it for 3 years. Unfortunately for muaddib, it is too late to backpedal now.

On new upcoming versions, he can keep them to his own until he removes all of shh's code. But every time he publicly releases under GPL, he must be willing to deliver the sources.

[shh]

Thank you all for your arguments! Many things are clearer for me now.

Unfortunately I don't have an answer from the FSF yet, but sometime I've read that they don't have much time to answer to issues of other copyright holders. Well, it could also be the empty offices at the weekend.

But at least many facts have been pointed out:
(more or less addressing muaddib. I'm going to post this at kvcd.net, too. Muaddib got a pm containing this also)

Point 1: MovieStacker got the GPL-licence attached in readme.txt and copying.txt
Such thing generally means that the whole program is released under the GPL by the author. This time it not, apparently by mistake. MovieStacker wants to be closed-source.
But this isn't possible because GPL-code is (still) in MovieStacker.
Btw, MovieStacker is hard-linking against the avsWARP.dll by aquaplaning. That DLL shows something of „Copyright: GNU“... Is that another GPL-violation, or is the DLL under LGPL?

Point 2: GPL-code is (still) in MovieStacker
Nobody has questioned that the GPL-code still is in the program. So MovieStacker cannot be public, without violating the licence. Actually MovieStacker is under the GPL, because it contains GPL-code (also because of the attached licenses). So if any distribution of MovieStacker exists, the source-code must be accessible also.

Point 3: "organisation":
Since this "organisation" (is it the Softronex Corporation?) is open to nearly anybody to register, a distribution in that kind wouldn't exclusively be non-public.
But as somebody already mentioned before, the "organisation" in the FAQ is just an example. The original copyright-text is quite clearer, it talks about "distribution" of the software. And if still uncertainness remains, a court would decide for the meaning of the copyright, not the uncertainness someone wants to interpret into it.

Point 4: Removing of the GPL code:
Because of the GPL-violating and my concession to not demand the opening of complete MovieStacker, I wanted the code-removal in reasonable time.
Muaddib told something about 10% of FitCD-code.
When I calculated the 10 weeks, I already regarded muaddib's programming as a hobby. I was counting the whole hobby-weeks of 14 months. But some (many?) features have been implemented before these 14 months, so I should have counted much more months for the whole 90% of MovieStacker's extensions.
10% of the 14 months are 1.4 months = 42 days = 6 weeks of hobby-programming.
But again I've rounded to muaddib's advantage, and nearly doubled the time to 10 weeks.
Also, code-removal does not mean that all the functionality has to be achieved with the GPL-free version. You(muaddib) can decide yourself when you want to reimplement the code. It isn't necessary (for me), that you release the full functionality after 10 weeks, but the violating code must be removed until then.
Really, I have no clue why these 10 weeks aren't reasonable time, and not acceptable. :(

Point 5: Checking of code-removal:
If the GPL is enforced, it would be easy to open the code now, just to check, how much of GPL-code really is in MovieStacker.
But I'm not generally interested in your (muaddib's) code. I don't want to imply that you don't want to remove the code. For obvious reasons (FitCD is simply the base of MovieStacker, [nearly] all of kvcd.net try to deny my rights and find excuses), my trust has gone.
Nevertheless, I want to trust again, and don't want to demand on the sources anymore. (Although I cannot speak for others, who perhaps want to see the code of the GPL-distributed v2.10)
But, showing me the code of your reimplementations would just save me (and you) time and nerves. Perhaps showing just parts of the code is enough to convince me. Please rethink your statement about the code.
Because I'd oversee the code-checking afterwords, allow me suggest some stuff.
I suggest, that it's easiest to remove the complete code first, and then step by step add the new features, until the program reaches the old functionality.
Otherwise bugs may just get reimplented, and many of FitCD's stray code will stay in the program. (what can be identified later). Experienced programmers will also tell you, that writing code from scratch is often faster implemented that rewriting parts. Perhaps the release of a version lacking some of the resizing- and bitrate-calculating-features may come handy.
It would be better to „do things in another way“ to gain a new algorithm. The bitrate- and resizing-core is very special for example. Well, my algorithms are of course a bit of „simple math“, but there are many other ways to get the wanted result. If the same number of variables are used, or just seem to be renamed, will make me (everybody) think the GPL-code is still in there. - And will start the flame again.

