1chaoticadult Posted January 10, 2005 Author Share Posted January 10, 2005 (edited) @AlanollThis thread is becoming hellspawn, hehe. Edited January 10, 2005 by 1chaoticadult Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canar Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 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.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.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 foobar2000The 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.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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alanoll Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 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.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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1chaoticadult Posted January 10, 2005 Author Share Posted January 10, 2005 (edited) 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. Edited January 10, 2005 by 1chaoticadult Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midiboy Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canar Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1chaoticadult Posted January 10, 2005 Author Share Posted January 10, 2005 @CanarYou 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canar Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1chaoticadult Posted January 10, 2005 Author Share Posted January 10, 2005 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*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts