Please help me with suggestions about a GPL violation [Archive]

Neo Neko

23rd April 2004, 20:50

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

23rd April 2004, 20:57

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

23rd April 2004, 21:19

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

23rd April 2004, 21:31

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

23rd April 2004, 21:42

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

23rd April 2004, 21:52

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

23rd April 2004, 22:06

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

23rd April 2004, 22:15

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

23rd April 2004, 22:17

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

23rd April 2004, 22:23

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

23rd April 2004, 22:26

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

23rd April 2004, 22:29

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

23rd April 2004, 22:31

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

23rd April 2004, 22:41

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

23rd April 2004, 22:46

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

23rd April 2004, 23:03

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

23rd April 2004, 23:06

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

23rd April 2004, 23:15

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

23rd April 2004, 23:28

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

23rd April 2004, 23:38

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

23rd April 2004, 23:54

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

24th April 2004, 00:13

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

24th April 2004, 00:34

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

24th April 2004, 00:42

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

24th April 2004, 00:48

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

24th April 2004, 00:54

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

24th April 2004, 01:24

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

24th April 2004, 02:12

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

24th April 2004, 02:27

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

24th April 2004, 02:53

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

24th April 2004, 05:10

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

24th April 2004, 06:28

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

24th April 2004, 07:21

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

24th April 2004, 09:51

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

24th April 2004, 11:45

@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

24th April 2004, 12:00

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

24th April 2004, 12:23

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

24th April 2004, 15:15

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

24th April 2004, 15:58

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.

rds_correia

24th April 2004, 17:14

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

24th April 2004, 17:29

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

24th April 2004, 18:12

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

24th April 2004, 18:24

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

25th April 2004, 05:04

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

25th April 2004, 05:52

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

25th April 2004, 08:56

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

25th April 2004, 10:23

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

25th April 2004, 13:40

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

25th April 2004, 13:58

he will find the courage if we let him.

Mug Funky

25th April 2004, 15:56

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

25th April 2004, 19:20

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

25th April 2004, 19:53

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

25th April 2004, 20:04

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

25th April 2004, 20:36

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

25th April 2004, 23:30

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

25th April 2004, 23:46

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

26th April 2004, 00:06

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

26th April 2004, 00:06

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

26th April 2004, 01:12

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

26th April 2004, 02:39

@ smok3
shortly too: nice avatar.

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

MfA

26th April 2004, 03:27

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

26th April 2004, 04:14

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

avih

26th April 2004, 04:35

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

please.

jorel

26th April 2004, 06:49

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

26th April 2004, 07:03

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

26th April 2004, 07:55

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

26th April 2004, 08:08

@ 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

26th April 2004, 13:00

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

26th April 2004, 13:38

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

26th April 2004, 13:46

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

26th April 2004, 18:41

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

26th April 2004, 20:37

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

26th April 2004, 20:49

good post shh. congrats for going towards Muaddib.

i only wish he now does the same.

cheers.

virus

26th April 2004, 20:50

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

26th April 2004, 21:02

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

26th April 2004, 21:06

"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

26th April 2004, 21:20

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

27th April 2004, 01:02

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

27th April 2004, 01:36

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

27th April 2004, 02:15

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

27th April 2004, 02:53

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

27th April 2004, 05:25

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

27th April 2004, 05:45

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

27th April 2004, 06:42

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

27th April 2004, 06:53

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

27th April 2004, 07:04

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

27th April 2004, 07:14

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

27th April 2004, 07:26

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

27th April 2004, 07:33

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.

Neo Neko

27th April 2004, 07:46

Originally posted by kwag
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

Kwag Kwag Kwag have you sunk that low? There is no clause in the GPL that states you have to hold everyones hands whenever they ask. There is no subsection that says you have to be everyones friend. People have reasons for the way they behave and should not have to explain it to everyone. There are plenty of developers here who have similar attitudes. They have their reasons and I respect that. They still do good work and that is enough for me. And if ever real problems arise with a project under the GPL there are usually many who rise to the ocasion and pitch in as they can. For instance Milan has not released an official binary for his ffdshow project stable or unstable for basically 2 years! Further only a select few have actually had conversation with him in that time. None the less every week on sourceforge his project almost invarriably has 90% activity! But since his sources are public and anyone with the knowledge can compile them. Several have. Almost like clockwork athos and others keep us regularly supplied with new binaries including new features and fixes. I have a feeling that most of the versions of ffdshow currently installed were not compiled by Milan.

rds_correia

27th April 2004, 08:27

@Mr. Neo Neko,
They were not compiled by Mr. Milan.
They are mostly compiled by Mr. Athos that we can find mostly here @ D9.

@Mr. Neuron2 (wherever he is)
Sir, I praise for GPL as much as most of us here and I believe I'm telling the truth when I say we all feel the same @KVCD.
The reason why I'm posting here is because you're not a member there anymore.
In fact you aid us all by developing your D2V branch code.
I'm sure you still remind yourself that a few weeks ago before the MS vs FitCD issue started I came to you, at your own forum, and PMed you about someonelse who calls himself Amnon82 here and Avalon @KVCD.
That person was using your decodefix100 without mentioning your name, without the readme.html and with a new name: yes DVD2AVIDRPEnc.
That was clearly a violation of your rights since Mr. Avalon has not done a single line of code in decodefix100.
And that's why I advised you of such an event happening.
I for sure received a PM from yourself thanking my gesture and good will. As always you're most welcome.
Don't noone come and tell me (not that you did sir) that I don't enforce GPL and developers rights.
In fact, you sir, know that we @KVCD all respect every developer out there using GPL or whatever license.
Though I am here today defending the good name and (moral) rights of one of our members there.
I have been doing so for the last couple of days.
And don't you come, Sir, telling me that by remaining at KVCD as opposed to you I am associated of a criminal.
You should know better than that, sir.
And I would ask you to rephrase sir as it would not be fair for some at KVCD to say the same here at D9, don't you find that true?
I may/may not have the law on my side but WE_all_know that this in plenty of unfair for Muaddib.
We all know, but most here don't care although some say they do.
They just say "the law is the law, period".
Now one thing I assure you all, that is not in the spirit of the GPL license that we should all turn ourselves against each other.
But it seems that as a virus spreading (just kidding of course) it has made some of us act in a very peculiar way.
Regards

Neo Neko

27th April 2004, 08:57

Originally posted by rds_correia
@Mr. Neo Neko,
They were not compiled by Mr. Milan.
They are mostly compiled by Mr. Athos that we can find mostly here @ D9.

You will also find them at many other places. If I am not mistaken the latest ffdshow binary over at afterdawn is athos's as well. http://www.afterdawn.com/software/video_software/codecs_and_filters/ffdshow.cfm

Originally posted by rds_correia
@Mr. Neuron2 (wherever he is)
Sir, I praise for GPL as much as most of us here and I believe I'm telling the truth when I say we all feel the same @KVCD.
The reason why I'm posting here is because you're not a member there anymore.
In fact you aid us all by developing your D2V branch code.
I'm sure you still remind yourself that a few weeks ago before the MS vs FitCD issue started I came to you, at your own forum, and PMed you about someonelse who calls himself Amnon82 here and Avalon @KVCD.
That person was using your decodefix100 without mentioning your name, without the readme.html and with a new name: yes DVD2AVIDRPEnc.
That was clearly a violation of your rights since Mr. Avalon has not done a single line of code in decodefix100.

Neuron2 at your word we will make ready.

Originally posted by rds_correia
Don't noone come and tell me (not that you did sir) that I don't enforce GPL and developers rights.
In fact, you sir, know that we @KVCD all respect every developer out there using GPL or whatever license.
Though I am here today defending the good name and (moral) rights of one of our members there.

You name has never been sullied. At least not in my oppinion. You have done your best to try and figure out what the right thing is and how to do it. No one can hold that against you. Even if we may not agree.

Originally posted by rds_correia
And don't you come, Sir, telling me that by remaining at KVCD as opposed to you I am associated of a criminal.

