Please help me with suggestions about a GPL violation

[shh]

Hello,

I've released the sources of FitCD some day under the GNU GPL think that a program (MovieStacker (http://kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10346)) is now violating the licence.
Somewhat I'm helpless, because all of the forum members try to find excuses not to release the derivated work or not to remove the GPL code in reasonable time.

Well, I'm asking of some help here for people who have experience in GPL discussions.
Perhaps you can point out, if I am wrong or if they are. And perhaps make some suggestions or help to find a soulution.

It's about MovieStacker and FitCD.
Discussion is here: http://kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10401
Main point is, that there is still (as he says) 10% of my GPL-code in there and I want him to remove it. He doesn't want to open his actual code, and I actually don't see the need to enforce him to do so.

Main code parts:
MovieStacker is still based upon FitCD, including
- resizing calculation with the GUI and basic avisynth-script export
- bitrate calculation for different multiplexors (+GUI-code)
- main unit of the program
- avi- and d2v-opening code
- many „stray“ code

The newest point/excuse is that they want to treat a forum as an organisation, not the public, so that they can point to „internal“ use of the GPL-code. What, for my understanding, is wrong (also).

Thanks for some help!

Latest FitCD GPL-sources: www.sysh.net/files/FitCD_v105src.zip
Latest FitCD GPL-release: www.sysh.net/files/FitCD_v105.zip
The incomplete moviestacker sources: http://www.kvcd.net/MovieStacker_v1.1.1_src.zip

[Doom9]

can members of their forum still download the software and is signup in any way restricted? If anybody can sign up, by default that makes it public. They can force you not to redistribute only if their code is GPL free.. as long as it contains GPL code, any redistribution restrictions are void (as are any other restrictions that are in conflict with the GPL).

[shh]

The singing up to the forum isn't restricted (it's the standard automatic way).
Actual status is that one has to send a personal msg to the admin (=kwag), and he/she get's a download-link.

I haven't answered to this yet, because now I'm totally confused if such a handling is possible.
Discussing about the issue is very difficult there. (I am the bad boy)
And with my bad English I have to phrase for hours, just to post reasonable to their sometimes weired thoughts.

Here in Germany forums are treated as the public. Well I think so, because a forum must/should have similar disclamers as newspaper-sites. Registrating, or becoming a member of the forums doesn't affect the publicity. I can understand the GPL-statement (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic) in conjuction with (even big) organisations, but a public forum?? :confused: An admin could even program an automated return email with a download-link, when a specific pm arrives)

And for your second point:
The redistribution isn't restriced. But just the compiled program is distributed, without the sources. (That's what I don't like, because the main program-core and some important program parts of my GPL-code are used)

They want me accept this and wait for the author to remove the code sometime.

[Doom9]

forums are not necessarily public. I could easily restrict this board to only allow access to registered members (that doesn't make it non public yet), and if new users required moderation (meaning somebody has to approve the registration), then it becomes private (assuming moderation isn't just a formality).

you can easily disprove their "private forum" statement by signing up for another account, then request a download and document the entire thing. That being proven, it would also not hurt to do some disassembling to make a stronger case (it is possible though unprobabable that despite public statements that state otherwise (they can always edit those.. so save a copy of those threads).

[dragongodz]

shh - i went and had a read of that post. wow what a bunch of @#*& if you will excuse the french.

1. first they try to say since its less than 10% GPL code its not really important. bull of course.
2. then when you ask for either the complete source to moviestacker or the removal of the GPL code in a reasoable time they talk about taking over a year. sorry but it is NOT up to them to dictate when they feel like complying.
3. kwag openly says he hates the GPL but cant grasp the concept of "if you dont like the license dont use the code".
4. kwag attacks you for using public domain source without knowing its license even though you say you removed that anyway.
4. you are accused of wanting this so you can improve your own program even though you say you will be happy with just the removal of the GPL part.
5. maudib seems to think its ok to break the GPL giving the lame excuse "If we not “break” anything, nothing will ever change."

and it goes on and on. shh there are so many ungreatful misinformed people in that post alone i could hardly believe some of the things they were saying. then to pull the "we are now an organisation" to try and get around it is plain low. people like that do not deserve the effort we put in.

[Mug Funky]

hear hear.

the author himself admitted to only reading the first paragraph of the GPL... and lamely apologises that he didn't comply with it.

ignorance is not a defence.

i wouldn't be worried about what they say on that forum... it's clear that even through their use of dictionary definitions to "prove" their point, they appeared to just be trying to confuse you (i understand english isn't your first language, and legal-ese will confuse even the most fluent speakers.)

they don't have a leg to stand on, but from what i read the offending binary is not in distribution anymore. hopefully it will stay that way until they remove all your code.

and you have every right to review the final code - if they're worried about theft, offer to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so if any of their code turns up in yours, they can sue. (make sure you never give them a reason to do this... depending on whether anyone at KVCD is spiteful enough, they could be looking for similarities, imagined or not).

have faith in the GPL - it's been enforced now, so it carries more than just theoretical weight, and if you had the time and lawyers, you could quite easily resolve this issue the hard way.

let's hope it doesn't come to that.

[Doom9]

and it goes on and on. shh there are so many ungreatful misinformed people in that post alone i could hardly believe some of the things they were sayingThat actually really made me glad that on my board we have a significantly higher standard :)

they don't have a leg to stand on, but from what i read the offending binary is not in distribution anymore. hopefully it will stay that way until they remove all your code.It looks to me like that is not the case. Somebody with an account over there should try to get the software.. it states in the thread that you have to PM the admin to get the software.. that isn't the same as the software having been removed (when I removed Vidomi due to GPL violations the binary was gone from my server(s) and nobody could get it anymore.. request or no request).