My proposals are:
1. Code-removal until 1st of July 2004:
This means, that the violating code is removed in reasonable time.
Then I'd even tolerate the semi-public download (pm to kwag) of the violating program until that date.
But the download-possibility must stop at that day.
If you want to release a fully functional GPL-free MovieStacker on that day is of course your decision.

2. No code-removal until 1st of July 2004:
This means that the violating code is not removed in reasonable time. Then also tolerating of the semi-public downloading via pm is not acceptable.
It rather means I'll have to accept the GPL-violation for unpredictable time.
That's of course not acceptable, and then I must rethink my statements & concessions regarding the actual version of MovieStacker. Well, I have to think about ugly ways how to enforce my intellectual property. :(

3. Complete vanishing of MovieStacker:
Nobody would like this and I don't want this either!
But if all download possibilities to receive a MovieStacker version vanish, the case would also be closed (for me).

[avih]

good post shh. congrats for going towards Muaddib.

i only wish he now does the same.

cheers.

[virus]

Originally posted by r6d2
Nope. He had the right to do that. Since he already released publicly the binary with GPL, he must also deliver the source to anyone asking for it, and must be willing to do it for 3 years.
I'm a bit surprised it took 80 posts to finally pinpoint this thing.
Newer versions (let's call it v2.2.0+) can be non GPL'ed. But removing GPL'ed code from MS won't solve the issue for v.2.1.0 or any former version of MovieStacker.

Regardless of the type of distribution, the program must carry the sources or some sort of link to obtain them (GPL, Section 3). Right now there are a lot of ppl out there which own a copy of the program and actually *do* have the right to read the *full* sources (Section 2, subsection b), since muaddib's code is not an "indipendent" work but integrates with GPL'ed code (Section 2, explanation). Even if v2.2.0+ is released, not only shh but everyone which own any MS version prior to 2.2.0 can ask for the sources of their version. Period.
It is not acceptable to have muaddib answering: "Forget about it!" (as read in the KVCD forum).
Not acceptable at all.

BTW: I've read the whole GPL license which comes with XviD and I haven't found any single occurrence of the word "organization"... maybe we should read a bit less the FAQ and a bit more the actual license text (the only thing that matters in a court)?

just my 2 (euro)cents :)
virus

[EDIT] looks like shh typed faster... but I'm glad to see we share the same ideas... good post shh! :)

[Boulder]

Best of luck to you, shh, these things are always a difficult issue to handle. I hope everything goes smoothly both for you and muaddib.

[Nic]

"BTW: I've read the whole GPL license which comes with XviD and I haven't found any single occurrence of the word "organization"... maybe we should read a bit less the FAQ and a bit more the actual license text (the only thing that matters in a court)?"

Very good point Virus. I was thinking exactly the same thing today...Im going to write up an email to the gnu and see if they can clarify that FAQ statement a little more, because it can be taken, as in this case, in completely the wrong way.

(Where as the GPL License itself is very specific on this matter)

-Nic

[MfA]

Strictly speaking you can include the GPL license with anything you distribute, even if it is not covered by it ... as long as you own what you are distributing of course.

[rds_correia]

Originally posted by Mug Funky
okay... i haven't read page 2 of this thread yet.

@ rds_correia:

sorry if i offended you. you are free to tell me of the location of my head.

Hello Mr. Mug Funky,
After reading all this page and both previous pages, I would like to say much more than that I accept your apologies.
But since I've been striked for rule #4...
Now, knowing that I'm going off topic, and also will brake another rule, I must ask the million dollar question again: Why???
What did I do? If a Mod/Admin want to strike me they can be a bit more specific.
Do you think that I have disrespected anyone here?
I have posted my opinion which happens to differ from most other here.
Is that it? I can't believe it. I have tried to ask a Mod why and he couldn't tell me who (I already suspected that) or why that had happen.
Since I believe that, either that was a mistake, or I'm not very welcome here I retire again.
Fairwell

[DDogg]

To me, and only expressing my own personal opinion, this is simply about honor and dishonor, as well as the way people may attempt to manipulate people and ideas for their own agenda.

If a man makes a mistake, he stands up and says, "I made a mistake, How can I repair my error?". That is the honorable thing to do, and it is forgiven and forgotten by any honorable person. These things happen to all of us. muaddib was quite open and he admitted he had made a mistake. That error could have been repaired with a few honest heads put together that were without hidden agendas.

Instead, Kwag and his posse got involved. It was none of his business actually. My instincts suggest he actually wanted to use the situation for publicity, and the program to help his site gain some legitimacy in the larger multimedia community, which IMO, is a legitimacy that neither that forum, or the program in question, enjoys. That's not flame-bait, it is just what I personally think is true.

muaddib got, and took, some very bad advice to the point of actually starting to believe he had done nothing incorrect, which of course is completely ludicrous given his own public admissions. Instead of being honorable, he chose another path I suspect he thought would be easier.

Can he successfully get away with it while hiding behind some kwagilegal convoluted legal manipulation that I personally think is an hypocrisy? Probably. Many folks do that in this world, sadly. It does not make it any the less wrong or any the less dishonorable.

Getting away with it depends on whether the larger community invokes the power inherent in its own feet, and actively shuns any involvement, whether directly or indirectly, with that unnamed forum or unnamed members of the unnamed forum.

If that sounds a tad strong then please pardon my admittedly old fashioned views. If the community allows this behavior without consequence, it effectively condones this behavior and sends a welcome to more bad behavior.

Already we are seeing the backlash. A few programmers are declining, or thinking about declining, to share their source code to all of us. It could get much worse, and we will all suffer from the actions of these few renegades.

Various senior and respected people have removed themselves from this unnamed forum as they felt their membership was giving it a credibility it did not actually possess. Personally, I hope more do the same thing. Each individual action, no matter how large or small, sends a message that the extended community will not support a forum or group who put their personal needs above that of the greater community.

I urge you all to do whatever you can to send a clear message that can not be declined.

[rds_correia]

Originally posted by DDogg
Various senior and respected people have removed themselves from this unnamed forum as they felt their membership was giving it a credibility it did not actually possess. Personally, I hope more do the same thing.
...

Hello again,
Can you please elaborate a bit more on this subject Mr. DDogg?
It seems to me you're now using expressions that may start a flamewar.
But, that can only be me thinking you're doing such a thing when in fact that isn't what you wanted to say. Or was it?
If so, and I mean only if so, I ask again that you look at the kvcd thread and see if we're doing such a thing there.
If you find we're not, and that we respect your community as we respect our own, then I must ask you to rethink your position.
Because we really don't want wars between forums.
God, I've said while PMing another Doom9 member that I've been around D9 much before I registered.
And I feel that I make part in the whole encoding community which has members from both sides.
So I would ask you to keep focused on the real subject that is:
Muaddib never_ever_wanted_to_make_money.
He just wanted to help people by adding features to a tool already done by someone else that had sources available.
Why? Because Mr. Shh didn't want to help us at all, period.
You may say: The license, the license!
I say: the dignity to come here and say that he wasn't caring about US all, and I meant us D9, KVCD, VCDHelp, etc...
This is so much true that soon after he removed is tool from GPL and started selling a product based on that source.
That is undeniable, and only the innocense from a 13 year old kid would "buy" the opposite.
So did, at that time, the license protect the community best interests?
No Sir.
When people get angry with his country's regime, because it is not serving the people anymore, they take it down, period.
Understand our position, now?
We love people that are willing to help, and we help them at any time.
And as said at KVCD thread we would be right now doing the same as you if Shh would have been deceived by a company to make money out of it and out of minor arrangements on it.
That isn't what Muaddib did.
He did plenty of changes there (90%? who really knows right now), and he gave his work.
Will you say again that we just want Moviestacker for us as publicity, again?
Or you didn't mean that, that way?
Why would we want publicity??
We are just interested in helping people to backup their movies or TV shows, plain and simple.
Did we loose supporters?
Maybe that's because of the bad publicity posted here.
But those who don't trust us, don't want to help us, thus are not needed amongst us.
Regards

Rui

[DDogg]

Originally posted by <poof!>
When people get angry with his country's regime, because it is not serving the people anymore, they take it down, period.jeeze - :rolleyes: <sad chuckle>
To quote myself, "... and we will all suffer from the actions of these few renegades" <= My back turns to all of you.

[muaddib]

Hi everybody,

I decided to post here in order to try to show my side in this situation.
But first of all I want to say that is easy to forget that behind those nicknames (muaddib, shh, kwag, jorel, end every one else) there is a real person. And it is easy to attack and/or judge actions and personality without knowing or facing the other part.
It was very painful to read this entire thread, because in it I see some of you attacking and judging some of my friends and also my own person/personality.

@shh
I want to say that you are not the only one that is loosing your sleep. This is been a hell to me. I keep thinking about this shit all day long. And it got worst before I read this thread. Not because the legal part of this; been in a legal court is really not a problem (and I’m sure we’ll never get there); but because of the human part and the pressure and aggressiveness from some of you. I go to sleep worried and my first thought in the morning is this litany again. I’m really bored and bothered about it all. I have stopped with all new ideas for MovieStacker and all I do with my free time is read this shit. I have quite some difficulty to read and write in English, and every post that I have to make on that (or this) thread takes me hours to finish. I keep hinging on “ms word” dictionary to correct my English errors. It is a stress that I’m not ready to suffer anymore.


@all
Here are some points that I want to make clear. I’m not claming that they are legally valid or not! That’s just the true.
- MovieStacker uses part of FitCD code. I never denied that. I respect shh work and never intended to take credit of it.
- MovieStacker is free. By that I just mean I’m not making any money with it.
- The corresponding part of FitCD’s code inside MovieStacker is about 10%. The rest of the code is in no way bounded to FitCD’s code, and it is my own code.
- I don’t care sharing the part of the code related to FitCD’s code. I just want to keep my code as mine.

But here comes shh (and now most part of you) saying “But GPL forces you…”. So I ask “please, wait a minute and think again”. Where goes good-sense and gumption (I don’t know if this word is correctly used, that’s what I was able to find in the dictionary). Where goes the respect to my person, my free work and many hours that I’ve spent writing the code, implementing new ideas, correcting bugs? Some of you here are developers and must know how it is. Some times you spent many many hours just for the pleasure of seen people happy by using your tool. But no… none of you seems to have respect for anything of this. You only have respect for what is written and if it is written then it is the law and we must all blindly follow it. Even if shh him self said that he has no interest in my code, because FitCD has a totally different approach. Even if shh him self don’t believe anymore in GPL, open source and etc… because him self don’t open his source code anymore.

With my first post in KVCD.net I was appealing to shh good-sense and gumption. Showing him my side of this issue, and hopping he would not take everything as black and white. But look like him and some of you just care about the legal side of this problem. The idea here seems to be very simple and objective. I used GPL code a long time ago as part of MoveStacker project. And that is it! Doesn't matter if I’m giving it away as freeware! Doesn't matter how I feel about releasing my code! Doesn't matter that the GPL code used is less than 10% of MovieStacker (and I don't care to share the code of this GPL-derived work). Every thing that matters is “lets blindly follow the GPL and to the hell with the rest”. Well… THAT’S FINE TOO.

I’ll try (again) to make very clear that I did not want to brake any GPL statement. And will not do that! If MovieStacker has to be removed from download, SO BE IT! I just have put it for download trying to help others with my work. I don’t have ANY other interest in MoviStacker project. As I said I code MovieStacker as a hobby and it’s not the big project of my life, but I do have interest in sustain what I believe is morally right.