Because of Muaddib's actions the situation there I would deem defused. And all Kwag's talk of organization will remain just that. Talk. But keep your eyes open. I should hope he never tries such action again without the express written conscent of his members.

Originally posted by rds_correia
I may/may not have the law on my side but WE_all_know that this in plenty of unfair for Muaddib.

The world is not fair. That is something we all have to live with. But we should try and hold everyone to the same standard. Having ingored this instance how could we make a case for any future such instance and have any respect for what we say? And there will be future instances. Trust me on that.

Originally posted by rds_correia
We all know, but most here don't care although some say they do.
They just say "the law is the law, period".

The law is the law. And most of us strive to change some laws. But that is only when they are unfair or stand to do more harm than good. In what way is the GPL unfair or hurting most people? Tell me that.

Originally posted by rds_correia
Now one thing I assure you all, that is not in the spirit of the GPL license that we should all turn ourselves against each other.
But it seems that as a virus spreading (just kidding of course) it has made some of us act in a very peculiar way.

As someone admittedly not that knowledgable when it comes to the GPL funny you should claim to know the spirit of it. Had that actually been the case likely things may not have progressed to the point they did. I think you are a good person. But I simply can not agree with you on this. ;)

MfA

27th April 2004, 10:16

It was never about the law, the law is a means to a cause. Muaddib did not understand it on the level of the law ... but that wasnt an issue.

GPL is a lot of things to a lot of people ... but the main aspects of it are Freedom and reciprocity. Closed source programs dont promote Freedom so the GPL is not there to protect or promote them even if they are free, and reciprocity was ultimately maintained here. Muaddib was not ready to share his source code, so he was denied the use of shared source code.

Some of you wanted for the spirit of the agreement layed down in the GPL to be broken, just because someone misunderstood it ... now that was truely an unfair request to make. The person who made the mistake had remedies open to him, why request of the person who provided the source code in the first place to supply even more than he already did? There is no fairness in that, it is an unreasonable request ... when people act unreasonable there is very little you can do but lay down the law.

rds_correia

27th April 2004, 10:47

Hello,
Then I'm affraid Muaddib will make use of the law and obey the license.
But don't expect the community to like it.
And don't forget one thing here: the law is the law and when people don't show reasonable that's what heppens.
You are the witnesses that I tried for every means find us a way here even "fighting" against many's opinions.
Don't just expect that things will be easy anymore.
It is my wish that even after Muaddib takes the proper actions we can all still respect each other.
Regards

shh

27th April 2004, 11:42

> about the (my) GPL-spirit

When somebody releases code under the GPL, he wants it to be free and stay free. I could have easyly chosen another license, but I didn't. I've reached my limits and wanted the project to become something big, well, with all of the added up work from other programmers, to become something new.
We all respect free program downloads, but such projects with closed source stop the freedom, because nobody can enhance the project any further. The program is [again] limited to one person.
The point, that everybody can add features to a program, fix bugs, and that all the different abilities of the programmers are added up, is the essential point for people who release under GPL.
Well, that were at least my essential points, why I chose that willing of my code use (= license).
It's clearly visible, that crediting the author, or just a free .exe isn't intended and also cannot compete with this freedom. And that's what people are fighting for: They fight for the freedom, they wanted the code to have and somebody wants to take away.

I remember to have often written „please read the readme, point x“ - and nothing more. What might be harsh, but just saves me time, because it's already written somewhere. I don't want to insult somebody with that. I must ask for a little understanding of my time-saving, since I must use the dictionary quite often, and also must find some time to implement all the feature-requests for you – for free.

I also remember to have wrote something like „the sources are free, please do it on your own. I don't have the time for feature x“. What's wrong with this? Is it too harsh again?
And with „sources are free“ I of course have implied „free under the GPL“. Why should I have meant something else when encouraging people to implement features on their own? It was my wish that the project grows.
Now, as for the freedom of the sources is called, some people's world seem to break apart. Why?

Is this the real face of shh? Yes, it is. :) (not meaning the surreality of kwag's world understanding)
On many FUD and flames I kept calm and tried to answer reasonable and founded. I don't think I can be blamed for anything.

> Removal of MovieStacker

Sad step, but acceptable for me in that way. Though I cannot speak for others who possibly want to see the sources of the released v2.1.0 version.
I hope all this doesn't take away the/your fun on programming.

Guest

27th April 2004, 13:16

Originally posted by rds_correia
@Mr. Neuron2 (wherever he is)

[...] And don't you come, Sir, telling me that by remaining at KVCD as opposed to you I am associated of a criminal.
You should know better than that, sir.
And I would ask you to rephrase sir as it would not be fair for some at KVCD to say the same here at D9, don't you find that true? The "crime" is actually one of civil law, so I am happy to rephrase as follows: "criminal" -> "illegal and unethical". Happy now?

I may/may not have the law on my side but WE_all_know that this in plenty of unfair for Muaddib. No, I don't know that and it seems to me muaddib is getting just what he deserves.

r6d2

27th April 2004, 15:33

@muaddib,

Excuse me, I forgot to say something very important on my previous post: Welcome to the forum! You know, this is the customary way of greeting newcomers here.
Originally posted by muaddib
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 afraid I would never find). Well, now you’ve come to the right forum. :)

Jokes aside, I’m surprised you never heard of this spirit before (during this riot I mean). You know, when this thing first started at KVCD.net, I did not want to go public because I thought the matter was way out of control. I said to myself: who has both the wits and power to stop this? I naturally thought of Kwag.

I know Kwag, he has always been friendly so I thought I could have a talk with him and share my views, so he might see things differently. However, I failed. I was quite unsuccessful at trying to express my point, since he finally shut down the conversation which what I considered a “Sitting Bull has spoken” tone. :) (Well, the actual phrase was “I already explained things”.)

But as I said, I’m surprised, because one thing that Kwag was interested in hearing from me was the flaws in the AR keeping. In fact, he told me he would let you know about them. Didn’t he? :confused:
I want the sources! I want it because I can. I have the right because of the GPL!No, muaddib, don’t get it wrong. By releasing Moviestacker under GPL you “shouted”: “Sources available on request”. I know this is not what you intended, but that’s the way it was. Don’t let anything blind your sight on that.

Someone said all this was unfair to you. In fact, at least Kwag and rds_correia have expressed opinions on that line of thought. And then Kwag came up with a “solution”: the organization thing. And you bought it, obviously, since it seemed to protect your position and comply with GPL at the same time.

You see? Instead of taking back your move, which was easy: don’t make your program available if the GPL license did not satisfy you, you decided instead to try to get away with it, because you were told by someone you trust that you would comply with GPL!

But think of it this way: if the “organization” theory upholds, anyone could take a GPL source, improve it, wrap it up, get a friend who runs a site (preferably a friend who dislikes GPL), and ask him to host the binary. You could then ask for a registration into the “organization of the multiple users and single developer of this improved program”. Man, you could even charge for it.

Talking about fairness, do you really think this is fair?

Well, not me. And this is what you were told at KVCD. As a result, you were put in a very uncomfortable situation, exposed and criticized for what apparently was a “get away with it” attitude. And, as you have shown on you posts here, that was never you intention!

I tried Kwag to see the implications of what he was doing, but unfortunately, I was not successful. I got the “Sitting Bull has spoken” thing. :)

One last comment on shh’s attitude towards “supporting users”. My experience with shh was completely different to the one you describe. I also contacted him. He wanted to hear about my ideas, he fixed the bugs I reported, and in spite of his difficulty with English, he always responded my requests. Of course he did not build every idea I had, but then again, he was in his own right.

But then again, this is not a popularity contest. You are both welcome in this forum with your ideas and good work.

I reinstate my offer to help you with any resizing and cropping issues, for any future versions. I also have a BR calculator (which I made public of course) which may be of use.

Regards, muaddib, and again welcome to the forum.