[Nic]

LoL.
An "interesting" opinion from kvcd.
http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=74793#74793

-Nic

[Mug Funky]

from that post:

From a user's perspective, a GPL or a BSD license shouldn't matter, because either way, you are getting free software, which is what you want anyway.


this is completely off the mark - _most_ GPL users i know use it not because it's free, but because it's completely open.

most freeware programs out there are complete rubbish, and remain so because there's no framework for development like with GPL. a GPL program that starts off crap but with a good enough premise will quickly be fixed and polished. a freeware program that starts crap will very likely stay crap - an inexperienced coder who's afraid to share their work will not learn very much.

well... that's my rant. there's holes all over my theory, but i like it all the same. (one only has to look at how difficult linux is to use, in spite of it being so tight and well made)

and also, to say the inability of GPL to be used commercially is a _weakness_ of GPL is to completely miss the point of free software, and the spirit of the license.

it is meant to prevent commercial software, to give incentive for more free software to be developed.

grrrr... these people should read beyond the first paragraph of the GPL, wake up*, and stop spreading FUD.

*potentially offensive comment edited by an act of self-moderation... after i'd already offended someone

[Doom9]

@nic: weird.. is that the same guy that openly advertises viral GPL software like AviSynth (http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3483) ? And as for enforcing, that's the latest: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74829 . There are in fact quite a number of successful products in the market using GPL'd software, like DivX capable DVD standalone players, or routers / wireless access points for home users, portable music players, etc. Oh, and which *nix system is the most widely used?

I had a look at their website, and guess what.. it runs on apache/php. Now is that GPL software or is that GPL software?

Normally I woudn't bother, but such a rant from guy that keeps on using GPL software? That's like if Microsoft ran all their websites on Linux/Apache/PHP/MySQL.

[Mozart]

karl´s apostoles are really dumb... they keep talking about shh's violation of GPL, saying "your code was under GPL once upon the time. You are not allowed to use it in closed softs... This is a violation of GPL". Well, they should read the GPL in order to know the rights of the code owner. They will have a big surprise.

[Neo Neko]

Unfortuantly at this point the GPL is very enforcable and they should be beat around the head and shoulders with it. But prossecution for damages even punative would be basically useless from what I see. No one is making money. And it is not wide spread or rampant. So unless you can afford to hire a lawyer with the expectation of no big payout at the end or pro bono there is little that you will be able to do. This is not a weakness of the GPL. In fact IIRC the GPL was recently upheld in Germany. It is more a situation of the developers. Neither has much to gain either way at this point since both software are free. That does not mean they are right. I am sorely tempted to register there and make them fully crispy with a scathing response. But I question if they are open to a voice of reason.

I think the best we can suggest here is the Xvid Vs. Sigma Designs case. It was a bit different since Sigma Designs is a corporation that stood to make money from their violation of the GPL. Still no one AFAIK with the Xvid group could afford to get a lawyer and none volunteered probono. Pressure was put on Sigma Designs by the public at large. In the end forcing Sigma Designs to comply. The key is to get the word out and let the GPL or law abiding citizens know. I am sure that there are others than just myself interested in giving these highly inconsiderate people a piece of their minds.

The truth about the GPL is this. It is not viral. If an author wished to use GPL code in a closed source program they could so long as they got the consent or approval of the codes author. The author of GPL code may change the license on the code to anything they wish at any time they wish. They may not however revoke the rights previously afforded by the former license to those who aquired the code before the license change. [As is well exibited with the closing of the opendivx source and the birth of Xvid.] Anyone who chooses to use GPL code directly in their program must then release their program under the GPL unless they negotiate otherwise with the codes author. If they however use GPL code in a lodable module external to the main program they only have to make avalible the module code and it's interface to the main program and may release the main program under the license of their choosing. [In such manner we are able to use opensource programs like Avery Lee's excelent Virtualdub or the Mplayer Projects wonderful Mplayer program with closed source codecs.] Anyone who says the GPL is viral shows just how much they lack understanding of the subject. No one is forcing them to use GPL code. If the code were not GPL they likely would not have access to it in the first place. For a true instance of viral licensing take a look at Microsoft's shared source license. They share their source and any code you write using it becomes property of Microsoft with limited rights reserved for the actual author. Or then there are submarine pattents which corporations launch at will to blow holes in their competitors products. Far more damaging than anything the GPL could inflict. If anything the GPL evens the playing field. Muaddib is in effect stopping some future Muaddib from doing exactly what Muaddib did. Which I must say I have mixed thoughts on. But I think most over at KVCD.net apreciat what Muaddib has done with the program but don't fully understand what he has done with the license.

I think we should all welcome shh into our community if he so desires. As a digital media community that respects authors and their rights it sounds like he might be better off here. Though that does not resolve the issues over at kvcd.net.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Doom9
I had a look at their website, and guess what.. it runs on apache/php. Now is that GPL software or is that GPL software?

Unfortunatly it is not. There has been issue lately with the new apache license (http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html) for instance. And PHP has it's own license (http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt). They do however recognise the GPL and provide many of the same privaliges. They are all opensource programs. But GPL and open source are not the same thing. There is all kinds of open source.

[rds_correia]

Originally posted by Mug Funky
grrrr... these people should read beyond the first paragraph of the GPL, get their heads out of their posteriors, and stop spreading FUD.

Hi to all,
Sorry for disturbing.
shh should recognize me from kvcd.net forum and from email exchange we did some months ago.
To him I can say that I am truely sad that this is the outcome of his endeavour.
He knows that I give him and also muaddib a lot of credit for two fine tools that help a lot when preparing to encode.
For me I see this in two ways.
From one perspective it seems that muaddib doesn't want to give his code to shh and from another one it seems shh is too much interested to see the code.
I know nothing about licensing or legal issues and I assure you that I don't quite know who is right or wrong here.
Believe me that despite my personal believes I didn't want to see this ending.
Anyway anyone could see that this is how it would end.
Now, I've seen something written in this thread here that I consider completely out of line in terms of respect.
And that is the interesting words that I underline in the quote.
Since I also posted on that forum and on that particular thread, are those words also addressed to me?
Even if they aren't that won't change my opinion on it.
And any admin or mod here that let this happen is just because he/she didn't notice it or doesn't care about it thus agreeing with it.
And that my friends would proove that the standards on this forum are just as low as it can get.
Just want to make sure before posting anything else in this thread here, if I am ever again allowed to do so.
Regards.

[Doom9]

Unfortunatly it is not. There has been issue lately with the new apache license for instance. And PHP has it's own license.Argh.. you're right of course. Have to bang my head against a wall for the next 10 minutes. Geez, I've read about the new apache license, how could I forget that.

I know nothing about licensing or legal issuesThere are plenty of people here who have excellent knowledge of the law and the GPL and the issue seems quite clear. Copyright holders are entitled to do whatever they please with their intellectual property (including relicensing software under stricter terms.. read the GPL, it is in there). On the other hand, any derivative work using GPL'd code must also be released under the GPL (there's also no question about that). Sympathies, liking a program that violates the GPL, or ignorance are no excuses for non compliance.

[shh]

Thank you very much for your words, they're building be back up. :)
I'm getting sleepless nights of this [really!]. :scared:

I wrote an email (http://www.sysh.net/files/FSF_email.txt) to the FSF and hope that they can give me an "official" answer to kwag's & muaddib's "arguments". My personal arguments don't seem to help, as you can see in that thread. I hope I get an answer quickly, before I have to answer something, just to keep the "discussion" running. :(

As you might have noticed they don't really care if the license is violated.
The problem is, how to enforce the GPL, or the GPL-code removal in a resonal time, and the download perhaps also. Even if I get an official answer, I fear that they don't care about it.
Well, that's why I kept arguing with them. Now for even a week, and it is taking me apart - even as a old stager in forums.
What to do with people, who aren't interested in arguments?
As a "small man", I don't have the time or the energy to go to court and enforce the license.
Sadly I also don't see any other options. :(

> I think we should all welcome shh into our community if he so desires

Thanks, that's very kind! :)
But as you also wrote, that wouldn't solve the issue. :(
In fact it was the old MovieStacker issue what lead me to the point, not to release source-code of my projects anymore.

EDIT:
Argh! My answering in English is tooooo slow!
Again several posts between. :sly:
I hope I've time to answer later.

[kwag]

From GNU's site:

"Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
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.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you."

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic


This is what we are complying with, and as an organization, we are providing the program privately to members of our organization.
And to anyone who has not seen the original thread that started this, please, go read it here: http://kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10401 and read everything before making a final judgement.

And before making any more comments, read and re-read the GPL license, and the link (on GNU's site) that I posted above.

Thanks,
-kwag

[rds_correia]

Originally posted by Doom9
Argh.. you're right of course. Have to bang my head against a wall for the next 10 minutes. Geez, I've read about the new apache license, how could I forget that.
...
Sympathies, liking a program that violates the GPL, or ignorance are no excuses for non compliance.

Hi Mr. Doom9,
I was going to inform you about the new licensing with apache if someone else hadn't done so yet.
As for sympathies and ignorance not being an excuse, they are not needed at your forum.
You let anyone say what/when/how/from whom they want and always get away with it.
Look at some examples:
grrrr... these people should read beyond the first paragraph of the GPL, get their heads out of their posteriors, and stop spreading FUD.
or
Anyone who says the GPL is viral is an ignorant moron. [worse than an average moron.]
I feel a lot better your forum has a much higher standard than kvcd.net...

[kwag]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Anyone who says the GPL is viral is an ignorant moron. [worse than an average moron.]

Thank you Neo Neko for calling me a moron, and also for calling morons the complete FreeBSD team, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Apple Computers, Sun Microsystems, Silicon Graphics, and every other company that works and depends on BSD licenses, and doesn't believe in GPL licenses.
Maybe you should read a little here, from a BSD developer's point of view: http://www.cons.org/cracauer/gpl.html

-kwag

[Neo Neko]

After reading the post in it's entirety. [phew] There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding. Mauadib is refusing to take responsibility for his actions. That is the biggest issue here. Most of us zip though the eula. But you are still legally bound to it even if you have not read it. Therefore he needs to make consessions. Least of which should be inspection of the code under NDA to assure that all pertinant code has been removed. And should also include either full GPL release of all mauadib's code till he removes all GPL code. Or higly restricted distribution of the derived work amongst the developer/s and the core team of testers. Kwag shows himself to be a very poor admin in this instance choosing to exacerbate the issue more than it was previous to his intervention. [seems alot like my last dealings with dibrom of hydrogenaudio and staff] He has made some very ignornat statements throughout. I am sorely tempted to find some of "his" BSD licensed code for the sole purpose of me violating it to show him that his precious BSD license is just as much bullshit as the GPL. [I do not believe that either the GPL or BSD are bullshit. Simply that people with Kwag's oppinions are full of said bullshit.] Soon as my email validation arrives I will politely show him the error of his ways. Lets just hope he is not as lost a cause as he sounds at this point.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by kwag
From GNU's site:

"Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
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.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you."

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic


This is what we are complying with, and as an organization, we are providing the program privately to members of our organization.
And to anyone who has not seen the original thread that started this, please, go read it here: http://kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10401 and read everything before making a final judgement.

And before making any more comments, read and re-read the GPL license, and the link (on GNU's site) that I posted above.

Thanks,
-kwag

Aaaaaah. You save me the trouble. Kwag you reasoning and solution are flawed. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Membership of the board consitutes membership in your "organisation". But your membership is not restricted. Ie anyone of the general public can join. Meaning that your organisation is "public". Meaning that your measure is ineffective at best. If you membership is public and any member may request the program you are still distributing to the public at large. I don't know how I can make that any clearer.

[rds_correia]

Hi Neo Neko,
We'll be very pleased with having you in our forum as I see you already registered.
Really feel free to drop by.
Now be aware that the kind of insults I've read here (and saw going unpunished by Mods/Admin) are not allowed at kvcd.
If you choose an appropriate way you'll see that we might not agree with you but we will respect you.
Cheers

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by rds_correia
I feel a lot better your forum has a much higher standard than kvcd.net...

A license is a license. And the GPL is fully legal. We should respect such licences. As such we on this forum respect such licenses and do not offer up such comments as license (A) is bullshit. I did make a comment as such in passing to prove a point. But I immediatly and clearly stated my position on both licenses and that they should be respected. That is a key difference. Respect. I can not respect Kwag for what he has said.

[rds_correia]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Membership of the board consitutes membership in your "organisation". But your membership is not restricted. Ie anyone of the general public can join.

Hi again,
In fact most forums are restricted and not public.
You see most only allow membership if you're over a certain age.
That is the case of kvcd.net.
Regards

[rds_correia]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
A license is a license. And the GPL is fully legal. We should respect such licences. As such we on this forum respect such licenses and do not offer up such comments as license (A) is bullshit. I did make a comment as such in passing to prove a point. But I immediatly and clearly stated my position on both licenses and that they should be respected. That is a key difference. Respect. I can not respect Kwag for what he has said.

Here's my view,
All you could point out to Kwag is that maybe, and I'll emphasize on the maybe, he doesn't respect GPL license saying it's bull.
Other than that he disagrees with shh opinion on the way the matter should be solved.
On the other hand respectful members of this forum either don't measure they're comments or really don't respect some persons out there.
Cheers

[marcellus]

Hi everybody! I signed in this forum some time ago but I was only lurking untill this moment. I'm sorry that my first post is in such conditions but this is life.
@rds & kwag:
You people seem to go in deeper s*it with every post of yours. You are denying the pure logic and the common sense. Do you really belive that anybody with a brain in his head could buy your plain BS? Go and break the law but admit it! I'm sick and tired of people like that.
bye
marcellus

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by kwag
Thank you Neo Neko for calling me a moron, and also for calling morons the complete FreeBSD team, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Apple Computers, Sun Microsystems, Silicon Graphics, and every other company that works and depends on BSD licenses, and doesn't believe in GPL licenses.

I am a supporter of both BSD and GPL software. I run several Linux and BSD based systems and preffer both highly over MS Windows in almost all aplications. Can you quote any official group sentiment on the part of any of those groups that states the "GPL" is bullshit? I know you can't it is after all a rhetorical question. The BSD and GPL licenses are ideologically different in several areas. But neither invalidates the other or is any less valid than the other. The GPL is not usefull for many projects. Then again neither is BSD. If you are going to call the behavior of the GPL license "viral" then you should also recognise that BSD and even most other licensing have viral and compulsory parts.

Originally posted by kwag
Maybe you should read a little here, from a BSD developer's point of view: http://www.cons.org/cracauer/gpl.html
-kwag

Been there read that. Got the t-shirt months and months ago. GPL is not compatable with every other license on earth. Guess what. Neither is BSD. I grant you that BSD is a much more compatable than GPL since BSD sets very few restrictions/requirements for use. But it is not inconcievable that there could be a license that would be incompatable with BSD. According to the license that shh has chosen what he is requesting is within his rights.

I like BSD but I am tired of hearing BSD devleopers lipsynching Microsoft FUD due to the fact they feel snubbed since GPL and related software has gotten much more attention. It is important to choose the right license for a project. As such I think there are many instances where people choose GPL or LGPL when it would have been better to choose a BSD license. So perhaps we need more education on the topic of choosing a license. But one thing we don't need is morons spreading FUD. Oh and Kwag I don't recall calling you a moron specifically. But does the fact you identify with that statement say anything?

Since reading the whole thread I have re-evaluated my views slightly and as such think my posts prior to that on the subject were a bit extreme for what was actually going on over there. But I still stand by it in general. I should have really read the whole thing first. And I appologise for that. [*hint hint* Something that might be handy in some other thread????]

[Doom9]

In fact most forums are restricted and not public.
You see most only allow membership if you're over a certain age.
That is the case of kvcd.net.Spoken like a true lawyer but that'll never hold up in court. Fact is everybody can sign up and become a member on your board and thus get the software. So all you have done is placed a roadblock and give people directions on how to get around it.. it still comes down the same thing. No kid will be stupid enough to check the wrong option on the signup page, you have no effective measure to check for age, hence it's a free for all deal. An organization or company means a limited number of people, if the entire planet can become member in the organization, it is no longer a restricted group of people, hence the "no release" provision from the GPL no longer apply.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by rds_correia
Hi again,
In fact most forums are restricted and not public.
You see most only allow membership if you're over a certain age.
That is the case of kvcd.net.
Regards

Sorry to dissapoint you. But that is not justification for anything. If anything it is less justifyable. Chidren under a certain age are not held to the same standards as adults. They are not considdered as capable of propper understanding at that point. Everyone on that forum supposedly being over the age of 13 should know better.

[i]Originally posted by rds_correia
Here's my view,
All you could point out to Kwag is that maybe, and I'll emphasize on the maybe, he doesn't respect GPL license saying it's bull.
Other than that he disagrees with shh opinion on the way the matter should be solved.
On the other hand respectful members of this forum either don't measure they're comments or really don't respect some persons out there.
Cheers

I have much more to say on the subject. And I will. But in the propper place. It is saddening that it had to spill over here. That the administrator of the other site assisted in exacerbating things to this outcome. But it would still be better discussed over there. There is quite alot said by quite a few there that I have issue with. Perhaps even yourself. But at the right time in the right place.

[Doobie]

In the past, it seems that negative publicity has done a good job compelling compliance with the GPL. And, should a commercial product be in flagrant violation, I suspect a court case would be easy enough to win, with damages including a big chunk of the proceeds from the sale of that commercial product.

There are many programmers who would not be releasing their code if not for the GPL. It rubs many people the wrong way to know that they can work hard making some code just to have a commercial company suck it up without a bit of return.

So what if Apple chose to use BSD over Linux because of the GPL? As much as Apple (and Microsoft) have used free code, some people would consider the fault here to be the lack of GPL. If BSD didn't exist as an option, then Apple would have had a nearly impossible amount of work creating a new OS or they would have used Linux and returned a mountain of treasure in the form of code.

[jorel]

can you excuse me.
first excuse my english!
:o
a read only few posts in the first page!