About the “reasonable time” to remove FitCD’s code, that’s IS really ridiculous to me. I thought that I have made this point clear at KVCD thread. But again, I’ll never sit in front of my computer with the obligation to fulfill a time period coding MovieStacker. 10 weeks as shh suggest, probably would be more then sufficient. But again, I did it for hobby, and will stay like this. I’m still learning Delphi while I code MovieStacker and it has been an enjoyable experience (until this day). So I do prefer (a million times) to remove MovieStacker from download (I have no problem with that) then to code it under pressure of the clock ticking.

I want to say that I think that having the source code open is not a bad thing by it self. But having to do it against your will, and because some other person is forcing you, is. I have to say that I truly believed a PM or an email would have solved this issue and cleaned up some hard feelings. But now, as shh chooses the public way, I think we climbed too high in this tree that even a ladder will not help anymore. In the middle of a flame war you always get burned and inflamed. I must also say that I believe if it wasn’t shh who was calling up for it, I would probably have given the sources already, and with pleasure. But I have some personal hard feelings about his personality, and that was the first reason I started to code MovieStacker (the reasons to continue working on it were totally different). He was rude and arrogant with me while I was just asking for help with his FitCD. That was another case of forgetting that behind this nick was a real person, and if for nothing else, he owns me respect just for that. I don’t want to go deeper with this, because it is really a personal thing, so I’ll stop here. Now he wants the source and I don’t want to give it.

To finish it, I want to say again. I don’t want to break the GPL statements. What I wanted was, make shh see my side, and as been the copyright holder, release me from the bindings of the license. This was not the case, as shh (and most of you here) wants to go strictly legal. So be it. I’ll definitely remove MovieStacker from download, or maybe release my code as an assembler code. This will be machine readable and perfectly "compilable", as GPL requires in B&W. I hope that blindly following GLP like this is good enough.

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,
Could some one please tell me exactly what is “machine-readable”. I’m not sure, but I believe it is much less then any ascii-assembler-code.

Trying to finish again, I must say that I did receive some PMs by some of the “new members” of KVCD.net saying something like this:
“That is too bad that you are now a pariah of our extended community…”
What the hell does that mean?
That I should stop fighting for what I believe is right? Otherwise I will not be accepted in this “extended community”?
Well, I have just two words for these people… but I will not say them here to not disrespect the “higher standard” of this place.


For you all, I beg your excuses and comprehension for this too big post, I'm just too nervous to make my selfe concise, and my poor English doesn't help at all.

Regards,
-muaddib

[r6d2]

Originally posted by muaddib
But here comes shh (and now most part of you) saying “But GPL forces you…”. You only have respect for what is written and if it is written then it is the law and we must all blindly follow it.IMHO, you have shown good will by posting how you feel.

However, we are not forcing you to anything. You decided on your own to use GPL to publish your software. That was a mistake, you realized afterwards, that's OK. We all make mistakes. But don't think, or say, that other people is responsible for your mistakes. No one else is.

My advice is this: Reverse your mistake by removing Moviestacker from download until you remove GPL code. You'll sleep well, and will have an incentive to do so very quickly, and ultimately you'll be able to distribute your software in any way you want, with any license you want.

Regarding your current version, it has some resizing flaws, so users which use it will not have encoded movies with proper AR. I wrote a resizer too (based on somebody else's work, and published my sources afterwards of course), and I'm willing to help you to fix those bugs for future versions if you are interested.

Also, about the sources to your current version, I think you should settle it privately with shh. He deserves respect, as you do, no matter what your personal feelings are. Don't you think?