DDogg

27th April 2004, 15:49

muaddib, this was an unfortunate situation for you, shh, and our whole community. Thanks for working to resolve it with integrity.

I'm sure it has been mentioned, but it will not hurt to say it again. In any future situations, both you and shh may want to consider mutually agreeing to abide by the decisions of an unofficial third party mediator whom you would both agree to trust. That would have been much less stressful on all parties involved. Although I will not directly mention them, I'm sure several names would pop up to both of you that you would both find mutually agreeable.

In the end, I truly hope you know this communities involvement was never really about the merits, or lack of merits, of your individual situation. It was all about upholding the primary fundamental principle of GPL. Sitting quietly and allowing any individual to break this fundamental principle, even if they individually felt they had some special reason to do so, could literally open the floodgates to increasing abuse and the freedoms we enjoy from GPL could quickly disappear.

As was said somewhere, this is a situation where the rights of the many far outweigh the rights of any individual situation. It has just got to be like that, and I hope you can fully embrace the concept and not take any of this too personally.

rds_correia

27th April 2004, 17:49

Originally posted by neuron2
The "crime" is actually one of civil law, so I am happy to rephrase as follows: "criminal" -> "illegal and unethical". Happy now?
I beg your pardon, Sir?
What do you mean by illegal and unethical?
I expected you to have a different opinion on us.
But what can I say?
I was wrong about you all the time sir.
And to think that a few weeks ago I tried to help you...
Believe me when I tell you that Muaddib would have done the exact same thing I did.
Maybe we're all naive at KVCD...
I believe this has gone far beyhond my most pessimistic expectations!

No, I don't know that and it seems to me muaddib is getting just what he deserves.

Remember these words above, Sir.
I hope one day you don't see yourself in the same/similar situation.
That is: one in which you need support and just see sarcasm and disrespect towards your work!
I just hope we really don't have to talk with each other ever again!
Good day to you sir.

rds_correia

27th April 2004, 17:54

Hello
Given the latest developments between me and another Doom9 team member I'm definitly leaving this forum for good.
My best whishes to those that deserve my consideration, and they know who they are.
I'm PMing the Admin to erase my register here.
Regards

Rui

Guest

27th April 2004, 18:21

Originally posted by rds_correia
I hope one day you don't see yourself in the same/similar situation.
No fear! I won't ever violate GPL. I've been a faithful adherent to the GPL philosophy from day 1. I do appreciate your concern on my behalf, however.

Mug Funky

27th April 2004, 18:38

I beg your pardon, Sir?
What do you mean by illegal and unethical?
I expected you to have a different opinion on us.

man, how is it one can misinterpret a statement so badly? does rds think neuron called him a criminal?

guh. i'm very forgiving with people who don't natively speak english, but at least some effort must be made to understand what neuron2 said before you jump to the conclusion that he thinks all at KVCD.net are criminals...

i wont even try to explain what he said... there's no point arguing with somebody who actively wants to be insulted, even though none is intended.

if you're going to be in a flamewar (well, i guess you aren't now - you left), you should have a thicker skin than that. (try me out... you can call me what you like and i'll laugh it off)

marcellus

27th April 2004, 19:55

I feel sorry to see that everybody managed to hurt everybodys else's feelings. I think this is a bad thing and it must be stopped right away. It does more bad than good and serves nobody's interest.

Since there was so many people with good intentions (myself included) that pointed out to others only bad things I think it might be of some help to concentrate a little only on the good things that maybe escaped from view in the fire of battle (hoping that it's not only wishfull thinking on my side). I took some time and distance, I lost myself many hours and I tried to walk in the "other side"'s shoes.

So (just the good things as I see them myself):
1. Muaddib released a good program. Good for him (and for us too). And expected everybody to be happy.
2. Shh wanted Muaddib to comply with GPL as he should (using shh's GPL-ed code in MovieStacker). Very good, GPL is important.
3. Kwag felt the need to protect Muaddib (like an older brother) from something that appeared to be in his eyes unfair for Muaddib. He went so far that he spoke some ridiculous things that I'm sure he himself doesn't believe (maybe he got so far because as an admin he felt challenged by me as a "disrespectfull" regular member - maybe he had a problem with that). Consequently he took in face so many insults that probably exceed all he heard in his life about him. Well, good thing, kwag is a good friend but too quick to jump to conclusions to be trusted with a good advise. But I'm prepared to believe that his intentions are good and probably it's a good thing (for Muaddib) to have a friend like him.
4. Muaddib felt himself mistreated, misunderstood, unappreciated for his good efforts and betrayed (at least by me as a kvcd member at that time). He felt it's right to appreciate kwag's friendship and protection, opposed to us that are some aggressive unknown people. Maybe kwag helped him before, perhaps even in putting together MovieStacker, so he owes him credit too, not only to shh. Good thing, he is a loyal friend too.
6. Some other members on kvcd took a stand in kwag's and muaddib's back. In their eyes friendship and loyalty seemed to be more important than "some GPL" compliance. They were so brave so they were up to sustain their friend and admin no matter how stupid they looked. Good thing too -to some extent.
7. Me and the rest of "good guys" (on this forum, the "bad guys" on the other) united efforts to defend the spirit of GPL and open source comunity. Well, this is definitely a good thing too.
8. NeoNeko and others took the time and effort to explain in detail the importance of GPL so everybody is more aware well informed than before on the subject. Very good thing.

So, every "side" shown repeteadly very important things and values to the other "side":
1. Friendship is an important thing, no matter what.
2. No real malicious intention was behind muaddib's actions (and neither behind shh's for that matter) and rather the opposite is true.
3. GPL is important, it's not void of meaning in the eyes of the comunity, it unites us (developers and users) and there is always somebody prepared to defend it in public. So it can be trusted and it really is a good foundation to build on.

Now I think it's time for everybody to put aside guns and knives and to come together on the same side, since it's my feeling that are more things that unite us than things that divide us, and all "messages" are begining to be understood.

I hope Muaddib is begining to understand that nobody is after him personally and that if he is prepared to play by the rules is welcome and appreciated (as he finally took the right steps in complying with GPL) - his value as a programmer and his help wasn't been denied. I hope he will understand that GPL is a guarantee for him too as it is for shh, so he can expect the same reaction on our side if he would see his code trapped in somebody else's closed source software (assuming he will release the sources afterall). I fully understand that it was no bad intention on his side (and never thought it was or suggested), he just took pride in making a good program and after that took pride in doing the opposite everybody shouted at him to do (because he felt mistreated by -in his view - ungratefull people). Well, sometime is a good thing to be a rebel, sometimes is not.

I hope that all this sad story will have a happy end afterall. And soon.

best regards
marcellus

EDIT: typo

Neo Neko

30th April 2004, 05:42

Well things have settled for now. The original thread is locked for no good reason. And the situation is far from over. I told Kwag he could not get rid of me and he has not. I will be there watching like a hawk. To make sure they stick to their end.

Kwag has proven himself a great manipulator. Using the cocept of friendship and unquestioningly sticking up for your buddies. He has persuaded a number of the community to take leave of their senses and ignore the clear cut nature if the situation. These people simply state that they should support their "friend" at all times. But what they neglect to think of is that supporting your friends is not always about sitting on the side and cheering them on in what ever they do. Sometomes the best support you can give to a frined is to warn them and tell them when they are wrong or in danger. Something none of Muaddib's self proclaimed "friends" took the time to do. It took outsiders to do that. I hope that when the time comes my friends will not cheer me on as I run to throw myself on daggers. But instead shout at me to bring me back to clarity and reality. That should be a lesson for us all, a lesson in what not to do. A FRIEND IS NOT A YES MAN.