@shh
my personal opinion is that your rights are yours,
no matter who or where think about it!
where you have credits i recognize your credits!
;)

@ some of you
my work is search defects and i see defects in everywhere!
i ever did problems posting here.
the very strange to me is:
you all are using hard power to be wise,you have more proud than wise!
and really faster to say bad things against "no matter who",
and very slow to answer doubts posted!
first i quote that post from doom9:
"you can easily disprove their "private forum" statement by signing up for another account, .."
:eek:
in the local forum rule number 14 is wrote:
14) Multiple registrations are prohibited and are grounds for immediate account deletion.
i was waiting something like that!
:p :p :p
lots of my posts missing here
then i did like your recomendations to shh:
"so save a copy of those threads)"
i have all that i posted and is missing like:
war in iraq (that you remove but only you can put the opinion)..
very strange, seems that only you have wise to post!
a post where i call for an procoder forum!
lots of editions in older posts before we post!
my e-mail notification don't work,i post the link to my provider
trying to solve cos the problem isn't in my mail and nobody help!
my provider say that "we don't send mails with spam."
this is the proove of what i post a long time ago here:
if nobody delete or edit,then...
---> use the search...
like your "best" recomendations always, and you will find my answer:

this is a forum or a gang???

if was deleted that older answer some of will will remember cos it's true!
and lots more that i'm bored to post!

@shh
before they delete or edit this post (this is normal here)
remember that i ask in kvcd forum?
"why law exist?
for control or for rights?"
i am at your side to give you your rights.
i'm not here or there to be a "good" idiot.
here they confuse my poor english with my personality!
i'm a man and have pride of my word!
but here is for control,like everybody can see easily!
seems nazys, racists and too much wise in your own visions!

@all
sorry but the true hurt too much.
i never had general welcome here,but i have good friends in this forum
and i really like his frienship,they are very special!

maybe now my email notification back to work!
you will want that i read your answers!

:p :p :p :p :p

oh...again ...excuse my poor english but great observations!
thanks!
:rolleyes:

edited>
i was forgoten:
i save this thread after you edit or delete!
i only answer here!
if i got manaces from pm or mail,
i copy this thread around the world!
i promisse!
thanks again!
;)

[Wilbert]

first i quote that post from doom9:
"you can easily disprove their "private forum" statement by signing up for another account, .."

in the local forum rule number 14 is wrote:
14) Multiple registrations are prohibited and are grounds for immediate account deletion.
i was waiting something like that!
The point is that everyone can sign up in that forum and get a copy of MovieStacker. Please, try to read the posts more carefully.

before they delete or edit this post (this is normal here)
Guess what, I advice you to edit it yourself, otherwise you will get striked and I will edit it. This whole post of you (excluding the first point) is not relevant for this thread, and you are only trying to start a flamewar.

@all,
I advice you to keep the rest of the thread civilized. If not you will notice it.

[rds_correia]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
I have much more to say on the subject. And I will. But in the propper place. It is saddening that it had to spill over here. That the administrator of the other site assisted in exacerbating things to this outcome. But it would still be better discussed over there. There is quite alot said by quite a few there that I have issue with. Perhaps even yourself. But at the right time in the right place.

Hi there,
If you have so much to tell us please drop by.
Be a sports and point me to what you think I did wrong.
I recognise that I do take place at muaddib's side in this question.
I understand that looking at GPL license you might read where it mentions that muaddib is forced to release the sources of his work.
After 12 months without showing up at the forum shh came there again just when muaddib released a major update of his tool.
I stated there that that update by muaddib is a bit better than current FitCD. But I have to change my statement: it is miles ahead of FitCD.
Shh would like to see that code? For what purpose? To incorporate it in Fit2Disc? To earn big bucks on other people hard work?
I'm not making insinuations, I'm posing questions, but you have to agree that it doesn't seem fair, right?
Then if it wasn't fair to muaddib now it's not fair to shh.
Do you want me to feel sad?
I do. I already stated that here.
Know what? If Kwag is right, then shh will not ever see a line of muaddib's code.
You think I'm thrilled?
I am not: I specifically and politely asked (as a member not as a Mod) shh to talk privately with muaddib to reach an agreement.
But he didn't.
So now what? Want me to keep feeling sad?
I will but then I'll tell you that sad is being a member of this forum and see other members/mods/admin using terms completely unappropriate to use with a person, that's what!
You'll never see that from mods/admin at kvcd and if some member is out of order you'll notice how the nearest mod will take care of him and his posts.
One thing is talking about "things".
Like papers, legal issues, licenses, law.
Another is talking about persons.
Like Kwag, me and Kvcd members.
Sadly noone ever teached some of doom9 members that.
Do you know what I think about that? As I read somewhere in this thread: ignorance is not an excuse!
Regards

[rds_correia]

Originally posted by Wilbert
Guess what, I advice you to edit it yourself, otherwise you will get striked and I will edit it. This whole post of you (excluding the first point) is not relevant for this thread, and you are only trying to start a flamewar.

@all,
I advice you to keep the rest of the thread civilized. If not you will notice it.

Hi again,
I'm sorry but I can't help myself from writing again.
Where is Jorel's flamewar post problem?
The trueth in his words?
I'm sure you all understand why he is posting here.
That's because he thinks he was never treated properly here.
Why? Because of his English?
I find quite easy to understand.
He is actually right when he said that the only trueth that stays in this forum is the one you all big wiseman want.
Then I believe you are not being fair too.
See shh this is where you ended up.
Where were you better? Here or at kvcd?
Well maybe at on both forums at the same time.
Posting here is like when the world was ruled by communism and noone could say what they wanted even if it was plain true.
Oh boy, I'm sure marcellus will love reading your post Mr. Wilbert.
He comes from a country that has just banned communism.
He loves free speech for sure and he is a very young member.
Hope you can be reasonable and let a post where it belongs when there is no problem at all: at the forum.
From my point of view we're just chatting.
Noone is shouting.
Regards

[rds_correia]

Originally posted by Wilbert
The point is that everyone can sign up in that forum and get a copy of MovieStacker. Please, try to read the posts more carefully.
Hi Mr. Wilbert,
Please register to kvcd.net if you're not a member yet and follow the rules to get Moviestacker.
When you see for yourself the way it was done, please make your judgement, as I'm affraid you still haven't tried to get it.
If you find that reasonable maybe you share with the other members here your experience.
Please understand that I only tried to say that Jorel just wants to have the trueth even if it hurts.
Regards

[stax76]

poor ssh, when I remember right it's not the first time you had such problems, it can be hard sometimes writing oss, especially when you develop for windows. I hope you can find a solution somehow and continue being a oss programmer

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by rds_correia
Hi there,
If you have so much to tell us please drop by.

