When we shell out $15 to buy the VCDEasy Commercial Version, does that price include lifetime upgrades and updates? Is there a hidden expiration on it when you purchase it so that you will need to purchase a new version (a la version 1.1.5)?
I think $15 is a fair price, but I am a little disgusted by the "you shouldn't have to pay..." and then the 180 to the shareware version. I will purchase the new version IF there are no more surprises. I believe in supporting shareware if the quality matches the price. In this case, it does. It may even be leaning to the side of "bargain" But what I don't stand for is saying one thing then doing another. In this case, that would not only be repulsive, but also criminal.
Let me know what the deal is so everyone can make a decision on 1.1.6. I would hate for VCDEasy to go from my "Greatest Hits" list to my "Greatest **** (also "hits", but take the last letter and move it to the front)" list.
Thanks, and good job (so far) on the software!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13
while i am thankful for vcdeasy this far, i will just find something else to get the job done.
nero will do alot of what vcdeasy does/did...
if you bought a cd burner lately you most likely got nero bundled anyway...
on to the next app for vcd making...
ps - some people have no vision. short sighted for the small profit now, failing to see the big picture and big money. wrong time to sell out vcdeasy guy...
So far, the only major limitation I have found is that the program won't accept MPEGs over 400 MB. This is easily taken care of by splitting files into 2.
Well, 1.1.4 is still available, and is actually where I stopped upgrading, since I had no complaints what so ever with this version (contrary to my usual behaviour, where I upgrade as soon as there is an alpha version on the horizon).
thank god i haven't updated in a while.His name was MackemX
What kind of a man are you? The guy is unconscious in a coma and you don't have the guts to kiss his girlfriend?
Originally Posted by HangoverMS
A "freeware" version of VCDEasy (or of any other program for that matter) is not a right but a priviledge -- and one if you go to http://www.vcdeasy.org would realise is being paid for out of delphi.stuff's pockets. Hosting websites is far from free (or cheap).
delphi.stuff had hoped that by improving VCDEasy has he had up to v1.1.5 that people would donate sufficiently to keep it going as freeware and for further development. Commercial realities and lack of financial support has forced this situation so I don't think it is really fair for you to put this on the author. He has given you so far a free ride and a free lunch and now you want to bite him in the arse for being no longer able to afford it!
v1.1.6 comes with both the limited trial and commercial unlimited versions. As the author clearly states on his sites, if you can't get the limited trial working properly, then don't pay for the commercial one.
If you want to continue to keep your hands in your pockets, the author has welcomed you keep using older versions (available on the site) or the last freeware version
Not to be the wet blanket around here, but there is something rotten with a commercial version.
Dispite the dancing he does in the licence, since the program will not operate as advertised without the help of VCDimager and CDRDAO he is in violation of those licences and must open his software up, rewrite those functions, or stop distribution all together.
This is all very ironic since delphi himself railed on other companies for exploiting his work without respecting his licence and now he turn around and does it to the people whose work is 80% of his program's functioanlity.
I have contacted him by e-mail with numerous suggestions to remedy the situation, and await a reply.
I would have to in part disagree with you snowmoon. Perhaps my understanding of GPL is wrong (and please someone correct me if I am), but I was under the impression a subsequent program/code must also be free (as per the original GPL for the free software) only if it is (i.e., verbatim) the program or if it is derived from the program.
VCDEasy itself is simply a GUI of a number of free software including VCDImager, CDRDAO and MJPEGTools. As far as I know, VCDEasy itself (as per the Win32 GUI program) is in no way "derived" from any free source code under GPL. That is, VCDEasy itself is not under the requirement of GPL to be released as free software.
As VCDEasy is bundled usually with a number of free programs, (i.e., it is distributing them), delphi.stuff's requirement under GPL is that he must maintain the GPL licenses on those specific programs, release the source code to those programs if he made modifications and to also apply the same GPL license to those modifications, and to ensure that the user is aware of these rights under GPL. As far as I'm aware, GPL has been satisfied in this regard.
As for "commercial version" vs. "uncharged version" (as opposed to "free" as per GPL definition), this is actually immaterial in GPL. You are allowed to charge a cost for the distribution of GPL code/programs as long as the GPL license is maintained (e.g., commercial vs. free versions of Linux).
As an example, I could write a program that is a GUI for CDRDAO and I may bundle CDRDAO with it. To my understanding, as long as I didn't actually use any of CDRDAO code or modifications of CDRDAO code in my GUI, there is no reason that the GUI itself can't be non-open source/non-free. My obligations to the open source community is that if I bundle CDRDAO with it, I have to make clear that my program is a GUI and uses this particular free program, and make clear the separate license for CDRDAO as per GPL.
The FSF would disagree...
"Mere aggregation of two programs means putting them side by side on the same CD-ROM or hard disk. We use this term in the case where they are separate programs, not parts of a single program. In this case, if one of the programs is covered by the GPL, it has no effect on the other program.
Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them." - emphasis added
"However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program." - emphasis added
So you can see that derivative works would include the senario where you are mearly calling GPL software when the relationship is intimate or where the result represnents a single effective program. It's not the most obvious GPL infringment case, but it is there. It's all based on the fact that without VCDimager and CDRDAO he has no program and VCDeasy is effectivly linked to GPL programs.
FSF has begun legal action in similar cases, I just hope delphi does not get hit.
MJPEG tools has a LGPL licence, so it is 100% legal to create a dirivative work based on linking where the original has not been altered ( or the changes are free to download ).
I take your point... However:
However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program."
One could obviously see the opposite sides of the spectrum (e.g., rewriting a free proggy as an Win32 API vs. simply passing on variables via a batch file to the free proggy) but it's the "in-between" parts that aren't clear.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the above are in a FAQ and even though vague, are not in the GPL license itself.
I agree that VCDEasy wouldn't be the program it is without the inclusion of VCDImager / CDRDAO but are they integral parts? I personally don't think so. VCDEasy will "work" in a fashion without either. If you consider the ultimate core functionality of VCDEasy to be the authoring of a S/VCD by outputting a VCDImager compatible script, it doesn't need VCDImager or CDRDAO to achieve this. The actual authoring process of creating the still images (using MJPEGTools), creating the chapters (authoring the XML script) are all done indepedent of VCDImager or CDRDAO.
VCDEasy then saves the XML script and then passes it on to VCDImager to build the image... and then passes the image on to CDRDAO for burning but both these steps are optional.
I think if you look at it from a legal argument, I think that the case for VCDEasy to "must" be open source is weak. However, in the context of your arguement, I agree that the "spirit" of the open source agreement has probably been violated...
I will agree 100% that it's a grey area that can only be decided by a judge. But I would hate for delphi to be caught in the middle of a draw out battle. It's also obvious that the FSF designed a different licence for these situations and it's called the LGPL.
Actually "communicate at arms length" is defined in the FAQ and it includes command line arguments. So that is really not vauge, but the effectivly one program could be vauge. Delphi and I are both attempting to clarify the situation with those above.
I would say that VCDeasy cannot claim "mere aggrigation" as his claim for distribution though becuase the parts form a larger non-GPL program.
Originally Posted by snowmoon
In any case, I wouldn't want delphi.stuff to be caught in the middle of this either.