What surprises me most is that some of the people there that had made real progress have since fallen back in their old ways. Simply taking Kwag at face value and not taken the time to be a "friend" to him. Some have gotten so comfortable with their old ways that they have even tried to write it off with words like "those people are the minority" or "they just love the GPL more than anything else". Those people "WILL" read this and "WILL" know who they are. And they should know better. I was hard on Kwag but for good reason. It was something none of his "friends" would do for him. And it is something he still needs. Because there are lots of things that he does that still pose a danger to him and everyone else there. A good leader needs to listen as well as lead. Something which Kwag has clearly not taken the time to do. As someone who speaks so much he as so little to say. And when he does speak he has shown himself to be a hatefull person. Hatefull of the GPL and those who use it. Hatefull of those who are different from himself. Kwag showed from post 1 that he had no intention of ever listening.

Frankly as I said it is not the developers job to hold your hand. Even in business environments they have support staff for that. A developers personality or what in your limited interaction with them may percive as a lack of; has no bearing on the legitimacy of the license they choose to use. You can't just disregard their license because you don't like them. Funny that such a concept was the very justification for the behavior over at the other forum. And they claimed they were respecting the developer. When in reality they were disrespecting developers everywhere. It is not for us to understand developers or developers to like us. I suppose that is why places like this have built up such a collection of developers. Because of the respect they show and the way they have their users do so as well.

NobbyNobbs

30th April 2004, 10:05

Even if an organisation can use GPL code internally, and not release it publicly, any user who legaly get a copy of the binary have the right to ask for a copy of the source.
At least that is how I understand the GPL

IANAL and all that Bull***t. (check out www.groklaw.net to read more about recent attacs on the GPL.)

marcellus

30th April 2004, 13:34

Now I think that perhaps I was misunderstood with my previous post. I'm not sure, my english is not so good. When I tried to shed a "positive" light on kwag and co. was only expecting to get a positive reaction from them, showing them that I try to understand their "out of mind" reactions as much is humanly possible. And by positive reaction I mean a honest admission of guilt and some appologies. Clearly too much wishfull thinking on my side. Their case remainds me of that funny character, iraqi ministry of information.

Anyway, in real life I wouldn't stay alone 3 minutes with people like that, they could steal my wallet and pretend that I'm the one offending them when I cry for help.

sad story, sad people

bye
marcellus

r6d2

30th April 2004, 14:32

Originally posted by Neo Neko
The original thread is locked for no good reason.Well, rereading the last posts one can come to the conclusion that since kwag recognized to have made himself stupid posts, he was affraid of the temptation to continue to do so on that thread.

To me that's a good reason.

Livlander

30th April 2004, 15:12

Originally posted by marcellus
Their case remainds me of that funny character, iraqi ministry of information.

Sure.
And the case of some others when they stick that much to a strict interpretation of GPL reminds me of Ayatollah Khomeiny.

Having said that, I must admit that the issue to be solved here was not an easy one. But we all know that the war between Iraq and Iran was long...

Neo Neko

30th April 2004, 20:56

Originally posted by marcellus
Now I think that perhaps I was misunderstood with my previous post. I'm not sure, my english is not so good. When I tried to shed a "positive" light on kwag and co. was only expecting to get a positive reaction from them, showing them that I try to understand their "out of mind" reactions as much is humanly possible. And by positive reaction I mean a honest admission of guilt and some appologies.

No one missunderstood you. But not everyone has had the same experienceas you. Remember that. We are all different and all have valid things to say. You may think good of Kwag. And that carries alot of weight since you have spent time over there. But understand that in my time with Kwag he hardly impressed me. And instead rather offended me. You can be his friend. No one here will dislike you for that. Just understand if some of us don't like him.

Originally posted by marcellus
Anyway, in real life I wouldn't stay alone 3 minutes with people like that, they could steal my wallet and pretend that I'm the one offending them when I cry for help.

There is deep deep irony in that statement for me. I will leave you to decipher that. But you are free yo make your own choices. And I am not one to hold it against you.

Neo Neko

30th April 2004, 21:02

Originally posted by r6d2
Well, rereading the last posts one can come to the conclusion that since kwag recognized to have made himself stupid posts, he was affraid of the temptation to continue to do so on that thread.

To me that's a good reason.

I suppose you are right. But still because of that this may see another thread. Rather than just keeping it to the one. I had no intention of filling that forum with related posts. That is bad nettiquete. But at least one more may be called for then.

MfA

30th April 2004, 22:18

Originally posted by Livlander And the case of some others when they stick that much to a strict interpretation of GPL reminds me of Ayatollah Khomeiny.

Oh my god yes, now I realise my mistake ... I shouldnt have thought that putting the GPL on source code would mean people should respect it, I shouldnt expect the small courtesy that anyone who wants to use my source to show me his source in return. That is just so unreasonable, I might as well put on jack boots and salute a picture of Hitler ... that is how evil I am.

Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.

Nic

30th April 2004, 22:38

@All mods: Ok, we've been doing a bit of our own comedy recently. But MfA wins the award for funniest post April 2004....surely?

r6d2

1st May 2004, 02:22

Originally posted by Nic
But MfA wins the award for funniest post April 2004....surely? I subscribe that too. If only he had used a ;) or :), or if it was posted on april fools day... You know, some guys are not good at appreciating irony and may think he actually meant it!

Anyway, my other contender was precisely this one (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73686) by bb. ;)

r6d2

1st May 2004, 02:30

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Just understand if some of us don't like him.Just a line to say I personally don't dislike kwag. In fact I think he is a nice guy, with an interesting dream and which has made interesting contributions too in the encoding area.

And I also think that there is nothing wrong with being wrong at times. Of course the lack of apology thing is a pity indeed, but it takes quite more than being a nice guy to publicly say I'm sorry. It requires a level of self-awareness not easy to accomplish.

dragongodz

1st May 2004, 04:54

I personally don't dislike kwag. In fact I think he is a nice guy, with an interesting dream and which has made interesting contributions too in the encoding area.
do you really think so ?

But at least one more may be called for then.
Neo Neko in case you didnt see it kwag has deleted your Neo Neko account and heres the best bit
his information has been recorded now with our legal department.
Next time he shows up, we'll send his complete history with a beautiful letter to his provider, with some of his "higlight" posts.
wow what a really "nice guy" indeed.
And I also think that there is nothing wrong with being wrong at times. Of course the lack of apology thing is a pity indeed, but it takes quite more than being a nice guy to publicly say I'm sorry. It requires a level of self-awareness not easy to accomplish.
it also requires the person to realise they are wrong. kwag in no way admits or thinks that. his comments about coders who choose the GPL are proof enough of that. ok you gave him a way out to maybe not insult coders like Nic, Avery Lee, Neuron2 etc but i in no way believe it. see how he tries to then shift it to companies ?

hey Sun, IBM etc you are not "serious" companies because you have had a hand in GPL programs. so please close your doors now. go join others like Nic, Avery, Neuron2, Sh0dan etc at the losers pub.
thinks-"oh hang on i code GPL aswell, bugger". hey guys hang on.... wait up will you. jeez dont walk so fast. :D

muaddib

1st May 2004, 07:39

@ marcellus
I just read that long post you made. At KVCD I told that you should be a lawyer, but with that post you truly look like a diplomat. Those were wise and beautiful words and IMHO, it would end this thread with a golden key (but Neo-Neko and some others look just too personally angry with kwag :( ). Some of your words I agree, some I don’t, but I think that’s exactly how it should be.

@ all
Unfortunately I had no free time in the last 4 days to read/write forums, and I feel that I must express my self again, as some of my intentions seem to be misunderstood. I don’t want to start a flame war again; I never wanted it to begin. So try to read my post this way.

I received some messages (here and at KVDC, PM and not) that I felt like someone coming by my side, giving a cordial slap in my back and saying “Glad that in the end you did the right thing!”.

Sorry, but I have to clarify that… I didn’t ask to kwag remove MovieStacker from download because I thought that was the right thing (thinking in a wider meaning of “right” than just “legally right”). I did it because GPL forces me to do so. You didn’t change my mind about it. Not even a bit.

I also didn’t change my mind about what is “legally right”. And that seems to me that I was never understood for you. What is really understandable, because I’m certainly not as eloquent and expressive as many of you here. I tried to say it before (in KVCD and in my other post here), and I’ll try again... please try to understand that is really difficult for me to fully express my self in english.