I had signed up and was awaiting the confirmation emails for a few hours before I even said that. So if the forum is public it is only a matter of time. If it is private then I suspect my registration might be denied.

Originally posted by rds_correia
Be a sports and point me to what you think I did wrong.

I did not say you did. I said perhaps. It is different. But your missunderstanding is understandable.

Originally posted by rds_correia
I recognise that I do take place at muaddib's side in this question. I understand that looking at GPL license you might read where it mentions that muaddib is forced to release the sources of his work.

Muaddib's position is understandable. It does not however make it right or justifyable. It's like claiming you were not speeding simply because you were not aware of what the speed limit was. That would not hold up in any court save mabey a really lax court of public oppinion. But any legitimate court would convict you so fast your head would spin. Muaddib would be well advised to stand up and take responsibility. As we all should in our own lives.

Originally posted by rds_correia
After 12 months without showing up at the forum shh came there again just when muaddib released a major update of his tool.
I stated there that that update by muaddib is a bit better than current FitCD. But I have to change my statement: it is miles ahead of FitCD.

Today or 4 years from now a license only expires when it says so. Strictly speaking if he had died a year ago his code would remain GPL till the end of time etc. With a new release it is understandable that this might have been brought to his attention. So it is not as opportunistic as it is being presented.

Originally posted by rds_correia
Shh would like to see that code? For what purpose? To incorporate it in Fit2Disc? To earn big bucks on other people hard work?
I'm not making insinuations, I'm posing questions, but you have to agree that it doesn't seem fair, right?

Wrong. From what I can see he has not set out to specifically make money from his software. Had that been the case it would likely have not been licensed as GPL and Muaddib would never have seen the source or started his development. With past events it is only understandable that shh would wish to inspect the source code himself or have a trusted third party do so. Muaddib has not shown himself in that thread alone to be that thurrough or reliable.

Originally posted by rds_correia
Then if it wasn't fair to muaddib now it's not fair to shh.
Do you want me to feel sad? I do. I already stated that here.

I think honestly if they worked together they would be capable of great things. But either Muaddib has ulterior motives or he is afraid to expose exactly what is in his code. [either he feels he is not that good a programmer or there may be more than just some of shh's code in there] Since if he is distributing it for free it would make alot of sense to distribute it as BSD or GPL. The only argument against such licensing for a free project would be to prevent forking. But preventing forking of a fork is a bit redundant.

Originally posted by rds_correia
Know what? If Kwag is right, then shh will not ever see a line of muaddib's code.

Kwag overstepped the bounds of what could be reasonably backed up some time ago. And has gone on to become quite antagonistic in my view throughout the rest of the thread. Not only did he say that "the gpl is bullshit." But later when someone mentioned someone having said that; he proudly announced to everyone that it was him. Not a good thing. We are all suceptable. But here and now if I start doing such things I want someone to call me on it. ;) I want to be as balanced and fair as I can within reason. I have even recently spent alot of time on introspection on how some of my biases might effect things and how to counteract or make up for them.

Originally posted by rds_correia
You think I'm thrilled?
I am not: I specifically and politely asked (as a member not as a Mod) shh to talk privately with muaddib to reach an agreement.
But he didn't.

Talking in private is fine and all. But not as good as having things on public record. And seeing as this is something that due to the GPL involved the public and their rights it kind of makes sense to have it on public record. Muaddib sounds a rather reasonable person. Others do not. And if this had strictly involved only Muaddib or shh a private talk may have been enough.

Originally posted by rds_correia
So now what? Want me to keep feeling sad?
I will but then I'll tell you that sad is being a member of this forum and see other members/mods/admin using terms completely unappropriate to use with a person, that's what!

Hehehe. We all know where our loyalties lye. But still that is an ironic and funny statement.

Originally posted by rds_correia
You'll never see that from mods/admin at kvcd and if some member is out of order you'll notice how the nearest mod will take care of him and his posts.

It's to late. The site admin is guilty of what you claim no mod or admin on that site would do. Who is moderating the site admin? A site admin should be held to a higher standard that the average mod or even the assistant admins. As such I have much respect for those like Doom9 who go to great lengths to avoid misspeaking in public. It is something I am not so sure I could do even remotely as well.

Originally posted by rds_correia
One thing is talking about "things".
Like papers, legal issues, licenses, law.
Another is talking about persons.
Like Kwag, me and Kvcd members.
Sadly noone ever teached some of doom9 members that.
Do you know what I think about that? As I read somewhere in this thread: ignorance is not an excuse!
Regards

Hmmmmmmm. I admit I initially did use some loaded language. Which Kwag quicly resorted to as well. Though I did apologise for some of it. Something I can not yet say of the other...... We are all after all only human. We can't be without our oppinions. But we can try and respect them. Especially in a thread like the sire where everyone admitted they had limited or no knowledge of exactly what the GPL entailed.

[rds_correia]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
I had signed up and was awaiting the confirmation emails for a few hours before I even said that. So if the forum is public it is only a matter of time. If it is private then I suspect my registration might be denied.

Hi Mr. Neo Neko,
I advise you to reexamine your registration form (especially the email address) for Kvcd.net.
An email should have already been sent to you mailbox.
If it hasn't either your box have a problem for I recommend trying with another one or you misspelled the address when typing it.
I wouldn't like to loose the opportunity to add another user to our community there.
And his oppinion on our subjects written for posterity.
Regards

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by rds_correia
Hi Mr. Neo Neko,
I advise you to reexamine your registration form (especially the email address) for Kvcd.net.
An email should have already been sent to you mailbox.
If it hasn't either your box have a problem for I recommend trying with another one or you misspelled the address when typing it.
I wouldn't like to loose the opportunity to add another user to our community there.
And his oppinion on our subjects written for posterity.
Regards

I if you will pardone the expression used the ctrl-c ctrl-v method. So it is not misspelled. ;) But contrary to popular belief e-mail is not always instantaneous. Take it from someone who has set up and run a mail server or two. Email can wander the internet for quite some time. I have even seen snail mail beat email on occasion. :eek: But it is getting late and almost time for counterstrike. So it might have to wait till saturday or monday. :D

[kwag]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
I if you will pardone the expression used the ctrl-c ctrl-v method. So it is not misspelled. ;) But contrary to popular belief e-mail is not always instantaneous.
In our case, it almost is!

I got an error from the server. I deleted your E-Mail here, for your protection:

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

neoneko@????????
local delivery failed

------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------

Return-path: <kwag @ kvcd.net>
Received: from fusemail.com
by fuse1.fusemail.net with smtp (FuseMail incSMTP)
id 1BH7jV-0001lH-KA
for neoneko@????????; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:57:13 -0500
Received: (qmail 54182 invoked by uid 80); 23 Apr 2004 20:59:17 -0000
To: neoneko@????????
Subject: Welcome to www.kvcd.net Forums
Reply-to: kwag @ kvcd.net
From: kwag @ kvcd.net
Message-ID: <12cb45b3e30c60878eac176d974a4296@kvcd.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:59:17 -0700
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: PHP
X-MimeOLE: Produced By phpBB2

[Neo Neko]

It's my brother in law's email service. I suppose I should IM him and say you have some splaning to do! But since I get free service I wont. I don't want to loose my 20Gb email space. :D But I might mention it to him. I had issue the first time I signed up for Valve's steam service as well. It took a whole day for the mail to arrive. Since then I had to sign up again and the message was litteraly there in seconds! :eek: So he might have some misconfiguration. Then again it could be DNS problems. For that matter what is your mail server's keepalive/retry period? Bah I am rambling. :p My debian box was at one time set to retry periodically for 6 days. Was not an issue unless there was a misstype or out of date addy. I always liked debian for email. Pitty I could never get a BSD or other Linux system to work so well. But then I am just rambling again. :p

[dragongodz]

lets get this back on tgrack shall we ?

ok so lets break it down a bit.

moviestacker used some of shh's GPL code.

shh asked either for the whole source to moviestacker to be released under GPL(as required) or the GPL code removed in a reasonable time(kwags suggestion of 14 months is NOT reasonable and NOT up to him or maudib, especially since it is claimed that it is less than 10%).

shh gets bashed on that forum and accused of all sorts of things(like wanting the moviestacker code etc). also GPL is called a bullsh*t license even though it has been now upheld in a court of law.

kwag suddenly announces that the forum is now suddenly an organisation so shh's request can be ignored.

what it comes down to is that if you dont like or want to follow the rules of the GPL then DONT USE THE SOURCE CODE TO START WITH. if you do then be a man(or a woman) and do the right thing when asked. the amount of squirming to avoid doing the right thing on that forum(especially from plain users who dont know jack about the subject) is disgusting.
:angry:

[kwag]

Originally posted by dragongodz
kwag suddenly announces that the forum is now suddenly an organisation so shh's request can be ignored.
Hi dragongodz,

Sorry to dissapoint you, but we've been an organization since 1994!
Please go read the GPL again, because apparently it just doesn't sink in well in to you, or you are just trying to bypass our current (and legal) bindings to it, for this issue.
Our decision is final, and complies 100% with the GPL license.
If you don't understand the license, the I suggest you get a lawyer, so he can interpret the GPL license for you.
You'll be amazed at all the things that will be ponted out!, like modifications to prior documents of the same license, without any "addendums" to the latest.
I'm really done here, because I don't have anything else to add. It's all clear, in black and white, at the GNU's site.

G'Day!,
-kwag

[dragongodz]

well kwag sorry to disappoint you too but you are trying to twist things for your own ends.

you have been an organisation since 1994 ? oh and where and when exactly was that announced ? back in 1994 or just recently ? if you were an organisation since 1994 why did you not say that to shh on the very first page of that post ?

what restrictions have you put in place to make the forum closed to make it an organisation ? having to fill in an age when you can not check (as has already been said) is no bar at all.

as for your current legal binding, well the issue there is was this "organisation" announcement made to stop shh from further asking for action to be taken(whether release of source or removal of GPL code) or has that always been the case. just saying it has been since 1994 now does not make it so.

since its actually you who hates the GPL i suggest its you who needs someone else to interpret for you, is that why it took so long for the "organisation" ?. as for your comments about addendums well who cares, it still held up in a court. so complain about it all you like but it is legal until someone takes it to court and proves otherwise.

beside all that both you and maudib claim there is only a little bit of GPL code left in moviestacker so why the resistance to remove that little bit ? all maudib had to say is "yes i will remove that code, lets discuss whats a reasonable time privatly" to shh and there would not have really been any problem. but no people like you kwag decided to try and put down shh and question his intentions.

so yes it sinks in quite well here thanks. it is quite clear exactly what type of a person you are and what you think of the rights of others hard work.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by kwag
Hi dragongodz,

Sorry to dissapoint you, but we've been an organization since 1994!

Please provide a link to your organizations charter.

Originally posted by kwag
Please go read the GPL again, because apparently it just doesn't sink in well in to you, or you are just trying to bypass our current (and legal) bindings to it, for this issue.

Yes!.... Yes!.... Yes!.... That's right folks you heard it here. The pot called the kettle black.

Originally posted by kwag
Our decision is final, and complies 100% with the GPL license.

As a member of your "organization" I must respectfully disagree. Your membership procedure in no way provides significant controls or discrinination as to who joins. Meaning it is a public forum such as this forum and not by any stretch of any legal terms a legal organisation. Don't make us sick RMS on you. He's rabbid you know.

Originally posted by kwag
If you don't understand the license, the I suggest you get a lawyer, so he can interpret the GPL license for you.

Who is your lawyer. To what bar association is he a member so that we may retrieve his credentials?

Originally posted by kwag
You'll be amazed at all the things that will be ponted out!, like modifications to prior documents of the same license, without any "addendums" to the latest.
I'm really done here, because I don't have anything else to add.

Why so late to realise this? Your first or second post was evidence enough. You keep claiming the same things over and over again. And it keeps getting shot down over and over again. You are not an organisation. We are not an organisation. No one here is their own organisation. You violate the GPL. Muaddib is violating the GPL with your help. You have not read and fully understood the GPL. You jumped to that one sentance about organizations and tried to create a loophole on a technicality that you are not eligable to claim.

Originally posted by kwag
It's all clear, in black and white, at the GNU's site.

Please take the time to read it. It will help everyone.

