[1chaoticadult]

Moderator close thread....

[Alanoll]

@Canar

Please post the EULA as Peter is refering?

Quote

Foobar2000 audio player
Copyright © 2001-2004, Peter Pawlowski
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in binary form, without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

Redistributions must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Neither the name of the author nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

Redistribution of modified binaries allowed only with prior written permission of the author.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.


Note that a separate less restrictive license applies to open source parts, included with the SDK.

(I removed the indivual Copyright notices of the individual packages included as they don't really matter on this issue)

I'm not familiar with this package, as I never used it. However, it this is just a repackaged installer, then 1chaoticadult has not failed to adhere to herein End User License Agreement (EULA). Assuming of course that he did NOT modify any of the binaries, nor did he forget to include herein EULA, nor did he refer to any authors as endorsees.

IF 1chaoticadult has indeed met these conditions, then he is perfectly within his right to redistribute the package as he sees fit. The EULA makes no mention of the installer as a distribution nor as an included binary.

The aforementioned EULA is present in botht he v.8.3 installer of foobar2000 as well as http://www.foobar2000.org/license.html

[totoymola]

I agree with Alanoll. I don't know this program, but according to the EULA, I can't see any violations here. And as long as 1chaoticadult (drthawhizkid) include the original uneditted EULA, and he didn't claim to be the author of the program, there is no problem.

Quote

Redistribution of modified binaries allowed only with prior written permission of the author.

Did he modify anything? No. So therefore, he doesn't need any concent from the author. He just repacked the software, that's all.

Quote

drthawhizkid still contains a link to illegal software in his signature.

Do you thinks it is really "illegal"? Come on man, 1chaoticadult (drthawhizkid) is just trying to help. Peace out!

[1chaoticadult]

Interesting Alanoll....

[Canar]

Alanoll, on Jan 10 2005, 12:43 AM, said:

(I removed the indivual Copyright notices of the individual packages included as they don't really matter on this issue)

That's where you're incorrect. The major issue has to do with the redistribution of much of the AAC decoding code, which is licensed to Peter, and does not allow distribution outside of the standard foobar2000 release package. Furthermore, several third-party components were included without the express consent of the third-party devs. Those are the legal ones. However, there are more issues.

First, none of the third-party component vendors whose work was used were contacted. In fact, this whole "FB2K Xtreme" project was completely unknown to the foobar2000 community. Our initial response is to request removal until the redistributor shows himself to be actually somewhat concerned about what the community thinks. 1chaoticadult has done nothing of the sort. Despite having invested effort into creating this innosetup package, he has still yet to contact Peter in any way, nor request comment from the community or anything. Although this behaviour is not illegal, it's certainly not orthodox. We've had issues with this kind of behaviour before.

Second, there are several issues with the installer that were raised during a quick test/inspection of the innosetup package by myself and a group of foobar2000 component developers. Most notably, it doesn't properly install in Windows 98, has some issues with platform-level utf8api.dll selection, and so on. As it is broken, Peter asked for its removal. As he is the primary copyright holder, I'm reasonably sure he has that right. The foobar2000 community has a very low tolerance for bug-ridden software. We fight a never-ending battle against clueless developers, and do not care to be associated with them in any way.

If 1chaoticadult cares to legitimize his installer, he's more than welcome to do so, and I have made it clear that if he wishes to continue distributing the package, he can contact Peter by a number of methods. As it stands, however, he's refusing to admit he might have even been in the wrong.

totoymola said:

Do you thinks it is really "illegal"? Come on man, 1chaoticadult (drthawhizkid) is just trying to help. Peace out!

There are proper ways to do things and improper ways to do things. 1chaoticadult or drthawhizkid or whatever his username is today did not do things the proper way.

[1chaoticadult]

Canar, on Jan 10 2005, 11:22 AM, said:

Alanoll, on Jan 10 2005, 12:43 AM, said:

(I removed the indivual Copyright notices of the individual packages included as they don't really matter on this issue)

That's where you're incorrect. The major issue has to do with the redistribution of much of the AAC decoding code, which is licensed to Peter, and does not allow distribution outside of the standard foobar2000 release package. Furthermore, several third-party components were included without the express consent of the third-party devs. Those are the legal ones. However, there are more issues.

First, none of the third-party component vendors whose work was used were contacted. In fact, this whole "FB2K Xtreme" project was completely unknown to the foobar2000 community. Our initial response is to request removal until the redistributor shows himself to be actually somewhat concerned about what the community thinks. 1chaoticadult has done nothing of the sort. Despite having invested effort into creating this innosetup package, he has still yet to contact Peter in any way, nor request comment from the community or anything. Although this behaviour is not illegal, it's certainly not orthodox. We've had issues with this kind of behaviour before.

Second, there are several issues with the installer that were raised during a quick test/inspection of the innosetup package by myself and a group of foobar2000 component developers. Most notably, it doesn't properly install in Windows 98, has some issues with platform-level utf8api.dll selection, and so on. As it is broken, Peter asked for its removal. As he is the primary copyright holder, I'm reasonably sure he has that right. The foobar2000 community has a very low tolerance for bug-ridden software. We fight a never-ending battle against clueless developers, and do not care to be associated with them in any way.

If 1chaoticadult cares to legitimize his installer, he's more than welcome to do so, and I have made it clear that if he wishes to continue distributing the package, he can contact Peter by a number of methods. As it stands, however, he's refusing to admit he might have even been in the wrong.

totoymola said:

Do you thinks it is really "illegal"? Come on man, 1chaoticadult (drthawhizkid) is just trying to help. Peace out!

There are proper ways to do things and improper ways to do things. 1chaoticadult or drthawhizkid or whatever his username is today did not do things the proper way.

First of all I admitted I was wrong in action nothing was needed to be said. The action being I took the installer & links down. Second of all, I know it doesn't install in Windows 98 because I don't have a Win98 system to test it on and don't want to be bother with it. Most people had windows xp who downloaded my installer anyway. Third, Since you mentioned proper ways of doing things let me make a point of that. You should have pmed with the issue you and others had instead of trying to flame me in my own thread which was very rude, impolite, inappropriate for the thread and it seems you just wanted to say I stopped another what you called "clueless" developer from redistributing foobar2000 (like get brownie points or something). I even asked you to do pm me, you had no response and continued with your escapade. I like how you present yourself in being this knowing all individual when you know nothing but what you see and hear. Again you keep talking about community. If you were to bother to search I even had a poll asking about this installer before I created it, but I don't care about people's opinions right? Wrong. Its also clear that you didn't make much of an effort to check my installer deeply but did a quick test to blow it off persay. Its also funny I asked people to report bugs to me on my website and in this forum but again I don't care community right? Wrong. As I said before, if they were issues you could have informed me and I would have fixed them instead of you bashing me. If you really cared about MSFN community, which you don't seem to, then I think you would post more often at MSFN but you don't. My advice to you would be stick with the foobar2000 community because you obviously don't fit in well here. I could care less about foobar2000 now anyway . I have moved on to other things so should you.

[Canar]

1chaoticadult, on Jan 10 2005, 11:55 AM, said:

Second of all, I know it doesn't install in Windows 98 because I don't have a Win98 system to test it on and don't want to be bother with it. Most people had windows xp who downloaded my installer anyway. Third, Since you mentioned proper ways of doing things let me make a point of that.    I like how you present yourself in being this knowing all individual when you nothing but what you see and hear.  Wrong.    Its also funny I asked people to report bugs to me on my website and in this forum but again I don't care community right? Wrong.  As I said before, if they were issues you could have informed me and I would have fixed them instead of you bashing me.  My advice to you would be stick with the foobar2000 community because you obviously don't fit in well here. I could care less about foobar2000 now anyway .

Quote

First of all I admitted I was wrong in action nothing was needed to be said.  The action being I took the installer & links down.

No, you immediately took a confrontational stance. It was only after I walked you through the situation that you changed your tone. And you still had not made any attempt to legitimize your work.

Quote

You should have pmed with the issue you and others had instead of trying to flame me in my own thread which was very rude, impolite.... I even asked you to do pm me, you had no response and continued with your escapade.

The first post I made was standalone, made publically because the installer was publically available. You insisted on making your refutation of my claim of illegality public, so that's where it began and remains. You could have moved things over to PMs if you desired. I have no problem with my posts being made publically. Do you?

Quote

Again you keep talking about community.  If you were to bother to search I even had a poll asking about this installer before I created it, but I don't care about people's opinions right?

Yes, I keep talking about community. However, you seem to have completely missed my point. I keep talking about the foobar2000 community, which you've certainly never participated in. The foobar2000 community is the one you're exploiting.

Quote

Its also clear that you didn't make much of an effort to check my installer deeply but did a quick test to blow it off persay.

When it doesn't work properly on Windows '98 right off the bat, accusing me of not making much of an effort to check your installer is kind of foolhardy. It's your installer. Placing the blame for your installer not working on me is lunacy. I had nothing to do with it.

Quote

If you really cared about MSFN community, which you don't seem to, then I think you would post more often at MSFN but you don't.

I explained why I was posting this stuff here: this is the main circle of distribution. MSFN's Unattended Windows XP installation tutorial is incredibly useful, and I check here occasionally for news and things. My personal views on the forums here are none of the concern of this discussion.

Quote

I have moved on to other things so should you.