First, I don’t want this to be understood as an excuse! I’m sick to hear that ignorance is no excuse. I never wanted it to be!
Well, here I go again… I never wanted to break the rules of GPL, even if I don’t agree with them! I didn’t know that I was doing that not releasing the full sources. When I released the incomplete sources of MovieStacker 1.1, shh accepted that, or at least didn’t say the opposite. Maybe because he also had not fully read the license or maybe something else. I don’t know. The fact is that I keep coding thinking that that was good enough. When shh decided to demand the full sources now (I was still not knowing), he did not came to me, but to the forum. If he had come to me, just two things could have resulted. The first one is our personal problem could have been cleaned and I could have given the sources. The second is that, we were not able to wash our differences and I would not want to give my sources. Of course I would have tried to show him my point of view, the same way I did at KVCD, but if he did not accept it and still wanted the sources because the GPL says he can, then I would have removed the download as happened later (but without all this riot).

dragongodz> you chose the public way aswell when you chose to respond and agree with the ideas of kwag.When I read shh post at KVCD there were already 20 posts of flame war! I couldn’t have just sent a PM and not respond public anymore. The feelings (including mine) were already inflamed.

dragongodz> since you NEVER released the full source nobody could have made and tested changes even if they wanted to.I guess you are right, but I never asked too. I was just trying to say that I believe the attitude of wanting the source “just because I can”, is not the right one.

Neo Neko> It is not the developers job to be everyone's buddy.Of course not! But they also do not have to show their asses to every one who ask for help. Beside that, IMHO, as a developer you do have some responsibility with the ones who uses your program. (almost like you have with the ones you captivate)

Neo Neko> I'm sorry you feel that way when it was you who first blemeshed the spirit. And then compounded it in listening to Kwag.Sorry, but I didn’t blemish its spirit. I not even knew its spirit. Now I know. And I believe that the kind of attitude you showed was never intended by GPL.
And yes, kwag is a good friend of mine.

Neo Neko> Honestly you misunderstand my intention and oppinions.Well, to be honest I have to say that I really have misread you. (my bad english again :( )
I re-read some of your posts, and found that you are not as “bad” as I was thinking.
But that don’t change my mind about you not been correct saying “I want because I can. After, I will delete it”. I know that is your right. But just that don’t make it “right”. You don’t change your religion just because you can, though it is your right.

Neo Neko> I do not hate you.Me neither. Sincerely.

Neo Neko> Simply what you have doneMe either.

Neo Neko> You have done your best to try and figure out what the right thing is and how to do it. No one can hold that against you. Even if we may not agree.:goodpost: Those words were directed to rds_correia. And I totally agree with you.

shh> I remember to have often written „please read the readme, point x“ - and nothing more.
shh> I also remember to have wrote something like „the sources are free, please do it on your own. I don't have the time for feature x“.Well, that was not like this. And certainly there were more.
And about your “spirit” of GLP, I’m not sure if I can believe that or not. But I have to tell you that if you had told me what you write in your last post. I would probably had release the sources, and we would not have all this crap going on (forum disrespecting forum, people disrespecting people, and fights for what license is better then other). That was a noble wish, but you never showed it to me. May be because the situation never let you do that, I don’t know. But you choose this way (and even other want me to share this blame, I don’t), and make it public without not trying to ask or show your point to me. In fact what you did and the point you showed (with backup here) was very far from that. Unfortunately, before every thing that happened, I can’t release the sources (now). But the GPL was enforced with the argument that “the law is the law”. And as I said before, that is fine to me. Even I if I don’t agree with it. But I’ll keep it this way... “GPL B&W”.

shh> Sad step, but acceptable for me in that way. Though I cannot speak for others who possibly want to see the sources of the released v2.1.0 version.Wow... You made me think that I’ll never rest until I release the sources!
Is that you intent? Nah... I’m sure not. But wow... now I’m worried... even scared!

neuron2> No, I don't know that and it seems to me muaddib is getting just what he deserves.Hehe… That not surprises me. Don’t get me wrong I think you do a great job with your filters, and I respect you for that.
I have read some of your posts, and I think I know a small bit of your temper and personality. And I couldn’t expect anything more than that from you. But that’s ok, I really don’t care.
“Seeker after truth” you say... you (we all) have a long way; you’ll not find it just looking under your shoes.

r6d2> Excuse me, I forgot to say something very important on my previous post: Welcome to the forum!Well, that is very nice. And you look like to be a nice guy.
But that (the welcome) doesn’t seem to be the majority feeling. And honestly I don’t feel comfortable here in this forum. I don’t know, but I probably never will.

DDogg> Sitting quietly and allowing any individual to break this fundamental principle, even if they individually felt they had some special reason to do so, could literally open the floodgates to increasing abuse and the freedoms we enjoy from GPL could quickly disappear.I don’t believe that I break anything. Well, at least I was not aware with that. Again, this is not an excuse, I already said that. And I wrote what I wrote because I just have to. I would do that if shh had PM me, or in public (the way it was). That is my point of view and my feeling about the matter. I could not (in PM ou Public) say yes or no without giving my reasons. If they are valid or not; or if shh would embrace these reasons is a totally different question that would depend just on him. I just had to try. Even if I wasn’t waiting he would accept it.

Regards,
muaddib

Livlander

1st May 2004, 08:46

Originally posted by MfA
Oh my god yes, now I realise my mistake ... I shouldnt have thought that putting the GPL on source code would mean people should respect it, I shouldnt expect the small courtesy that anyone who wants to use my source to show me his source in return. That is just so unreasonable, I might as well put on jack boots and salute a picture of Hitler ... that is how evil I am.

Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.

You are welcome. I am pleased you now understand the reason why laywers can work and earn money, even if hundreds of laws have been writen.
By the way, I don't know what jack boots are, but reading your words, I can imagine, and they sure fit you well...

shh

1st May 2004, 08:52

muaddib> Well, that was not like this. And certainly there were more.

Well, certainly you have a different view about this.

muaddib> But I have to tell you that if you had told me what you write in your last post. I would probably had release the sources, and we would not have all this crap going on

Perhaps. But there is no possibility to step back.
Personally I like to talk public, because the GPL is also in public interest. And as I've released my sources to the public it is arguable, if all this is or was just a matter between us two.
I also like it that someone points out my errors. And of course I also like it, to get founded answers from people who know the GPL better that me.
Sadly (not to my intention) a "discussion" never built up at kwag's. I was the bad guy and the folks over there didn't even try to understand my point of view. What followed was expectable - for me and for you.

kwag

1st May 2004, 16:43

Originally posted by shh
I was the bad guy and the folks over there didn't even try to understand my point of view.
@shh,

I think I understand your point of view very clearly, and it's well explained (understood, analyzed and digested) by industry experts (links) here:
http://kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10606

-kwag

avih

1st May 2004, 17:31

muaddib, you ARE welcome.

ppl make mistrakes, it happens. acknowledging them is the hard part. or as a corrolary, to err is human, to forgive is devine.

so i hope both of you will forgive eachother for the errors that might have taken place. i'm glad to see you're talking sensly to one another.

as a side note, and without trying to put any pressure on u, imho, you might gain much from actually openning your sources. many ppl will help you, fix bugs, etc. it's so beautifull when a group of people work on the same source, and anyone in the world can improve and contribute.

xvid, linux, and so many other major software these days are GPL. just look at them. without them beeing open source they definately wouldn't be where they are now.

if it's GPL/BSD/LGPL/etc is a personal preference. but the open source as a concept is such a beautifull one.

peace.
avi

dragongodz

1st May 2004, 17:45

kwag - thank you. thats some funny stuff. i mean come on look at where he heads with it. he goes on several times about sections of the open source community critisizing the commercial software world(such as microsoft).

