|
|
| lwc |
| Posted: Dec 14 2010, 10:26 AM |
 |
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 34
Member No.: 20748
Joined: 26-January 07
|
It seems every download site (except the official one) hosts both VirtualDub and VirtualDub (64-bit) without also hosting the source code.
The relevant FAQ (in case it's also relevant for the older GPLv2) states this situation is only valid if they "provide clear instructions people can follow to obtain the source." Well, they don't.
And I'm willing to bet they also don't "take care to make sure that the source remains available for as long as you distribute the object code." If the official site goes down, do you really think they'll stop hosting VirtualDub? After all, download sites are known for keeping files that have lost their official sites years (if not a decade) ago. |
|
| phaeron |
| Posted: Dec 19 2010, 10:59 PM |
|
|
Virtualdub Developer
Group: Administrator
Posts: 7773
Member No.: 61
Joined: 30-July 02
|
It depends on whether they are actually distributing the program or not -- some of them just link to SourceForge, so they technically aren't distributing the software themselves at all. If they are actually hosting the program, then yes, this would probably be a violation of the license.
Most download sites in general are worthless... they just collect as many software links as they can and surround them with ads. I've gotten many emails from download sites saying something to the effect of "your software has earned a five star rating!!" so quickly after I've posted the new version that I doubt they even had time to unzip the archive and launch the executable.
|
|
| lwc |
| Posted: Dec 21 2010, 11:42 AM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 34
Member No.: 20748
Joined: 26-January 07
|
Well, lots (if not most) download sites (like CNET) do host VirtualDub themselves.
Most download sites - which host files themselves - aren't suitable for GNU GPL. That is, they never host sources. But it doesn't stop them from hosting GNU GPL binaries.
So we're talking about a giant violation (every such site which hosts GNU GPL programs). |
|
| pookien |
| Posted: Dec 22 2010, 04:24 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 39
Member No.: 24784
Joined: 30-December 08
|
I suppose the archive with VD files they host contains all necessary information on getting the source code (in manual/readme/about window etc), so it's not really an issue. |
|
| phaeron |
| Posted: Dec 23 2010, 11:54 PM |
|
|
Virtualdub Developer
Group: Administrator
Posts: 7773
Member No.: 61
Joined: 30-July 02
|
| QUOTE | | I suppose the archive with VD files they host contains all necessary information on getting the source code (in manual/readme/about window etc), so it's not really an issue. |
This is allowed only if you have made explicit arrangements for the other site to keep the same version of the source up, which I'm sure these sites haven't.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#S...nDifferentSites
|
|
| lwc |
| Posted: Dec 24 2010, 03:55 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 34
Member No.: 20748
Joined: 26-January 07
|
You just gave the same link I did. This link doesn't confirm your statement at all. What it does state (as quoted by myself in the original post) is the instructions must be "clear". Even if you think sticking instructions somewhere deep inside binaries can qualify as "clear", then still consider that the binaries aren't clear at all about where to get the sources. The binaries just point to a general homepage which itself links to an external site for the sources. That's stretching "clean" to a whole new level.
Besides, pookien completely ignored my other claim. If VirtualDub's homepage were to be gone, does pookien really think they'd stop hosting VirtualDub's binaries? This would be a first. |
|
| phaeron |
| Posted: Dec 24 2010, 10:11 PM |
|
|
Virtualdub Developer
Group: Administrator
Posts: 7773
Member No.: 61
Joined: 30-July 02
|
What do you mean? The link says "you must take care to make sure that the source remains available for as long as you distribute the object code" and that's basically what I said (and what you did, as well).
To be clear, no one has made any arrangements with me to maintain availability of any website or source code archives under such an arrangement, and it's unlikely that I would agree to that. I don't submit VirtualDub to any download sites; they add it of their own accord.
Note that whether VirtualDub's homepage is still up is actually irrelevant -- all that would matter is that the source code archive is still available. A download site could link to any location that had the source code, as long as they arranged for or tracked availability correctly.
|
|
| lwc |
| Posted: Dec 24 2010, 11:38 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 34
Member No.: 20748
Joined: 26-January 07
|
...plus they won't stop hosting the binaries even if you took down the sources.
But you said something about the source's version having to match the binaries' version, but then gave a link that didn't state that (at least not directly).
Anyway, it's weird known sites like CNET do what you agree is a massive license violation. |
|
| phaeron |
| Posted: Jan 2 2011, 11:01 PM |
|
|
Virtualdub Developer
Group: Administrator
Posts: 7773
Member No.: 61
Joined: 30-July 02
|
Ah yes, that comes from a different section:
| QUOTE |
Anyway, it's weird known sites like CNET do what you agree is a massive license violation.
|
It may not be a violation in all cases. I think Audacity, for instance, includes the source code in the installer. But yeah, it's a bit annoying. :-/
The interesting thing would be to see if CNET is hosting a binary for which the FSF holds significant copyright. I'm pretty sure they would not agree to host the source to satisfy CNET's obligation.
|
|