Quoth the GNU
Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
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.

Your registration process makes no mention of membership in any such organization. So either there is no such organization or you are entrapping your users without their knowledge or consent. In which case you are even more legally liable and in violation as well.

Quoth the GNU
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

Since you can not show such membership in said organization of any one in any way your claims to organization are invalid. Your forum is public. As such releasing to any member that requests without restriction constitutes public dissemination of a work derived in violation of license of the prior code. And a clear violation of the GPL.

Case closed. Guilty as charged.

[Wilbert]

@rds_correia,


Please register to kvcd.net if you're not a member yet and follow the rules to get Moviestacker.
When you see for yourself the way it was done, please make your judgement, as I'm affraid you still haven't tried to get it.
If you find that reasonable maybe you share with the other members here your experience.
Please understand that I only tried to say that Jorel just wants to have the trueth even if it hurts.
I registered several years ago, and no I don't have MovieStacker.

I don't get your comment here. Jorel said
first i quote that post from doom9:
"you can easily disprove their "private forum" statement by signing up for another account, .."

in the local forum rule number 14 is wrote:
14) Multiple registrations are prohibited and are grounds for immediate account deletion.
i was waiting something like that!

I didn't say I disagree with that. I guess that's also the case for the kvcd.net forum (although I don't know where to look that up).


Posting here is like when the world was ruled by communism and noone could say what they wanted even if it was plain true.
Oh boy, I'm sure marcellus will love reading your post Mr. Wilbert.
He comes from a country that has just banned communism.
Please, stop posting nonsense like this.

Where is Jorel's flamewar post problem?
The trueth in his words?
I'm sure you all understand why he is posting here.
That's because he thinks he was never treated properly here.
Why? Because of his English?
I find quite easy to understand.
He is actually right when he said that the only trueth that stays in this forum is the one you all big wiseman want.
I suggest you to read my post again
This whole post of you (excluding the first point) is not relevant for this thread
Is this so difficult to understand? If he wants to complain about how people treat him in this forum, he should do that in a separate post, or better directly to Doom9 himself.

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 ssh (and the opensource community) and muaddib.

[adam]

It doesn't make one bit of difference whether you call a forum an organization or not. This organization language is purely a hypothetical example of allowable distribution, but the determining factor is the conduct, not the status of the entity. Nowhere does GPL say that organizations or corportations are exempt, it just contemplates that these entities would be likely to engage in allowable distribution.

I don't think that anyone would argue that Microsoft isn't an organization, so does that mean they are totally exempt from any GPL violation? Obviously not.

If any member of the general public can gain access to the software just by submitting a request (regardless of whether their motive is to join the club or get the offending software) then I don't see how it can be argued that this isn't public distribution, even if you DO consider Kwag's forums an organization.

I guess I'm not really saying anything that other's haven't said already, I think there is just far too much emphasis being placed on a FAQ for the GPL rather than then the language of the license itself. If you read the terms of the agreement this seems like a clear cut violation.

[marcellus]

For the record:
I was a regular member of kvcd forum until today. I was surprised to find out that without my knowledge and will I was considered all the time a member of an "organization" -which I don't buy anyway. So I'm considering myself from now on a former member of that forum, as I don't support in any way it's latest policy regarding GPL enforcement. By this declaration here I don't intend in any way a flame war between forums, it's just another step from my side in supporting GPL enforcement as it is in my best interest and a duty that I owe to hard working developers in the open source field.
bye
marcellus

[rds_correia]

Originally posted by marcellus
For the record:
I was a regular member of kvcd forum until today. I was surprised to find out that without my knowledge and will I was considered all the time a member of an "organization" -which I don't buy anyway. So I'm considering myself from now on a former member of that forum, as I don't support in any way it's latest policy regarding GPL enforcement. By this declaration here I don't intend in any way a flame war between forums, it's just another step from my side in supporting GPL enforcement as it is in my best interest and a duty that I owe to hard working developers in the open source field.
bye
marcellus

Oh but you do my friend.
With words like, and I quote you, "b*tt kissers" in kvcd forum, you do.
If you're angry with someone you talk with that person in private.
What you did was not private thus available to be seen by many.
Consider that it was a fair move from you???
Easy when you're on your way out, isn't it?
You just put everybody in the same basket and call them what you want.
Those words were probably addressed to guys like myself.
I can take it and I can talk you if you want.
But it's all there for any guest such as people from doom9 to read.
I myself, and I believe all the members at kvcd, understand you may want to get out of there if you don't feel confortable any more.
But we all have to show reasonable.
Some here at doom9, at this very thread, showed few reason.
Instead some have recently, still in the same thread, show more reason.
You see Jorel posted his opinion on this subject here, and he was warned his post would be deleted.
You posted your opinion there and noone told you to rephrase or deleted your post.
That's the big difference from there and here most of the times.
So do you think here GPL is more enforced here than at kvcd.
Fine, go ahead and register at doom9.
But do you feel that doom9 always take care of their own?
Wrong! Look at Jorel. Why? Better ask the admin/mods here.
Flaming war from Jorel? Where for God?
He expressed his opinion like anybody else.
Wrong kind of language? Not as much as I've seen from other members here.

@All
Go ahead and support all kinds of licensing that promotes freeware of any kind.
Just make sure you ask for changes in the licensing, from who did it in the 1st place, when needed.
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.
But then maybe not only GPL.
Other licenses need to be updated too.
Otherwise we'll see things like what muaddib will do are legal.
Then you can say it's not fair what muaddib is doing.
Maybe right.
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.
If muaddib couldn't do what he's doing, then he wouldn't.
That's just it.
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.
In the end show a bit of reason, and always claim for one of the most fundamental right: freedom of will/speech.
If you can't have that, I think you don't have anything at all.
Regards

[Wilbert]

I get a bit tired of you.

You see Jorel posted his opinion on this subject here, and he was warned his post would be deleted.
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.


But do you feel that doom9 always take care of their own?
Wrong! Look at Jorel. Why? Better ask the admin/mods here.
Flaming war from Jorel? Where for God?
He expressed his opinion like anybody else.
He posted his frustration about the way he thinks he is treated in this forum. You don't seem to get the difference.

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.
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.