Cheers,

[muaddib]

Originally posted by r6d2
Regarding your current version, it has some resizing flaws, so users which use it will not have encoded movies with proper AR. I wrote a resizer too (based on somebody else's work, and published my sources afterwards of course), and I'm willing to help you to fix those bugs for future versions if you are interested.
Thanks a lot man! And of course I’m interested!:)

That is EXACTLY the kind of feeling that I was missing in this whole issue.
That is the spirit and good will I was expecting from developers (and starting to be a fraid I would never find).
Not the one “go read the read me” and “do it your self” that shh showed to me.

I did not see this spirit with shh also because he says that he has no real interest in my sources. Neither with Neo-Neko’s words when he went to KVCD and shout to every one: “I want the sources! I want it because I can. I have the right because of the GPL!”

I think that was NEVER the spirit of GPL. And the very users of the GPL with opinions like the one Neo-Neko showed there, are just blemishing what should be a beautiful concept. I think this kind of users completely forgotten what they set out to do in the first place. Where is the willing for helping fixing bugs, or adding something to it, or anything that the GPL is supposed to stand for? That’s exactly why, and will not, release my sources. That was too much arrogance.

I forgot to say... MovieStacker is now completely removed from download.

[kwag]

Originally posted by muaddib

Not the one “go read the read me” and “do it your self” that shh showed to me.

That's exactly the "face" of shh, that people never saw, and I'm sad I deleted the complete "FitCD" forum, over at KVCD.Net.
But then again, only some of us remember that, and we know the real (unhelpful) behaviour, in those hundreds of posts.
And THAT, is the issue, and the cause, for all of these happenings.
( I'm still looking for the backup, though! )

-kwag

[MfA]

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.

Yes shh made the discussion public, I would have done the same if you refused to comply with the GPL ... there was nothing to negotiate about but the timeframe after all.

You did the right thing, and I hope you find the motivation to finish your project to release under your own license.

[dragongodz]

r6d2 - yes i meant on future version without the GPL code of course. :)

I don’t care sharing the part of the code related to FitCD’s code. I just want to keep my code as mine.
and you have already been told how to do that. remove the GPL code and you can then release a new version under a different license where you dont have to release the source.

Where goes the respect to my person, my free work and many hours that I’ve spent writing the code, implementing new ideas, correcting bugs?
sorry maudib but you lost that respect when you disregarded shh's work, the many hours he put in etc. you do have the ability to get that respect back easily though and its already been said many times the 2 methods.

I used GPL code a long time ago as part of MoveStacker project. And that is it! Doesn't matter if I’m giving it away as freeware! Doesn't matter how I feel about releasing my code! Doesn't matter that the GPL code used is less than 10% of MovieStacker
being free and amount of GPL do not matter. they do not change the conditions of using GPL code. as for how you feel about your code, read above.

I truly believed a PM or an email would have solved this issue and cleaned up some hard feelings. But now, as shh chooses the public way
you chose the public way aswell when you chose to respond and agree with the ideas of kwag. you should have PM'ed shh instead and maybe it wouldnt have gone the way it has. so share the blame around a bit. :)

Where is the willing for helping fixing bugs, or adding something to it, or anything that the GPL is supposed to stand for? That’s exactly why, and will not, release my sources.
since you NEVER released the full source nobody could have made and tested changes even if they wanted to. so dont try and stand on a soapbox and use that as an excuse because it just does not wash.

And THAT, is the issue, and the cause, for all of these happenings.
rubbish. the issue is use of GPL code in a closed source program and always has been. the fact that you and others kwag have tried to shift the focus and attack shh doesnt change it.

[Mug Funky]

Where is the willing for helping fixing bugs, or adding something to it, or anything that the GPL is supposed to stand for?

:goodpost:

we get lost in legal discussions (which are of course still valid), but often we abandon the warm fuzzies that the concept of GPL gives...

but i'm afraid i cannot agree with Kwag, as from what i've seen here (baring in mind i haven't seen Ssh's alleged FitCD forum posts), he's a nasty piece of work.

