Filmshrink gone commercial?

[teplun]

Anybody seen this:
http://www.musicalsky.com/dvd2real/index.html

[Doom9]

looks like another ripoff.. and most likely in blatant violation of the GPL on top of everything else. FilmShrink cannot go commercial unless the entire audio and video decoding codebase is rewritten from scratch (it relies heavily on GPL sources).

[Sirber]

DVD2REAL:
http://www.musicalsky.com/dvd2real/images/dvd2real_1_636x488.gif

FilmShrink:
http://filmshrink.sourceforge.net/shots/shot1.jpg
http://filmshrink.sourceforge.net/shots/shot4.jpg

They didn't bother changing much. I'll go mail them.

[Sirber]

sent:
Hi

Do you often sell OpenSource softwares? Isn't DVD2REAL a ripoff of FilmShrink? You only changed 2 buttons in the design. You are violating GPL license.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=666228#post666228

Asking $25 for something you obiously didn't do is stealing. Remove ASAP FilmShrink from your site.

--
Stéphane Bérubé
http://www.detritus.qc.ca

[Sirber]

I mailed the place where they sell. I warned them that musicalsky was selling a stolen product.

[Kurosu]

FilmShrink cannot go commercial unless the entire audio and video decoding codebase is rewritten from scratch (it relies heavily on GPL sources).
No. Please read again the GPL. Remember "free as speech, not as beer"? For your convenience:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
Excuse for the harshness, but this misconception is a bit stressing for people so much involved in free software. I do agree that even the GPL is a tough reading, but nonetheless, you'd better be sure of your rights.

However:
- As you can have a "free trial", you are probably entitled to request source code AFAIK
- Whatever the product, you are allowed to redistribute it for a fee; so you can buy a GPL program and resell it later or offer it at no charge; that's why business plans on free software are not about product, but rather service and support.

So far, this program really is a GPL violation, in addition to an Intellectual Property theft. To comply, the company has to:
- state that this program is under the GPL license; removing it and the mention of your associated rights is license violation.
- offer a link to the _customers_; here there is a free trial, so any user should be entitled to request the code

For the IP theft, indeed this is blatant. AFAIK, the author only has moral rights on whether someone can charge money for his program, as long as the vendor is respecting the GPL.

Therefore, Sirber's mail is a bit improper. He never states he is the author. Selling his software is perfectly fine. Not respecting the GPL requirements above isn't.

People are welcome to comment on the loopholes in my rant (in particular, I didn't check whether the program is under the GPL or any licence combination). I am not a legal counsellor/lawyer.

[Sirber]

Beside the code, they are also selling with their soft unlicenced Real Networks products.

[Sirber]

Hi,

No. I don't often SELL OpenSource softwares. I often REDISTRIBUTE and provide TECH SUPPORT for GPL'd softwares.

Since FilmShrink is licensed under the GPL. I have right to modify it and REDISTRIBUTE it under the GPL. DVD2REAL is licensed under the GPL. Not a commerical software. The fact that I only changed 2 buttons in the design doesn't mean I am violating GPL license. If you think I am violating GPL license, please let me know which terms I am violating. Thanks.

By the way, what I charge is for REDISTRIBUTE and TECH SUPPORT, not the software itself.

Please let me know if you have any future questions!

Best Regards,
Allan Wang
tech@musicalsky.com
MUSICALSKY.COM

[Sirber]

Sent:

Hi

Where can I get the source of DVD2Real?

Regards,

Stéphane

[Sirber]

Got:
Hi,

I included the source along with the binary files. You may find it under the installed directory. The source code is archived by using rar and named SRC.

[Kurosu]

The licence is a bit non-obvious. It should at least be displayed during the install, I think - you have to know you have to agree to the GPL licence. I'm not sure how clear the installer should be on where to read such licence and how easy it is to access the code - maybe only an indication on the website is required, I don't know for sure. A renamed RAR archive with extension removed also seems a weird attempt at masking stuff.

The source code is C++, so he may have rewritten the code from whatever language you were using. This is reimplementation, and I guess how much this is a new program is debatable. The fact you aren't quoted as the original author, and therefore the IP matter, is a bit unclear.

