I was recently given a copy of this file/encoder by a friend. From what I've seen they do not release sources, but he explained to me as it was internal testing it was o.k. ?

Have any of you run across this encoder? What settings do you recommend/ remember them recomending?

LossySan

Edit: Can post be moved to a more appropriate forum? Its oddly late and my brain is not quite fully here.

Mods: I appreciate the hours you put in pro bono.

Dibrom: thx for your tireless efforts to bring us a better a/v experience.

I haven't looked at NCTU-LAME yet but NCTU-FAAC features notable improvements on some samples but performs worse than recent FAAC versions on others.
They are still blatantly violate each project's license (L/GPL) and should be sued (Ahead?).

There was quite a hoohah recently over NCTU-LAME's alleged violation of the LGPL, and it was discussed both in here and on NCTU-LAME's forum. I don't know much about the performance of this codec though; you can try doing a search.

well they don't seem to have a binary release atm. So are they really still in violation?

No one is aware of any recomended settings?

That's a tricky issue. They made it public once - it doesn't matter if only for internal testing or not, it was available in a publicly reachable server - , and they needed to have released the sources by then.

They aren't violating anything now, but anyone that downloaded the binaries while they still were available can demand the sources, and they are forced to provice them according to the license, no matter how. They can actually charge a little fee for media and shipping, in case they decide to send it using floppy disks or a CDr. But they must provide the sources.

Of course, the main developer already pointed, more than once, at this forum, that he doesn't care (or doesn't understand) about the license and the release schedule for the sources is at his sole discretion. So, you shouldn't have much hope of getting them.

Actually, from reading his posts at the thread where the license violation was discussed, one can deduce that he didn't understand the LGPL rules and refused to accept the clarifications from posters that did.

IANAL but it seems to be accepted that ceasing all activities in breach of the license is can help in this case. So if you stop distributing the copyrighted binaries once you are made aware that you are breaking the license, you are not necessarily forced to release the source code as well.

Whether this is what NCTU did is an entirely different matter.

Not Ahead, because they didn't buy the FAAC code from Menno, only FAAD2.

If one is very careful they can reach the same binary that was given to me on their server still. Oddly enough they only removed the link on the page not the file location. So with a leech program, ftp prog, or just typing in the same address - file name of other files available on the server and then surfing around a bit, you can locate the binaries for both the lame and faac versions.

What means, they are still breaking the LGPL.

What are the links? I doubt there is any problem linking the binaries here.

Why is it ok to link to files offending various licence agreements (and possibly also copyright) now all of a sudden?

Dude, you are hard to stomach.

To start with, HA is not hosting the files. NCTU is hosting. And they are distributing. The ones distributing are supposed to distribute both, binaries and sources.

Copyright? Sure. It belongs to Menno, Knik and some other FAAC developers. Theoretically, the copyright holders must approve the distribution of their copyrighted work. But not if you release it under the (L)GPL. In this case, you don't give up your rights, but you can't control distribution. Anyone is free to take these (L)GPLd sources and distribute them, in either binary form or source form. And, if you implement modifications to these sources, you aren't allowed to distribute the binary form only.

You have a serious problem to discuss things without taking it personal, right?

Now let's take it one item at a time:


I wasn't talking about hosting. I was talking about linking to possibly offending material. If you still remember our last little discussion, you were very rigid in your opinion that linking is illegal as well.


Technically they do the distribution, but since they don't link to the file anymore but you plan to, I would say that morally you are involved in distributing the files.



Yeah, but they claim they now comply with the licence by not distributing it anymore. I do think they should remove the hosted files as well to comply fully, and is that what you try to achieve by linking to it and telling the world "hey they still have the file here!"? (I hope so...)

Sure. Linking to copyright-infringing files. Or to warez. That's not the case here. They are breaking a LICENSE, not copyright law or the DMCA or anything like that. Surely not something that could get this forum into trouble. And that has always been my intention when campaigning against links to illegal shit in the threads: trying to keep this forum safe.

Do you really think I care about copyright laws? Me, the self proclaimed "Warez Lord" of HA? Nope, I just care about avoiding that this forum gets killed by the crazy BSA and RIAA lawyers.



Morally. So what? I'm talking legally here.

And yes, they are distributing. It doesn't matter if it's being linked at Yahoo's front page or at some obscure directory listing. If it's reachable worldwide, it's distribution.



Bullshit. They are still distributing it. They didn't delete the file, just stopped linking it at the front page.


Anyway, I give up. You are hopeless, Erik. Nitpick my posts as much as you want.

And yes, I get personal. Often. If you can't live with that, just ignore me.

Roberto.

Just my 2 cents:

It's deja vu all over again! I remember back when Sigma Designs pulled this same crap with XviD, and I told everyone over at doom9.org who would listen that the solution was simple: confront the offending party in the bluntest way possible by posting a story at Slashdot. Well, all the "gurus" at Doom9 basically told me to shutup and let the "experts" handle the situation with finesse and discretion behind closed doors. Well finesse and discretion didn't accomplish diddly squat. The result? Months later somebody finally posts the story to Slashdot, and the whole thing was resolved within 24 hours with Sigma apologizing profusely and publishing the source code to their codec.

My advice now is exactly the same as then. Submit a story to Slashdot describing how NCTU hijacked FAAC without coughing up the source, complete with links to the relevant forum threads, and BELIEVE ME, some administrator over at NCTU is gonna be up to his eyeballs in nasty emails from 10 million Linux fanatics. Then that administrator is gonna want to know who this egghead is down at the audio lab who is causing all this trouble. Then I guarantee you, the source code will be forthcoming. 'Nuff said!

I never really understood the influence of Slashdot... why is it so powerful?

But before anyone wants to unleash the so-called wrath of LGPL zealots, he or she better make 100% sure that the binaries are still accessible through the Internet, and can be downloaded by anybody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot

lazyn00b basically nailed it on the head...

If the story makes the front page of /., and an "OMG S0me ev1l MEGA-CORP si violating teh GPL!!1111oneone" story often will (we'll never mind the accuracy of the story, nor the number of times it may be posted ), this poor server will see itself inundated by several tens of thousands of web hits, along with some number of portscans, hack attempts, emails, phone calls, or any combination thereof to pretty much anything affiliated to the site.

It's called the Slashdot Effect for a reason.

It's also called "slashdotting"

This is what happened last time RareWares was slashdotted:





They even managed to bring apple.com down once with a slashdotting. From that day on, Apple started hosting their static content at Akamai.

Link to the lame binary : http://dsppc14.csie.nctu.edu.tw/uploads/45/7/lame.exe

Link to the faac binary : http://dsppc14.csie.nctu.edu.tw/uploads/34/9/faac.exe

You can also explore the server by simply leaving off the executable name and clicking 'parent directory' too easy neh?

Edit: There is a second, newer faac binary available if you browse around.

Very interesting. Thanks