@ Kwag: please prove me wrong. YOU have as much part in starting this flamewar as Ssh, who, from the doom9 perspective was simply asserting his rights in a way befitting a public license.

don't sit there on high and announce you had nothing to do with this flamewar - maybe Ssh brought the matches, but you certainly supplied the fuel. take some responsibility.

personally, it doesn't make a differce to me if ssh was arrogant - that's an issue for him to sort out on his own. please don't use it to justify a legal argument you are out of your depth on.

and remember, Kwag - you must take a fair part of the responsibility for both ssh's and mauddib's current state - being unable to sleep. it's a horrible feeling to have, and from what i've heard from both of them, they are good people who don't deserve that.

of course, i'm not without blame - i've fed this fire a tad as well, as have many people here. but you above all have not helped the situation one iota. you obviously knew better, but decided to simply pontificate rather than offering any constructive comments to this discussion.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by muaddib
Thanks a lot man! And of course I’m interested!:)

That is EXACTLY the kind of feeling that I was missing in this whole issue.
That is the spirit and good will I was expecting from developers (and starting to be a fraid I would never find).
Not the one “go read the read me” and “do it your self” that shh showed to me.

It is not the developers job to be everyone's buddy. How do you know that people were not constantly pestering shh with similar questions? How would you react to an inbox full of that? Shh may not have been chatty or social. We all have our reasons. And we all need to understand it.

Originally posted by muaddib
[b]I did not see this spirit with shh also because he says that he has no real interest in my sources. Neither with Neo-Neko’s words when he went to KVCD and shout to every one: [b]“I want the sources! I want it because I can. I have the right because of the GPL!”

No hard feelings man. But it is my right! If and when you release your work under the GPL and someone else abuses it call on me man. I'll give em hell! I do not hate you. Simply what you have done. Honestly if I downloaded the full source guess what I would probably do with it. Delete it. I have no real use for it. It's the principle. As to that comment I appologise a bit. RDS goaded it out of me when he claimed "why should he release the source when only shh requests it?". There are many reasons. Being legaly bound to is one of em. Responsibility is another. And it should be the right of every human being to request a copy. I'll be your best friend. But cross me and I can be quite a thorn.

Originally posted by muaddib
[b]I think that was NEVER the spirit of GPL. And the very users of the GPL with opinions like the one Neo-Neko showed there, are just blemishing what should be a beautiful concept.

I'm sorry you feel that way when it was you who first blemeshed the spirit. And then compounded it in listening to Kwag. No permanent damage done. And if you stop listening to Kwag and work with shh we would welcome you warmly. Honestly you misunderstand my intention and oppinions . I have honestly never thought bad of you. It has been my oppinion that you just got caught up in something that you did not expect or really understand that was blowing up fast. Kwag threw you a line and reeled you in to stab you in the back. Or something to that effect. Perhaps that is a bit harsh. But it is safe to say he purposefully gave you bad information for what I could only see as his own amusement.

Originally posted by muaddib
[b]I think this kind of users completely forgotten what they set out to do in the first place. Where is the willing for helping fixing bugs, or adding something to it, or anything that the GPL is supposed to stand for? That’s exactly why, and will not, release my sources. That was too much arrogance.

That's a poor excuse and you know it. I know you can do better. I admit I was very forward and frank with my first post. That was simply to break up Kwag's FUD. I don't apologise. But you can see that since then whenever anyone has tried to initiate a reasonable conversation I have been more than cordial.

Originally posted by muaddib
[b] I forgot to say... MovieStacker is now completely removed from download.

That is a good start. As long as it's not the finish. Don't run and hide when things get tough. That's the easy way out. If you need help fixing anything for compliance you have my assistance for anything I can assist you on. And talk with shh. I am sure that the two of you can work something out between yourselves that might save you time and effort. Perhaps even allow you to re-release the software tomorrow.

And like I said if you ever need help enforcing your GPL I and many others will be there for you as well. If you accept the GPL community they will be your best friends. Spurn them and they can be your worst enemy. Due to the fact that many GPL authors don't have the funds to take every infringer to court they have to rely on the community and their supporters to come to their aid. What I did I would do for basically anyone. Including you.