GNU literature is far from neutral. Much of that literature is in effect a pamphlet demanding "freedom" for software developers. The GNU license itself reads not like a license but like a manifesto against the evils of proprietary software.
maybe if he opened the other eye he would be able to read because thats the biggest load of rubbish and shows exactly where this guys coming from.

hearing the epitomes of capitalism --Microsoft and the like--accused of sovietism by a group that advocates collective property of all software seems bit far-fetched.
huh ? advocates collective property of all software ? whats this guy been drinking ?

It would all the same be a mistake to portray that group as slightly eccentric do-gooders. Their propaganda is a campaign of hatred against people whose only "crime" is to want to make a living out of the wares they produce
can you see how much bull this "article" is yet ?

That perception is that commercial software is evil. In fact, one of the catchy GNU links is entitled "Is Microsoft really the great Satan?". The page to which it leads (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft.html) gives the answer. In short, yes indeed, but don't just pick on Microsoft; anyone else who "denies users their rightful freedom" (i.e. sells software) is just as satanic.
hmm lets try the whole line instead of that abbreviated one shall we.
"We see that Microsoft is doing something that is bad for software users: making software proprietary and thus denying users their rightful freedom."
ahh so it isnt about selling software but making it propriety, and if you follow the link they say
"Proprietary software is software that is not free or semi-free. Its use, redistribution or modification is prohibited, or requires you to ask for permission, or is restricted so much that you effectively can't do it freely."
hmm didnt microsoft get sued successfully for trying to make their own version of java(which other would have had to pay for) prohibiting competition etc(besides the fact they didnt even invent/own java). just one example of microsofts attempts to limit what a person can and cant run/use and/or how on the operating system you have bought.

and it just goes on and on and on in a similar fasion.

so kwag if thats your "evidence" that the GPL is evil and should be screwed over and "experts" agree then i understand(and digest) your attitude all to well. theres an old saying very prevelent to computers, rubbish in = rubbish out. :D

kwag

1st May 2004, 18:08

Originally posted by dragongodz

can you see how much bull this "article" is yet ?

What I can see, is that you are very narrow minded.
You are obviously completely biased in one direction, and nobody can make you think different.
You should read (instead of skim) the articles, which will obviously take more time to analyze and to make a more intelligent conclusion, than the time it took you to reply since I posted the message.
You obviously didn't read everything, unless you are a 1000WPM reader :D

Too sad :rolleyes:

-kwag

dragongodz

1st May 2004, 18:37

kwag - did i read all the links ? no. if you bother to read you will see i quote from that one you actually posted in the link here. so your perception of my reading is as flawed(and wrong) as many other statements you have made.

as for narrow minded, well thats the pot calling the kettle black isnt it. the amount of squirming and changing your story you have done shows exactly how even when presented with facts you dont accept them.

too sad ? why yes you are. :devil:

kwag

1st May 2004, 18:51

@dragongodz,

Everyone is free to make a decision and choose whatever license they want.
To me, it's very obvious the licenses I choose to work and develop with.
The links were presented to broaden the perspective, with facts and real industry opinions.
I hope it helps many people who don't have a clue about what GPL is, and now, they can really understand it, and make their own comparisons with other licenses.
Which, BTW, the number of licenses is growing at a ridiculous rate!:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ (License Index, on left side)

-kwag

MfA

1st May 2004, 18:54

Note that the article in question never tried to attack the legitamacy of the GPL, it attacked the legitamacy of arguements against proprietary software by GNU.

"The people who wrote the GPL are full of it so I am fully entitled to just break the license." is a rationalization of immoral behaviour, and one not endorsed by the the article in any way shape or form.

Rationalization remains rationalization, you know damn well what a person intends when he releases his source code under the GPL ... he places trust in you to abide with those intentions. Im glad muaddib decided to live up to that trust.

Neo Neko

1st May 2004, 19:06

Originally posted by kwag
@shh,

I think I understand your point of view very clearly, and it's well explained (understood, analyzed and digested) by industry experts (links) here:
http://kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10606

-kwag

Perhaps I should post this over at KVCD.net for you. [Yes I already have another account and you approved it. ;) ] But I will start with it here. From what I have read so far the paper is "semi" well written. There are quite a few simple gramatical issues which detract from it. Something that a simple proofreading would catch. Right at the first part of the first doccument I already see a problem. They list two types of GPL supporters. Software Anarchist and Software Libertarians. They leave out at least the third group of which I and many others belong to. Granted it does not have a catchy name. And it does not project the anti-GPL bias you like to perpetuate. Simply put we are opensource supporters who support all opensource Including BSD, GPL, and other licenses like those on Apache and Xfree. Yet do not believe that no one should own software. Or that all software should be free. Simply put opensource and the GPL especially present a force that stands against those like Microsoft and provide balance. And competition against such software that those like Microsoft can not destroy. At this point the papers author has shown some real ignorance or lack of insight. Because software anarchist or libertarian the GPL clearly does not work toward either goal. First of all the software may be "free" but someone still owns it. Sorry software anarchists. Secoend even though the software is "free" at the moment that does not stop the author from changing the license and charging for future versions. Sorry software libertarians. The GPL is not for you.

I stopped reading the links you posted and took a look at the rest of the site far a moment. I must say that it is one of the most hypocritical anti-linux advocasy sites I have ever seen. I say anti-linux even though the site never says so itself. [that I have read yet] Because it I extremely obvious. Funny the guy writing there does not seem to have the time or knowledge to write on any of the flaws inherant in the BSD licensing and the cult that follows it like yourself. Which is odd since the BSD in and of itself is rife with flaws. His article on simplicity in OSS was extremely entertaning and full of incorrect thinking. Simplicity begets complexity. It does not matter how simple you code a software. If you put any number of simple software or code together in a project like lets say KDE. All those "simple" parts will still build a highly complex system. Further it would be more complex to maintain in large part than if you just disregarded the components simlpicity from the get go and coded for a single homogenius product.

BTW Kwag since you obviously hold this guy in high regard [LOL] where exactly did Dr. Nikolai recieve his doctorate? What was his doctorate on and what was the major focus of his studdies? Any site I have found on the internet that has anything to say about the man [admittedly very little] only links back to his web site. And of course his website has yet to yield any credential information to back up his statements or claims. It is a much more wordy site than the previous BSD developer dren you linked to. But it is important to note that it is still dren. :p

kwag

1st May 2004, 19:08

Originally posted by MfA
you know damn well what a person intends when he releases his source code under the GPL ...
Really?
You think so?
I'm positive that at least 90% of the people that release programs as GPL, don't even understand half of what the license says.
They just do it, because "everyone else" who releases GPL software does it.
I'm sure these articles I pointed out will make many people think twice, before they commit their software to GPL bindings.
And this kind of thread and discussion, is exactly what opens up some eyes ;)

-kwag

Nic

1st May 2004, 19:09

Keep it friendly guys or the thread will be closed.

Those were interesting links...

There are different licenses for different things. But I think license talk is pretty irrelevent to this thread. As we are only dealing with the GPL.

As for my own personal opinion on BSD and GPL...maybe ill sign up to kvcd.net for that. But for here, lets focus on shh and muaddib's case. Which sounds like it's becoming amicably resolved....which is good :)

-Nic

ps
apparently the doctor does make a habbit of criticising OSS: http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/10/12/linux_guru_raymond_accused/
(raymond's reply to: Nikolai http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4_11/raymond/ )
Search for him with google....What's he ever done for OSS that makes him so right? But that's for another thread...

Neo Neko

1st May 2004, 19:21

Indeed Nic I agree with your assesment. I made a comment on it. But that is the extent of what I am gonna say here. Leave it to Kwag to try to distract people from the issue than try to face the issue itself. Typical.

MfA

1st May 2004, 19:40

Sorry for the personal attack, it was stupid of me ... I have continued the discussion about the GPL here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75429) and I will try to remain civil (although I cannot promise to not resort to sarcasm again if compared to a dictator :).

Guest

1st May 2004, 19:41

@muaddib

Just for the record, can you please state your reasons for not wanting to distribute your source code, both prior to this brouhaha, and as of today. Thank you.

