Canar

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.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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

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. 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.

Okay, confirmed, thank you.

Moderator: this issue is not yet complete; drthawhizkid still contains a link to illegal software in his signature. Thank you.

I've given you his contact information. He doesn't have a publically available/distributable e-mail address. You're free to contact him on IRC (irc://irc.freenode.net/#foobar2000) or through the HydrogenAudio forum.

Peter is the user "DEATH".

Well, since you asked: FYI, the proper English translation of "verboten" is "forbidden".

You're being officially asked to take this project down. I'm in contact with Peter about this issue via IRC, and he's requested me to take this action. If you have a problem with the original maintainer, post in the foobar2000 forum. Case, the installer's updater, will be glad to help you work through whatever issue you have. This is illegal according to the EULA terms of the installer, which is the only means of official distribution. Furthermore, as this project is illegal, it does not comply with the Terms of Service of the MSFN board, making it a public matter as well.

Just wanted to let you all know that this installer is illegal under the terms of the foobar2000 license. drthawhizkid, if you wish to continue distributing this installer, please discuss this matter with Peter Pawlowski (the foobar2000 developer) privately. He can be contacted through the HydrogenAudio forums under the username zZzZzZz.