You should ask on whatever -legal list there is around, probably at the GNU foundation. Maybe a LUG near you has a mailing list where you could ask. If you feel like defending your case, the GNU foundation can do so, but you'd have to give them the intellectual property of your program (roughly, I'm still not a lawyer). Only the author of the code is entitled to perform a legal act AFAIK.

But this will lead you nowhere. Only the lack of clearly displayed licence (and there may be loopholes exploited there by Allan Wang) seems fishy, together with the source archive hiding. The other stuff, like I said, are mostly legal to my limited knowledge of things.

Edit: I also see associated avisynth, decomb, devil library, which lack their licence and possibly a link to where to download the source. The m2*.dll have not the slightest indication of the code bases he used, associated licence, nor any source. I don't think he wrote them from scratch. What are their licence? For the curious ones, those are AC3, DTS, and MPEG-1 audio decoders for avisynth. People will probably be interested to know that maybe they now have plugins for those formats.

Edit 2: A. Afra is another opensource author, only A. Wang behaviour is questioned here.

Good luck, and don't feel too down by such an affair.

[Wilbert]

Kurosu, did you install the trial to check for the source?

[Kurosu]

Kurosu, did you install the trial to check for the source?
Argh, you replied while I was editing. Yes I did. I see no license for the trial displayed. I haven't agree to any licence. I suppose I can do whatever I please with the program then, if it was not for my actual knowledge of possible licences on the different parts of his program.

[Kurosu]

Ok here is a list of what has been admitedly used "in exchange" for a thank you in the credits:
- Real Network stuff, which certainly doesn't feel like seeing its IP being redistributed like this
- avisynth (some names I see for the first time, other that have nothing to do with AVS 2.x)
- libifo
- DGMPGdec / DVD2AVI
- liba52
- libdts / dca
- mad/libmad
- Toolbar 2000
- "TBX"
- Nuvola icon pack
- VSFIlter

It seems the redistributer is not aware of the MPEG-LA licencing terms. I see AC3, MPEG-2 video, DTS and MPEG-1 audio decoders being used. A licence and the payment of a fee is required even for the trial version.

[a_afra]

Hello everyone!

Well, this is outrageous! :angry: I'm extremely angry, just do a web search for DVD2REAL!! Thanks for contacting that guy. I will do the same tomorrow... Besides, that SRC file contains only the GUI's source!

[Kurosu]

For reference (I thought A. Afra was a subcontractor):
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=89629

However, developpers here may also have to sort out how they respect the GPL and other licences.

[Sirber]

Hello everyone!

Well, this is outrageous! :angry: I'm extremely angry, just do a web search for DVD2REAL!! Thanks for contacting that guy. I will do the same tomorrow... Besides, that SRC file contains only the GUI's source!
No problem. You should mail him and ask him to remove your software.

Also, why would it be a "trial" of a OpenSource software? Should only have download and "register" for support. :confused:

[Wilbert]

No problem. You should mail him and ask him to remove your software.
He's allowed to sell his (and the other) software if he also distributes the source (or links to the source). Of course he's not allowed to sell RealPlayer (edit: i meant Helix Producer here) since it's closed source.

Like a_afra says he released DVD2REAL as GPL. He should do the following

1) provide the source links of the other programs. Simply linking to the sources of FilmShrink would be enough (provided a_afra did it correctly).
2) remove RealPlayer and other closed source software (like rmeditor, rmevent and perhaps some in the other folders).

@a_afra,

Do you have permission to distribute RealPlayer and the other real stuff?

[karl_lillevold]

Filmshrink (and the ripoff) uses the Producer SDK binary, and RealNetworks licenses this free of charge. The Producer SDK license even allows him to charge money for it, as long as the SDK is distributed according to its license. So even though DVD2REAL is violating FilmShrink's GPL and exploits FilmShrink source code very unethically and shamelessly, we can not really provide assistance in that conflict.

As far as I know, RealPlayer and/or Helix Player are not involved in this. We do not allow 3rd parties to include RealPlayer components in their products for free, and if this is the case, I can let the right people here know.

[Sirber]

All this made me think about RealAnime. I choose to virtually close my sources to the public. RealAnime will stay opensource, but interested ones will have to contact me to get the them. I highly do not wish this to reproduce with my softwares.

@a_afra

We are with you in this. Even if he sells "support", it's still shamefull. What will be your actions against him?

[clone83]

i have to agree with sirber with this... create ur own program! DONT STEAL OTHERS!!!!!!!!!