Doom9

1st May 2004, 20:57

Most of you were probably not even doing this when I was first accused of violating the GPL with my site for the first time. It triggered, just as with any subsequent GPL violation I have witnessed, a defensive reaction. I was thinking "what the heck is this guy's problem, he's not even the license holder".

But, then I took a step back, and actually bothered to read the GPL (the guy was nice enough to provide me with a few useful links, starting with the license, and some GPL FAQs) and I realized, that while I could distribute GPL programs without the source, I had to provide the latter upon request. Thus, it would be a smart move on my part to make sure I have the source code available in the first place. It took me weeks getting all the sources I needed (some developers never bothered to release any sources from their GPL derived works), and in some cases implicit threats as to what I'd have to do without the sources (remove the programs from my site). During that time, I was also talking to developers of the programs in question, and they were more than willing to come to an amicable resolution (if you look hard enough you'll notice that not every binary distribution matches the source distribution, but where it doesn't I have been able to come to an agreement with the license holder). In the end I was able to rectify the situation, and subsequently I think my software archive also became an interesting source for developers. Other sites soon followed the example and started carrying sources as well.

Unfortunately, most of the time somebody is caught red handed, the situation doesn't get out of the defensive stage. Instead of taking a step back to look at the bigger picture, relax and then do the right thing (note that even in the court case in Germany and previous issues surrounding the same code, nobody was ever sued for money... you can bet your behind that if it were a commercial license holder, money would've been all they are about) and this makes me kinda sad. It's okay to feel defensive, it is human nature, but why is it so darned hard to get over the initial anger? Nobody will hate you or flame you to all eternity if you stand up, admit you were wrong and try to rectify the situation. People tend to forgive those who admit their mistakes.. those who stubbornly go on claiming they were right, they'll get to hear a different tune.

M7S

2nd May 2004, 00:58

Hi. My first post. I just want to write a little analogy.

Imagine if the person who invented Lego would have decided to publish Lego under something similar GPL instead of making money of it. At his doorstep he would have left some boxes of Lego and written a note which said: "Feel free to take this boxes of Lego and build whatever you like. The only thing I want in return from you is that you give an description of how you built the things you built." This scenario is very unrealistic but that doesn't matter for this analogy.

Now imagine that someone did pick up one of the boxes but did only read the first sentence on the note. This person made a great castle with the pieces of Lego and continued by painting the castle and building it further with other materials. In the end you couldn't recognise much of the pieces from the Lego box.

The castle builder now decides to publish his work but didn’t include any instructions on how he built it. He really didn’t know he had to in the first place. Right? The Lego inventor still felt as if someone had stolen his work, because hi had made clear rules on what you had to do to be allowed to use his Lego boxes.

What can we learn from this story, except from the fact that Lego is very nice to build things with ;) ? Well its two in the morning here so I won’t try to make any conclusions. Decide for yourselves whether the Lego inventor or the Castle builder is wrong in this matter. If you think that the castle builder should have to release a description of how he built his castle, do you think that muaddib should have to release his source, too? If not is my analogy flawed?

I’m sorry if my English is bad. I’m not used to write lengthy pieces of texts like this one, in a foreign language, late at night. I’m hoping this analogy would help someone to see things in a slightly other perspective. Please concider, this is my fisrt post. I sympathise with both ssh and muaddib even if I have a clear view on which one that is right in this question.

Good luck resolving this.
M7S

Neo Neko

2nd May 2004, 01:21

Originally posted by M7S
If you think that the castle builder should have to release a description of how he built his castle, do you think that muaddib should have to release his source, too? If not is my analogy flawed?

Basically yes and yes. But I would however cloud the situation a bit. If the castle builder could get the lego inventors aproval and consent not to release instructions that would also be fine. But that part is up to the inventor.

It's all about the terms of usage. In both cases they were clearly posted. Had the inventor not had terms of usage clearly posted then the builder would have at least had a very weak argument. But that was not the case. No one hates the builder. But they would be understandably upset with the caviler attitude the builder had. Which in and of itself is not bad so long as there is the capacity to change.

Kika

2nd May 2004, 01:31

Wow, what a mess. Before i found this thread, i gueesed, i'm part of a big community, and now?
I don't see where the problem is. We are talking about Freeware, right? So why is it that complicated for programmers, to share their Source-Codes? We do exchange our experiences in Encoding every Day we are online - what's the problem in doing the same with Source-Codes of free - FREE! - Software?

@kwag and Muaddib
The last time, i heard such Arguments was in Kindergarten. It does not matter if you like the GPL or not. The rules do exist, and if part of GPL-Sourcecode is used, the rules have to be accepted. If not, remove the GPL-Code from your Programs or stop distributing your programs - do as you wish, but do it! And if you accept the rules, share the Source-Codes. I don't see a real probem here.

Privat comment: Das ist die blödsinnigste Diskussion, die ich je gesehen habe... (in german because i don't know how to translate "blödsinnig" into english).

stax76

2nd May 2004, 01:56

So why is it that complicated for programmers, to share their Source-Codes? We do exchange our experiences in Encoding every Day we are online - what's the problem in doing the same with Source-Codes of free - FREE! - Software?

For instance to prevent competitors to benefit from the source. At one point actually I regretted opening my source for that reason but now I would always use a open source license for freeware.

dragongodz

2nd May 2004, 02:18

M7S - the builder is clearly in the wrong because he did not make the effort to check conditions of use. they were readily available in the form of an included note.
now the part you missed out is what would have been the likly action taken next by the inventor. you will find in (at least)99% of cases the inventor would have informed the builder of his mistake and asked him to rectify it. is this unreasonable ?
threats of legal action would be an extreme last resort, only caused by the flat refusal of the builder to rectify the situation, which again in (at least) 99% of times it would never get to.

For instance to prevent competitors to benefit from the source. At one point actually I regretted opening my source for that reason but now I would always use a open source license for freeware.
yep and the GPL in no way stops you from closing your source later if you wish. the only condition is you do not include someone elses GPL code because then its you that would be benefiting from someone elses source without returning the favour. its hard to understand why people cant see that isnt it.

M7S

2nd May 2004, 08:40

now the part you missed out is what would have been the likly action taken next by the inventor.

My intensions was not to include any actions of the inventor nor of the builder. I just wrote about how the inventor would feel, not what he would do. I agree with you and Neo Neko on how the problem would have to be resolved. Still I think its important to point out that the inventor feels like he's been robed.

In the end its about using a source without being willing to pay the price for it. The price is to publish your source. If that price is to high, don't use the source or perhaps ask the owner of the source if he is willing to change the price.

jorel

2nd May 2004, 13:40

Originally posted by M7S
My intensions was not to include any actions of the inventor nor of the builder. I just wrote about how the inventor would feel, not what he would do. I agree with you and Neo Neko on how the problem would have to be resolved. Still I think its important to point out that the inventor feels like he's been robed.

great post here M7S, very wise....seems a great person with wide vision! ;) the point is that Shh "feels" that was robed but he don't was.
my personal "welcome in forum" M7S !

jorel

2nd May 2004, 13:56

Originally posted by Kika
Wow, what a mess. Before i found this thread, i gueesed, i'm part of a big community, and now?
I don't see where the problem is. We are talking about Freeware, right? So why is it that complicated for programmers, to share their Source-Codes? We do exchange our experiences in Encoding every Day we are online - what's the problem in doing the same with Source-Codes of free - FREE! - Software?

@kwag and Muaddib
... share the Source-Codes. I don't see a real probem here.

