Licenses violations by ApexDC++

[PPK 0]

Thing that ApexDC++ developers should know, to be able to fix it.

ApexDC++ 1.0.0 Beta 5, 1.0.1 and 1.1.0 violates license of DC++ 0.701 and higher because use his code and is compiled with WTL (licensed under license incompatible with GNU GPL). DC++ to 0.701 changed license and removed part allowing that.

Same versions violate licenses of DC++ mods (i'm found code from CZDC++ [ex. chat control, waiting users frame, recent hubs, country flags...], oDC [ex. omenu...], PhantomDC [ex. avipreview, previewdlg, toolbarpage...], PossumMod [ex. FolderTree...], ReverseConnect [ex. sorting in TypedTreeListViewCtrl...]) because ApexDC++ is compiled with OpenSSL (licensed under license incompatible with GNU GPL) and none of these mods have that allowed in license.

[Guest Toast]

Knock it the **** off PPK stop being a baby

[Crise 26]

I'll be honest with you on this one PPK, I do not care... those are trivial things compared to the fact that many clients out there do not provide source code at all. Quite frankly I believe your time would be far better spent bothering those developers rather than us.

[Big Muscle 1]

If we are talking about licence violating than using GPL code doesn't give you copyright, so removing copyright notice is license violating too and it means that CzDC violates GNU/GPL too, so don't worry, be happy :thumbsup:

But it's very simple, PPK dislikes that ApexDC++ is based on the most extended DC client - StrongDC++ - which includes SSL/TLS encryption for NMDC connections that is incompatible with some pseudo-PPK's method (which doesn't exist at all), so must do something to sabotage such client. But... let's just ignore him.

[PPK 0]

Sad, Crise you don't care. But i care, and sourceforge too. They wanted that i "direct this inquiry to the administrator of the project", and if problem will not be fixed then back to them so they will remove all problematic files.

[Big Muscle 1]

and btw if StrongDC++ got exception that it can be compiled with WTL, does it pay for its derivation (ApexDC++) then? Interesting question, isn't it? :P

[Guest Toast]

PPK basically hates anything thats ADC that clearly noticeable on any forum or site that he has posted on

i love how he thinks the acronym of ADC is Annihilate Direct Connect.

i just didn't think he should go this low in trying to removing it but hey "nice shoot".

[Crise 26]

Sad, Crise you don't care. But i care, and sourceforge too. They wanted that i "direct this inquiry to the administrator of the project", and if problem will not be fixed then back to them so they will remove all problematic files.

You know PPK, that's too bad... if that will happen then it will happen, it's not like I have any means of stopping you. Besides there are plenty of other methods to distribute files aside SourceForge.

[Big Muscle 1]

By the way, OpenSSL LICENSE file claims that it is under "BSD-style Open Source" and this license is compatible with GPL.

Also, OpenSSL FAQ page says:

On many systems including the major Linux and BSD distributions, yes (the GPL does not place restrictions on using libraries that are part of the normal operating system distribution).

On other systems, the situation is less clear. Some GPL software copyright holders claim that you infringe on their rights if you use OpenSSL with their software on operating systems that don't normally include OpenSSL.

If you develop open source software that uses OpenSSL, you may find it useful to choose an other license than the GPL, or state explicitly that "This program is released under the GPL with the additional exemption that compiling, linking, and/or using OpenSSL is allowed." If you are using GPL software developed by others, you may want to ask the copyright holder for permission to use their software with OpenSSL.

And I don't see any problem with it.

So where's the problem?

[PPK 0]

You know PPK, that's too bad... if that will happen then it will happen, it's not like I have any means of stopping you. Besides there are plenty of other methods to distribute files aside SourceForge.

Of course you can distribute files from different place than sourceforge, but when project will be removed from sourceforge then users know that is something wrong with that project

Don't get me wrong, i don't have anything against apexdc++. Apex devs are not alone who received similar message today. Btw removing WTL and rewritte code that you have from other mods is not hard ;)

[Crise 26]

If you have read BM's posts there is really no problem regarding OpenSSL, and if SDC has gotten a okay from DC++ devs regarding WTL (and I see no reason why this wouldn't be the case) that matter is also settled.

[PPK 0]

If you have read BM's posts there is really no problem regarding OpenSSL

And do you read it ? Here is no problem when OpenSSL is part of operating system. On windows is not, and then as is in that what big muscle pasted apply this part:

If you develop open source software that uses OpenSSL, you may find it useful to choose an other license than the GPL, or state explicitly that "This program is released under the GPL with the additional exemption that compiling, linking, and/or using OpenSSL is allowed."

You can do that for your own code, but not for GNU GPL code that you copyed. Then you can try this:

If you are using GPL software developed by others, you may want to ask the copyright holder for permission to use their software with OpenSSL.

[Crise 26]

On other systems, the situation is less clear.

And did you read this part, it meas less clear but not different... so OpenSSL is GPL compatible, case closed.