[Sirber]

Correct way is:

1) Steal the source
2) Rename and put in about "Based on XXX"
3) Add new functions
4) Stay Open Source

[notags]

It is indeed unfortunate that such a thing has happened, but we've got to admit that cases such as this is a reflection on some of the inherent weakness of GPL. I'm afraid there's not much we can do even if he continues selling this POS. :angry:

[a_afra]

I sent the following mail to A. Wang:
Hi,

My name is Attila T. Áfra and I'm the author of FilmShrink. I've noticed that you are selling my program which you have renamed to DVD2REAL. FilmShrink is distributed under GPL and you are violating it's license! It's true that the license is included in your package, but DVD2REAL is distributed as SHAREWARE/COMMERCIAL on all the websites checked by me (including yours). This is a clear violation of GPL and an Intellectual Property theft. DVD2REAL violates the following GPL terms:

2. b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

You have removed my copyright notice and you don't mention that DVD2REAL is based on FilmShrink. (the only thing you mention: "Based on program made by Attila T. Afra")

3. 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,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

You don't mention how to get the full source code, and the partial source which you have included in the "trial" version is stored in a RAR file without extension and any indication. This tells me that you wanted to hide the source. Also, you don't even mention that the program uses my m2DecPak library package, which is based on several GPL projects. This package contains an MPEG-2 video, AC3 and DTS decoder too, so it seems that you are not aware of the MPEG-LA licencing terms. A licence and the payment of a fee is required even for the trial version.

Also I don't think that I need to mention that DVD2REAL exploits FilmShrink's source code very unethically and shamelessly. It's outrageous that you sell something which isn't yours. It's stealing. DVD2REAL is an illegal software, so STOP DISTRIBUTING IT IMMEDIATELY! Who wants to pay for something which is also available for free (and which is legal)? If people need technical support for FilmShrink, they can contact me and I will help them without asking for money. It's not a secret that DVD2REAL is an illegal ripoff and that you are trying to hide/deny this, so I hope that you will remove it from your site as soon as possible.

Attila T. Áfra

He replied:

Hi,

Thank you very much for your email. I will answer your questions below.

> 2. b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
> whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
> part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
> parties under the terms of this License.

Yes. This program is licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of GPL. As you see, anyone can download it from web site free of charge. BUT they can't receive any tech support unless they register it.

> c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
> when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
> interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
> announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
> notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
> a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
> these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
> License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
> does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
> the Program is not required to print an announcement.)


Yes. If you open the About dialog, after all "thanks to people" being displayed, it will display a notice that there is no warranty and that users may redistribute the program under GPL's conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of GPL.

> You have removed my copyright notice and you don't mention that
> DVD2REAL is based on FilmShrink. (the only thing you mention: "Based
> on program made by Attila T. Afra")

An appropriate copyright notice is displayed in the second line because GPL need me to claim clearly that who is the original author and this is modified by others. GPL doesn't say "I have to claim the original project's name", only author's name should be stated for credit.

> You don't mention how to get the full source code, and the partial
> source which you have included in the "trial" version is stored in a
> RAR file without extension and any indication. This tells me that you
> wanted to hide the source. Also, you don't even mention that the
> program uses my m2DecPak library package, which is based on several
> GPL projects. This package contains an MPEG-2 video, AC3 and DTS
> decoder too, so it seems that you are not aware of the MPEG-LA
> licencing terms. A licence and the payment of a fee is required even
> for the trial version.

If I don't mention m2DecPak, I either miss this project's info or I don't find such info from original project. Sorry. Whatever, I will include this into the future release.

If a fee is required to use this package. It is not allowed to include it into any GPL's project. You are violating the GPL. I get the license from you, the author and the distributer, of FilmShrink. So if you are violating the GPL, the responsibility will be your side first to solve such matter.

> Also I don't think that I need to mention that DVD2REAL exploits
> FilmShrink's source code very unethically and shamelessly. It's
> outrageous that you sell something which isn't yours. It's stealing.
> DVD2REAL is an illegal software, so STOP DISTRIBUTING IT IMMEDIATELY!
> Who wants to pay for something which is also available for free (and
> which is legal)? If people need technical support for FilmShrink, they
> can contact me and I will help them without asking for money. It's not
> a secret that DVD2REAL is an illegal ripoff and that you are trying to
> hide/deny this, so I hope that you will remove it from your site as
> soon as possible.