Privat comment: Das ist die blödsinnigste Diskussion, die ich je gesehen habe... (in german because i don't know how to translate "blödsinnig" into english).

great post too Kika,without flame and helping to find solutions.like you i can wrote: I don't see where the problem is. We are talking about Freeware, right? ...yes,this is what i think! the source codes will came
and i know muaddib,he will do it...Shh,your rights remains where you have rights,like i posted thousands times.the german part i don't have a minimal idea what means. :p the point Kika is like you wrote: no need "fights" or "flames" to solve the problem cos what someone "feel",sometimes is dangerous than reality. Shh and muaddib don't need help to solve caming from who is against but from who is trying to help. the solution will be great for who wants peace and a frustration for who is calling and waiting for war. thanks for your post,is cool!
:)

jorel

2nd May 2004, 14:12

Originally posted by Dolemite
For instance to prevent competitors to benefit from the source. At one point actually I regretted opening my source for that reason but now I would always use a open source license for freeware.

hey ,today i'm quoting too much but for good intentions. Dolemite, your work is there, no need to prevent competitors....see from different point: the "competitor" is someone who is using your job do do another one?. if yes, feel proud cos you did the base, the base is there. watch from another panorama: the "competitor" could do something without your job? if he can't, means for me that your work is part of the evolution like the wheel is in....everywhere. but if he can, means that he have to author a new "wheel". ;)

M7S

3rd May 2004, 16:08

Originally posted by jorel
great post here M7S, very wise....seems a great person with wide vision! ;) the point is that Shh "feels" that was robed but he don't was.
my personal "welcome in forum" M7S !
It seems as if you misunderstood me a little bit. I didn't say he was robed and I certainly didn't say he wasn't robed. It all depends on how you understand that word.

Anyway, thanks for welcoming me.

Neo Neko

3rd May 2004, 22:40

Originally posted by jorel
great post here M7S, very wise....seems a great person with wide vision! ;) the point is that Shh "feels" that was robed but he don't was.
my personal "welcome in forum" M7S !

Strictly speaking to the leter of the license not only was shh technically "robbed". Everyone was. The GPL and related licenses exist for the benefit of everyone. And in disregarding it that hurts everyone.

I never thought it was Muaddib's intention to do that. He simply did not understand what he had gotten into. But others took great delight in taking advantage of the situation for their own ends. Which is what caused the escalation in the situation.

Neo Neko

3rd May 2004, 22:48

Originally posted by jorel
the german part i don't have a minimal idea what means. :p

Very loosely it translates to "That is one of the "silliest/strangest/foolish" arguments I have ever heard" Though I am not familiar with "blödsinnigste". But from the context of the rest of the phrase I think the idea is clear. Blödsinnigste sounds to me like a German slang term or curse word. :p Which could also explain why I have not found any definitions of it yet.

jorel

4th May 2004, 01:37

@ M7S
i right understood what you mean my friend! but i understand that Shh "feel" it, not you. you're still welcome. :p

@ Neo Neko
technically "robbed" ? :confused: now is worse to understand..means that someone can be technically right or technically wrong? :p muaddib is a fantastic person.don't be afraid about the "technically" advantage. ;)
about the Very loosely translation :
the context of the rest of the phrase I think the idea is unclear cos like he wrote, he don't "talk", he only show that It all depends on how you understand that word...means technically that we have lots of directions too choose! :p (kiddin)

r6d2

4th May 2004, 02:17

Originally posted by jorel
technically "robbed" ? :confused: now is worse to understand.@jorel, This has been said so many times that I can't count them anymore. And you still don't understand it. It may be because of the language barrier, but please forget for a moment that shh ever existed, and read the Portuguese (http://www.magnux.org/doc/GPL-pt_BR.txt) translation of GPL.

If muaddib decided to use GPL for his release (which he did), anyone can ask for the sources and he cannot refuse it. If he does, his rights under the GPL license are terminated.
Você não pode copiar, modificar, sub-licenciar ou distribuir o Programa, exceto de acordo com as condições expressas nesta Licença. Qualquer outra tentativa de cópia, modificação, sub-licenciamento ou distribuição do Programa não é valida, e cancelará automaticamente os direitos que lhe foram fornecidos por esta Licença.Those rights are: copying, distribution and modification. Atividades outras que a cópia, a distribuição e modificação não estão cobertas por esta Licença And if you insist on excercising those rights you don't have aymore, you are abusing other people's rights, unaware or not. So this is the actual reason muaddib will probably will not release under GPL again, whatever time it takes for him.

Is this really so hard to understand for you? Don't be mislead by any other more "knowledgeable" person (not even me, just in case you think I am). Please just read for yourself and make your mind on your own.

And I'll say it one last time: this is not about muaddib or shh being nice guys or bad guys. It is only about being consistent and take responsibility for your actions.

Anyway, that discussion is over already. Please don't come again with the same stuff. If you don't understand it even in Portuguese, nothing anybody can say here will serve any purpose.

jorel

4th May 2004, 05:00

no r6d2,
the discussion isn't over and this is hard to understand for you cos
seems that you don't understand my position. i posted thousands times that i give the rights to Shh where he have rights. what i'm against is acusations without prooves, i'm talking about nice guys and bad guys. everybody deserve respect no matter if you are against he...ask your sensei about that,he is trying to teach you not only art marcial but respect to the oponent too. don't post about abusing rights cos it's just a "point of view", some people think like you,some people don't.for me don't have language barrier but comportamental barrier cos i have to listen your arguments but you don't listen my arguments. i saw that when you need you post: It's an limitation of the English
language...remember?..for me seems a disguise for dubious answers replacing "you are" with "one is" posted here:
http://kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10401&start=144
but opinions are importants? maybe...ask your sensei about that...he is wise (i trust believe) and will open your mind.
do you understand me now? (just a little?) ;)
hey...still friends, i'm only posting explanations,ok? :)

edited>
sorry, i forgot... i was "technically" kidding :p

r6d2

4th May 2004, 05:25

@jorel, my friend,
Originally posted by jorel
i posted thousands times that i give the rights to Shh where he have rights.What part of "forget for a moment that shh ever existed" did you not understand?
i'm talking about nice guys and bad guys.What part of "this is not about muaddib or shh being nice guys or bad guys" did you not understand?
don't post about abusing rights cos it's just a "point of view"What part of "Qualquer outra tentativa de cópia, modificação, sub-licenciamento ou distribuição do Programa não é valida, e cancelará automaticamente os direitos que lhe foram fornecidos por esta Licença." did you not understand? Of course it is my point of view. Can you find another one for the same text?
some people think like you,some people don't.Very likely. In fact, I'd love to have one single user at the "Program sources, please" thread to take the challenge of the "Sincerity Drill" I posted. However, as you have seen, no one has.
i have to listen your arguments but you don't listen my arguments.My friend, I have seen no arguments coming from you! Please, give me some, so we both can tear apart the logic of the sincerity drill. I'd be glad, really glad to hear them!
for me seems a disguise for dubious answersMy friend, that was not dubious at all. It was quite clear. ;)

Neo Neko

4th May 2004, 05:25

Originally posted by kwag
Really?
You think so?
I'm positive that at least 90% of the people that release programs as GPL, don't even understand half of what the license says.

Wow! They share something with you!

Originally posted by kwag
They just do it, because "everyone else" who releases GPL software does it.

Yep all the fault of the GPL. Peer presure does not enter into it eh?

Originally posted by kwag
I'm sure these articles I pointed out will make many people think twice, before they commit their software to GPL bindings.

Well if they have any intelligence I can guaronte you they will think twice before taking anything in those links seriously. So much bad grammer, so much bad/false information, so little info about the person who wrote it, and such a clearly biased diatribe of isolated personal oppinion. It's not even close to being a factual document.

Originally posted by kwag
And this kind of thread and discussion, is exactly what opens up some eyes ;)

It has most certainly opened our eyes as to you and your agenda. I laugh every time I think about it. You try to act so smart and then go saying pattently unsmart things and linking to such poorly thought out documents.

I will however say that people often do equate opensource to the GPL. GPL and opensource are not synonimous. There are many other opensource licenses. The GPL just happens to be one of the best and most known opensource licenses. As a developer you should always take the time to understand any license before you agree to it or apply it to your code. And alot of people do. Which explains why more choose to use the GPL over BSD and why so many confuse opensource with the GPL.