Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: licence (Read 5291 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

licence

Hi,

May I offer foobar2000 as a download on my site. I have read the licence agreement, but it is not clear to me if I can do that.

I zipped the unaltered exe file. Should I include a readme file with the licence?

I encourage the users of my lessons site because it plays ogg files perfectly "looped" (repeat).

If you want to check it out:

http://www.hugojacquet.com/index.php?optio...id=23&Itemid=43

At the bottom of the page I offer a "loopable" version of the backing track (ogg), and also the download of foobar2000.

Thank you,

Hugo

http://www.pego.be  (lesson site soon to be converted to mambo)

http://www.hugojacquet.com  (mambo test site)

PS please use I.E. to browse, since I cannot prevent Firefox to autoplay the media files on the page. The result is a complete mes of all files playing together. Firefox is my preferred browser, but..Still looking for a solution for that too :-).

licence

Reply #1 –
The license does not allow repackaging foobar2000. Give your users a link to the foobar2000 (download) page. You could tell them to get the light installer, if they care about the size of the download or want to avoid unnecessary complexity (aka unneeded components).

licence

Reply #2 –
Quote
The license does not allow repackaging foobar2000. Give your users a link to the foobar2000 (download) page. You could tell them to get the light installer, if they care about the size of the download or want to avoid unnecessary complexity (aka unneeded components).

Are you sure about that?  My 0.8.3 license file says the following:
Quote
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Redistributions in binary form 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.

I'm not a lawyer, but I certainly don't see anything that would prevent someone from redistributing Foobar2000 in a different package (a.k.a. with different components).  In fact, the highlighted sections appear to explicitly allow such distributions, provided the proper credit and considerations are followed.

licence

Reply #3 –
License has been changed since original 0.8.3 release since some people didn't seem to get it certain parts of it. Was about time we made repackaging stop anyway.
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.
 

licence

Reply #4 –
Additionally, everyone who redistributes foobar2000 violates license of AAC decoder (GPL) which you have no way to comply as foobar2000 source code is closed; I have a special permission to distribute it on different terms.
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.

licence

Reply #5 –
Nevermind. The AAC-decoder seems to be included in the standard-inputs component.

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

licence

Reply #6 –
Redistributing unaltered installer is fine, though you should rather link our site instead.
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.

licence

Reply #7 –
Quote
License has been changed since original 0.8.3 release since some people didn't seem to get it certain parts of it. Was about time we made repackaging stop anyway.

That impacts future versions of Foobar2000, but it doesn't retroactively change the license for previous versions.

Quote
Additionally, everyone who redistributes foobar2000 violates license of AAC decoder (GPL) which you have no way to comply as foobar2000 source code is closed; I have a special permission to distribute it on different terms.

All of the FAAD code can easily be compiled out of foo_input_std.dll, thus eliminating this problem.  Also, I'm not sure that it has been legally decided if a component like a LKM, or in this case, a separate component DLL with the GPL license forces one to release the entire application source.  GPL zealots say yes, many others say maybe...

licence

Reply #8 –
GPL terms don't apply to the licensing agreement between zZzZzZz and Nero (which holds the copyright to all FAAD2 code).
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.

licence

Reply #9 –
Here is what I would like to do:

Have a super lite distribution of Foobar2000 (with all executables and DLLs packed with UPX), packaged as either as a ZIP file, or a way to quietly run the installer (except for the almighty click-thru EULA, of course).

The reason why I want this is that I would love to be able to package my own component, foo_pod, in a way that makes it very easy for people to run Foobar2000 + foo_pod directly off of their iPods.  Imagine a tiny (~3MB with many useful components) application that doesn't require an installation and which allows you to walk up to any Windows computer in the world and load/unload songs to/from your iPod?  Just based on the number of iPod owners, it could dramaticly increase the number of people exposed to Foobar2000.

Unfortunately, thanks to some distributions, I'm afraid this is unlikely.  Although, since NSIS already supports Plugin DLLs, it should be possible for component authors to create an installation DLL that the unmodified Foobar2000 installer would call.  Combine that with a semi-quiet installer, and I think it would satisify everyone.

licence

Reply #10 –
We could change our official installers to support "quiet" mode (assuming it's not there yet, I'm not up to date on this - we at least have "extract only" mode that makes no modification to registry etc). Or create one more installer variation with such features. I'll point Case to this topic.
Main problem with installer-less distribution is that you either need to manually copy correct utf8api.dll, or always use ANSI one (then you get no unicode support), or always use unicode one (then it doesn't run on win9x). Main point of modification restrictions (besides ripoffs) is to prevent people from making non-fully-functional redistributions - because someone else can't possibly know as much as we do about how foobar2000 internals work.
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.

licence

Reply #11 –
Quote
We could change our official installers to support "quiet" mode (assuming it's not there yet, I'm not up to date on this - we at least have "extract only" mode that makes no modification to registry etc). Or create one more installer variation with such features. I'll point Case to this topic.

It looks like the default NSIS quiet support is in there (/S, case sensitive).  It is mostly silent, and you can set destination directory (/D), but fooassoc.exe does starts after the installation is complete.  It also modifies the registry, which is bad if you already have Foobar2000 installed to a different location or are installing it to a removable drive.

Quote
Main problem with installer-less distribution is that you either need to manually copy correct utf8api.dll, or always use ANSI one (then you get no unicode support), or always use unicode one (then it doesn't run on win9x). Main point of modification restrictions (besides ripoffs) is to prevent people from making non-fully-functional redistributions - because someone else can't possibly know as much as we do about how foobar2000 internals work.

That's fair enough.  Just having a combination of the quiet mode and new installer options to disable running fooassoc.exe and registry modifications would be all that is necessary to accomplish what I'm thinking of.  Well, and maybe that super-lite UPX packed distribution...

licence

Reply #12 –
The only problem I see with "super-lite" UPX packed distribution is that ever since NSIS implemented LZMA compression from 7-Zip, compressing the individual binary modules actually makes the resulting installer larger.

Although, if you are using an archive format such as ZIP, which does not support solid compression, then you would benefit from UPX at both stages. Now, how to deal with utf8api in this scenario...

licence

Reply #13 –
Quote
The only problem I see with "super-lite" UPX packed distribution is that ever since NSIS implemented LZMA compression from 7-Zip, compressing the individual binary modules actually makes the resulting installer larger.

Although, if you are using an archive format such as ZIP, which does not support solid compression, then you would benefit from UPX at both stages. Now, how to deal with utf8api in this scenario...

I am actually more concerned with the size of the installed executables, rather than of the installer itself.  It isn't a big deal, especially for the lite version of Foobar, but every little bit helps.  My own custom Foobar installation went from 6MB to 3MB when compressed by upx --brute.

Also (and I haven't tested this), I would assume that loading smaller executables from a relatively slow device like an iPod Shuffe would be faster overall, even including the decompression time (the UPX website quotes 10MB/sec on a Pentium 133).  With a modern CPU, it might even be a small win loading from real hard drives, as well.

licence

Reply #14 –
Ok,

Thanks for the reply's. I will remove the direct download and make it a link to the foobar2000 site.

I've already done this for the pego.be site.

The reason I wanted to have a direct download is:
Simplicity


Hugo

http://www.pego.be