I only answer legal questions. For any other questions, please refer to GPL terms and conditions.

Personally, I don't know who will pay me the money for DISTRIBUTION and/or TECH SUPPORT. As far as I know, I don't distribute even one copy of this program to end users with a charge of fee. Who knows. Maybe nobody think it is good enough for charging a fee for full services? I don't know.

Hi,

I forget one thing.

> 3. 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,
>
> b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
> years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
> cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
> machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
> distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
> customarily used for software interchange; or,
>
> c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
> to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
> allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
> received the program in object code or executable form with such
> an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

You said,

> Also I don't think that I need to mention that DVD2REAL exploits
> FilmShrink's source code very unethically and shamelessly

I packed all source codes found from original project to this new project. If the source code is incomplete, you are violating the term(s) first. If this is the case, please correct first and let me know. Thansk.

>
> You don't mention how to get the full source code, and the partial
> source which you have included in the "trial" version is stored in a
> RAR file without extension and any indication. This tells me that you
> wanted to hide the source.

As I said in the previous, I displayed
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
...
...

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.

I think it is enough for users. About source code, it is just there. SRC means source code. GPL also doesn't limit me to name it SRC or S or something BUT I will change it to src.rar in the next release because it seems that other people don't know "my naming rule". I don't want to hide the source code. Under the GPL, I need to distribute it along with the birany code. I respect GPL. I hope anybody else respect it too.

Allan

My reply:
Hi,

To be honest, I don't know why do you tell me that I violate GPL, if YOU are the one who sells MY program! Don't worry, I'm not violating the license, I'm using well known GPL projects in FilmShrink and I highly respect the authors of them (contrary to you).

You said:

> Yes. This program is licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms > of GPL. As you see, anyone can download it from web site free of charge. BUT they
> can't receive any tech support unless they register it.

They can only download a TRIAL version which is mentioned on the net as SHAREWARE (and NOT Open Source GPL), which expires after 30 days, and they can ORDER the full version for $24.99. Just do a web search and you'll see. How can they register it? Why don't you mention on your website that DVD2REAL is distributed under GPL? Why all the website admins think that it's a COMMERCIAL program?

> An appropriate copyright notice is displayed in the second line because GPL need me to
> claim clearly that who is the original author and this is modified by others. GPL doesn't
> say "I have to claim the original project's name", only author's name should be stated for
> credit.

It's true that you don't "have to claim the original project's name", but it would be nice... Your true motivation is quite obvious: you want to hide the fact that DVD2REAL is an illegal ripoff. Don't worry: I will let people know the truth.

> If I don't mention m2DecPak, I either miss this project's info or I don't find such info from
> original project. Sorry. Whatever, I will include this into the future release.

You can find all the info you need on FilmShrink's website (but I think you already know this). I hope there won't be a "future release"...

> If a fee is required to use this package. It is not allowed to include it into any GPL's
> project. You are violating the GPL. I get the license from you, the author and the
> distributer, of FilmShrink. So if you are violating the GPL, the responsibility will be your
> side first to solve such matter.

NO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY TO USE THIS PACKAGE AND I'M NOT VIOLATING GPL! If I'm violating GPL, then the authors of VLC, MPlayer, etc. are also violating it, BUT IT'S NOT THE CASE! m2DecPak is based on several GPL projects. If you are selling a program which contains MPEG-2 decoder code, you have to pay MPEG-LA a licence fee, but that code, included in m2DecPak, has GPL licence, so what you are doing is illegal.

> Personally, I don't know who will pay me the money for DISTRIBUTION and/or
> TECH SUPPORT. As far as I know, I don't distribute even one copy of this program to
> end users with a charge of fee. Who knows. Maybe nobody think it is good enough for
> charging a fee for full services? I don't know.

As I said: "Who wants to pay for something which is also available for free (and which is legal)?" People can get "full services" from me for FREE. Then why are you still distributing DVD2REAL?

> I packed all source codes found from original project to this new project. If the source
> code is incomplete, you are violating the term(s) first. If this is the case, please correct
> first and let me know. Thansk.


AGAIN, I'M NOT VIOLATING THE TERMS, because in the "Readme.txt" of FilmShrink's source package it's CLEARLY written that you need m2DecPak to recompile AND run the main module and it can be downloaded from the project's website. You've removed this indication, so YOU ARE THE ONE WHO VIOLATES THE TERMS! Don't tell me that you "either miss this project's info" or "don't find such info from original project", because you needed this information to recompile FilmShrink. Without m2DecPak it's impossible to recompile FilmShrink/DVD2REAL. This means that you are not telling the truth.

> I respect GPL. I hope anybody else respect it too.

Don't make me laugh! This is the last time I ask you to STOP DISTRIBUTING DVD2REAL! In the next step I will contact the authors of all the GPL projects used in FilmShrink, and I think they won't be happy that you are selling their work too!

Attila

[Sirber]

Good letters. He is wrong and try to hide this.

Trial / Order is not Download / Register.

:devil:

[Kurosu]

Am I missing something or is the forum script stupidly removing from quotes older quotes?


Yes. If you open the About dialog, after all "thanks to people" being displayed, it will display a notice that there is no warranty and that users may redistribute the program under GPL's conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of GPL.

GPL:
"1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty;[...]"
In order to see the licence, the user has to start the program, and it has to do things that are not automatical: browse the interface, wait a display. ALL other programs display the licence during installation. To me, the licence isn't "conspicuously and appropriately publish"ed.

GPL doesn't say "I have to claim the original project's name", only author's name should be stated for credit.
GPL:
"2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change."
I haven't checked your program, so check by yourself whether your files had been modified, for instance for copyright removal. This will be only a minor modification.

If a fee is required to use this package. It is not allowed to include it into any GPL's project. You are violating the GPL. I get the license from you, the author and the distributer, of FilmShrink. So if you are violating the GPL, the responsibility will be your side first to solve such matter.
You should have followed this:
" 8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates
the limitation as if written in the body of this License."
Such is the case for your program. There is however additional considerations. The MPEG-LA states computer software of encoder and decoder for audio, video and program streams. It seems to me that so far, the source was never really threatened by this licence. However, the binaries are subject to a licence and a fee (was: forbidden).

"For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
It doesn't say that the original author has to handle this. However, that also means you are forced to stop distribution of your program (at least binaries), because A. Wang is at least an indirect receiver, and his clients are indirect receivers. But his clients are direct receivers so he should also stop redistributing too.

I packed all source codes found from original project to this new project. If the source code is incomplete, you are violating the term(s) first. If this is the case, please correct first and let me know. Thanks.
He's right, and you should also try to handle the MPEG-LA stuff. From what I see, XviD doesn't do this either. But there are maybe other reasons.

This guy knows the licence, and the above are only peskering stuff that won't hold him long. You _should_ contact some people that really knows about GPL (contrary to all of us) and ask for advice, for instance the FSF. However, as I said first, you'll probably have to give copyright property of your work to them.

To me the only debatable wrong stuff is that it isn't clear that he only sells the support, that the users are more or less not well enough informed of their rights and such. But it's more a moral fault than a legal one.

And don't follow my word on this. I stated and you were bitten by the fact that the respect of the MPEG-LA isn't clear in your package.

[damrod]

call it gpl or anything else the truth is :

he's a thief : he take the source, made minor modification (can renaming be considered a modification?) then sell it....

in short : he get money for the work of someone else....

disgusting....the worst is to think about doing something like that :(

[a_afra]

@Kurosu:

I've found this on http://www.mpegla.com/m2/m2-agreement.cfm

Under the MPEG-2 Patent Portfolio License the party that offers MPEG-2 Royalty Products (Section 1.25) for Sale (Section 1.30) to the end user is responsible for royalties on the various categories of end product (in hardware or software) sold or placed into the stream of distribution.

I think that FilmShrink is respecting MPEG-LA because I don't offer it for sale. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[damrod]

seems correct to me....

[dragongodz]

From what I see, XviD doesn't do this either. But there are maybe other reasons.
if you search the Xvid section you will find this has been mentioned before. from memory a person is allowed to give away up to 50,000 copies(binary) before they want you to start paying royalties.

[Kurosu]

I think that FilmShrink is respecting MPEG-LA because I don't offer it for sale. Correct me if I'm wrong.
It seems so. But in that respect, A. Wang doesn't either, he sells support.

if you search the Xvid section you will find this has been mentioned before. from memory a person is allowed to give away up to 50,000 copies(binary) before they want you to start paying royalties.
I checked MPEG-LA licencing terms and it also seems so. FilmShrink doesn't reach that point.