I imagine your signature reflects the magnitude with which you've moved on?

[Alanoll]

Quote

Peter asked for its removal. As he is the primary copyright holder, I'm reasonably sure he has that right.

Incorrect. Under copyright law, the holder is not allowed to remove content unless it VIOLATES the license per which it was distributed. 1chaoticadult has done neither.

Quote

That's where you're incorrect. The major issue has to do with the redistribution of much of the AAC decoding code, which is licensed to Peter, and does not allow distribution outside of the standard foobar2000 release package.

If this were in fact the case, then the EULA should also include the license for each individual package as well. As the EULA does not, it is in fact PETER who would be found liable for breach of contract, as 1chaoticadult operated under the terms of the EULA of foobar2000

Quote

First, none of the third-party component vendors whose work was used were contacted. In fact, this whole "FB2K Xtreme" project was completely unknown to the foobar2000 community.

Problem with this statement. The ONLY vendors that should have been contacted, if in fact their license was ALSO included in the EULA, would have been the commercial parties (AAC decoding, and a few other libraries included in foobar) as ALL of the GPL/LGPL parties loose that privelege when distributing under the GPL AS LONG AS the source is not modified and credited. As the source was again editing by PETER, 1chaoticadult did not have to renotify the coder.

The fact that the foobar2000 community was not made aware of the projects existence does not add merit to the case. They are not required to be notified of any off spring projects that arise, nor are they required to thoroughly test the new projects.

Quote

Second, there are several issues with the installer that were raised during a quick test/inspection of the innosetup package by myself and a group of foobar2000 component developers. Most notably, it doesn't properly install in Windows 98, has some issues with platform-level utf8api.dll selection, and so on.

The issue with WIndows 98 here is nonimportant, as the project was directed at NT systems, and even if a Windows 98 user HAD come across the project, a simple disclaimer onsite would have eleviated the issue.

The point with the UTF8API.dll however could have been solved if someone had reported the bug in the installer. As no one reported it, it wasn't fixed and is NOT an issue. True it's there, but could have been rectified when brought to light.

Quote

If 1chaoticadult cares to legitimize his installer, he's more than welcome to do so, and I have made it clear that if he wishes to continue distributing the package, he can contact Peter by a number of methods. As it stands, however, he's refusing to admit he might have even been in the wrong.

According to the CURRENT license of foobar2000, 1chaoticadult is under no obligation to make ANY contact with Peter nor to make contact with the foobar2000 community. As such, he is not technically in the wrong legally. Morally, perhaps, but not legally.

Quote

There are proper ways to do things and improper ways to do things. 1chaoticadult or drthawhizkid or whatever his username is today did not do things the proper way.

If you had does THIS in the proper way, then there would not be this discussion. You did not have to hijack a thread to get this project removed. A PM to the member in question would have sufficed. You didn't. You did THIS in the inproper way.

[1chaoticadult]

Canar you still have no clue what you are talking about. You bring up trivial issues (i.e. my sig, which shouldn't be a concern) to try in justify your way of handling situations. You don't know if I've participated in the foobar2000 community or not.

Quote

I explained why I was posting this stuff here: this is the main circle of distribution. MSFN's Unattended Windows XP installation tutorial is incredibly useful, and I check here occasionally for news and things. My personal views on the forums here are none of the concern of this discussion.

Because this and your low post count this makes you a newbie which you provide nothing to this community. You should give respect to people such as myself you provide for the community you are just here for "news and things. About the installer again, I only said what I said to say this, a true developer trys to help another one out. You obviously don't know the meaning of sharing or the role of a community or developer for that matter.

Quote

No, you immediately took a confrontational stance. It was only after I walked you through the situation that you changed your tone. And you still had not made any attempt to legitimize your work.

I wonder why I took this stance ummm... Let's see you just popped in this thread and said this is illegal without giving info about the Peter's stand,whose opinion matters and how its illlegal. Your opinion of me or the installer doesn't matter in my eyes because you are not the developer.

[1chaoticadult]

@Alanoll

Quote

If you had does THIS in the proper way, then there would not be this discussion. You did not have to hijack a thread to get this project removed. A PM to the member in question would have sufficed. You didn't. You did THIS in the inproper way.

This is one of the major issues and Canar you still aren't getting it. You should admit your were wrong about this.

[1chaoticadult]

@Alanoll

This thread is becoming hellspawn, hehe.

This post has been edited by 1chaoticadult: 10 January 2005 - 01:44 PM

[Canar]

Okay. You want a clear, concise reason why the project is illegal, clearly delineated in the EULA? It's a modified binary of the installer. Modified binary distribution is not legal.

Quote

Incorrect. Under copyright law, the holder is not allowed to remove content unless it VIOLATES the license per which it was distributed. 1chaoticadult has done neither.

And you are a copyright lawyer? I've read analyses that suggest EULAs aren't valid period. That would make this whole discussion null-and-void.

Quote

If this were in fact the case, then the EULA should also include the license for each individual package as well. As the EULA does not, it is in fact PETER who would be found liable for breach of contract, as 1chaoticadult operated under the terms of the EULA of foobar2000

The AAC code is stated to be copyrighted by Ahead software in the license. The EULA does contain the license for each individual package, where it matters. Peter, and only Peter, has the legal right to disseminate the AAC software. However, 1chaoticadult had not contacted Ahead for distribution rights.

Quote

If you had does THIS in the proper way, then there would not be this discussion. You did not have to hijack a thread to get this project removed. A PM to the member in question would have sufficed. You didn't. You did THIS in the inproper way.

I made a single comment in the thread where the program was being distributed, alerting the developer, moderators, and the general userbase. I can see no more efficient method of contacting all the parties involved than that.

Anyhow, only the first paragraph of my first response to you presented legal reasons. The rest presented moral/ethical reasons, without as much backing.

This whole scenario is quickly becoming irrelevant anyhow. To prove that Peter's annoyed by this installer, all further releases of foobar2000 will expressly prohibit redistribution of modified setup packages, just to prevent this kind of situation again.

[Alanoll]

Quote

It's a modified binary of the installer. Modified binary distribution is not legal.

But it's not a modified binary, and the deployment is NOT specified as an included binary. He REPLACED the installer, he did not MODIFY it.

Quote

This whole scenario is quickly becoming irrelevant anyhow. To prove that Peter's annoyed by this installer, all further releases of foobar2000 will expressly prohibit redistribution of modified setup packages, just to prevent this kind of situation again.

Still means the current version can have a modified setup package however.

[1chaoticadult]

Quote

This whole scenario is quickly becoming irrelevant anyhow. To prove that Peter's annoyed by this installer, all further releases of foobar2000 will expressly prohibit redistribution of modified setup packages, just to prevent this kind of situation again.

Stop responding then if its irrelevant. Well I'm annoyed how developers don't take advantage of an installer's unattended or silent installation ability properly without the user going through too many changes.

This post has been edited by 1chaoticadult: 10 January 2005 - 02:52 PM

[midiboy]

Canar.



This is ridiculous ! Don´t be so anal about all of this ! Aren´t there more important things to worry about than a silent installer of a free program ?

Actually, you and Peter and the whole Foobar community should thank 1chaoticadult for spreading foobar and making this program more widely available. Until I read about this silent installer here, I had never used Foobar before and I have installed it on quite a few systems since, using 1chaoticadult´s installer.

You should not only thank him for spreading foobar, you should also thank him for making a silent installer which your community did not provide yet.

So even if 1chaoticadult has acted in an inmoral way (I can see where that accusation comes from ) you guys should not bash each other over some minor legal issue. Help each other with the bugs and make peace over this !

Just my 2 cents ...
BYe,
Alex

[Canar]

Alanoll, on Jan 10 2005, 02:32 PM, said:

But it's not a modified binary, and the deployment is NOT specified as an included binary. He REPLACED the installer, he did not MODIFY it.

Replacement is modification. He modified the distribution package. If you'd rather take this up in a court of law, you're welcome to do so. That's the developer's intent anyhow, and it's logically defensible.

Furthermore, there's the AAC distribution issue. Peter informed me he will prosecute if need be. Quoth he: "spreading broken installers will never be welcome, if he wants extra features in our installers, he should contact us instead"

Anyhow, I grow weary of responding cogently to 1chaoticchild's puerile snivellings; if he persists on distributing the modified installer without express permission, an appropriate course of action will be taken.


May Amano fill you with His blessings,

Canar.

[1chaoticadult]

@Canar

You are just annoyed at the fact that I can come up with argumentative remarks against anything you post based on this situation. I'm disgusted with your all of your dialog thus far. I would advise you to leave.

[Canar]

1chaoticadult, on Jan 10 2005, 03:54 PM, said:

You are just annoyed at the fact that I can come up with argumentative remarks against anything you post based on this situation.

Here's the dictionary definition of "argumentative".

1. Given to arguing; disputatious.
2. Of or characterized by argument: an argumentative discourse.

Yes, you argued with me. No, you did not make any valid points, at least where they mattered. If you wish to continue flaming me, feel free to do so, but please use vocabulary that you understand so you actually make some sense. That is, of course, assuming that using proper vocabulary will help.

[1chaoticadult]

Whatever. I'm tired of bickering with you back and forward. I have better things to do. You can pretty much talk to yourself for all I care. This is the end of this saga. *Moderator close this thread again*.