So, to my limited knowledge of things, the only possible blatent infrigment left could be:
- realnetwork property
- ac3/dts decoder, which are not covered by the MPEG-LA. However, for DTS, Dolby sent a C&D letter to libdts' authors and server admins, AFAIK. So they are enforcing their IP much stronger.

[a_afra]

I've got this mail from A. Wang:
Hi,

> They can only download a TRIAL version which is mentioned on the net
> as SHAREWARE (and NOT Open Source GPL), which expires after 30 days,
> and they can ORDER the full version for $24.99. Just do a web search
> and you'll see. How can they register it? Why don't you mention on
> your website that DVD2REAL is distributed under GPL? Why all the
> website admins think that it's a COMMERCIAL program?

You may call it trial version, test version or demo version, whatever, it is differ with the version who will receive through my distribution if they pay for it. They are different version. I have to use different calling to distinguish them. I hold all my thoughts for any material other than binary and source code.

> It's true that you don't "have to claim the original project's name",
> but it would be nice... Your true motivation is quite obvious: you
> want to hide the fact that DVD2REAL is an illegal ripoff. Don't worry:
> I will let people know the truth.

OK. It would be nice so I update it. First, it is not an illegal ripoff. See. I did it. I don't want to hide anything. Source code is also updated. This once again proved that I don't want to hide such things.

> You can find all the info you need on FilmShrink's website (but I
> think you already know this). I hope there won't be a "future
> release"...

Thank you very much for your info. I follow the link you provided and updated some necessary info.

> NO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY TO USE THIS PACKAGE AND I'M NOT VIOLATING
> GPL! If I'm violating GPL, then the authors of VLC, MPlayer, etc. are
> also violating it, BUT IT'S NOT THE CASE! m2DecPak is based on several
> GPL projects. If you are selling a program which contains MPEG-2
> decoder code, you have to pay MPEG-LA a licence fee, but that code,
> included in m2DecPak, has GPL licence, so what you are doing is
> illegal.

I really don't understand. If you include anything into your program and licensed them under the GPL, I did the program DERIVED from your program and also under the GPL. Why mine is illegal and yours is not? Again, why you think I am sell the program. NO! I don't sell it. I charge for "DISTRIBUTION" and/or "TECH SUPPORT". I don't sell it at all. See, the version you called "trial version", I never sell it. It is really free of charge.

> As I said: "Who wants to pay for something which is also available for
> free (and which is legal)?" People can get "full services" from me for
> FREE. Then why are you still distributing DVD2REAL?

For me, the most important mission, is to "EXERCISE" the terms and conditions of GPL. So whatever you do or do not believe me, I don't receive any payment for DISTRIBUTION yet. This is not important to me. Such money isn't my goal. For this kind of program, most target users will not pay even one penny. Share some marketing detail with you :-)

> AGAIN, I'M NOT VIOLATING THE TERMS, because in the "Readme.txt" of
> FilmShrink's source package it's CLEARLY written that you need
> m2DecPak to recompile AND run the main module and it can be downloaded
> from the project's website. You've removed this indication, so YOU ARE
> THE ONE WHO VIOLATES THE TERMS! Don't tell me that you "either miss
> this project's info" or "don't find such info from original project",
> because you needed this information to recompile FilmShrink. Without
> m2DecPak it's impossible to recompile FilmShrink/DVD2REAL. This means
> that you are not telling the truth.

Unfortunately I really miss something and so I UPDATED it. So I am telling the truth now.

> Don't make me laugh! This is the last time I ask you to STOP
> DISTRIBUTING DVD2REAL! In the next step I will contact the authors of
> all the GPL projects used in FilmShrink, and I think they won't be
> happy that you are selling their work too!

Again, I respect the GPL and special thanks to all peoples who made such great programs/components to be a part of DVD2REAL. Without these people, I can't made such project. I really respect these people and GPL. I just use the right that GPL GRANTS TO ME.

Allan

[Sirber]

:confused:

I'm lost in all this.

[Wilbert]

It's very simple. If he indeed added all sourcecode (of all enclosed GPL projects) to DVD2REAL he is in compliant with the GPL. At least, imo.