Hello guys.

I was wondering about licence of the programs. I see today that there are only two categories here: freeware and shareware. In my opinion you should add another one: adware. You know why...

Not all of users read the description of the program, and many of them will get infected with problematic spyware. Look at FreeRIP or AutoGK (Auto Gordian Knot) 1.95.

What do you say?

See the download pages/important notes of FreeRIP 2.94 and AutoGK (Auto Gordian Knot) 1.95.
Always declared when possible ad/spyware content recognized.

I understand what you mean, but in my opinion this field could also be marked as Adware. Just my opinion...

Ok maska, we'll try to follow this suggestion. Give us some time

Don't think Euromix has unlimited time... I could be wrong? maybe he wants to weed through 100s of programs to organize them into different categories i.e. demos, shareware, postcardware, freeware, adware BLAH BLAH etc.

Besides adware is a component often bundled with shareware and it's up to the user to make that distinction which software is suitable for them.

If we noticed , thats no free software is clear , i mean people who want us to use thier prodacts always put crevasse in the software ,

so , thats mean if we use free software no one be happy , look into your pc, you will find alot of spyware to buy thier prodact ,

thats my opinion ,

peace

No, I would say only three categories are sufficient: shareware, adware and freeware. Maybe with the help of the readers (like me) the changes would be easier to be made.

Definitions from here (although not very accurate):


And Spyware:
Software that compiles information either once, or on a continual basis while you use the software into which it is built. This information is sent via the internet without your knowledge or consent. Typically, this information is used to track your web browsing habits. Spyware can typically be found in Adware. The information gathered is used to select the type of advertising that will be served to you in the Adware program.

Maska, sounds like you want to volunteer your time as beta tester.

Hmmm.. over 150 programs to test for trial period, install, isolate for spyware/adware, read 3rd party license agreement, not to mention adding the adware category to html pages on website. Of course, some programs are quite obvious... others not so apparent. Take few months I bet. Besides possibly mucking up your computer, this will likely "miff" some software developers by lumping them into "adware" category and evidently business relationships could be potentially severed.

Yes, the definitions are dated...most are just variations of shareware and freeware. Hence, those are the official broad categories.

Don't get me wrong.. sounds like good idea on the surface. However, the new generation of computer users are getting smarter (I like to think) albeit lazy... very easy to do research by punching program into Google to find if it's reputable or if it's ad-infested.

Definitely not.

There's plenty of software on your server with the GPL license which you incorrectly mark as "freeware" (for example Avidemux, ffdshow, VLC etc. etc.).

It is not freeware, it is Free Software. Please note that Free Software is something completely different than freeware (they're not even similar) and saying that GPL-licensed software is "freeware" is as correct as saying that freeware is commercial software.

Please correct this, it is a big mistake.

There are many types of programs, if you take each program hosted here and read the licence... That's why I said "shareware, adware and freeware".

There's at least one other important category - Open Source software. You explicitely said in your description that freeware is different than Open Source. The GPL license is also an open-source license, yet you imply that open-source programs are "freeware".

You contradict yourself.

GPL is absolutely substantial. GPL-licensed programs are definitely not freeware. Freeware is something completely, totally different.

If you're not willing to mark the license properly, then it would be better to remove the license info completely - much better than spreading misinformation. Or remove GPL-licensed programs from this server - but then there wouldn't be much left there.

Because GPL is not some exotic license. Not only it is one of the major, most famous and common licenses these days (definitely more influential and significant than freeware), but the essential software on this server is GPL-licensed. For example:

XviD
ffdshow
LAME MP3 encoder
VirtualDub
VirtualDubMod
Avisynth

and others - they're all GPL programs (actually, LAME uses LGPL, not GPL).

Furthermore - if VirtualDub was freeware, VirtualDubMod wouldn't exist (because VirtualDubMod is based on VirtualDub - this is impossible with freeware). If FFmpeg was freeware, ffdshow couldn't exist (because ffdshow is based on the FFmpeg codecs). If XviD was freeware, Koepis's and Nic's XviD builds (which are included on this server, too) wouldn't exist. And so on.

By marking these programs as "freeware", you deny their existence. Because if it was freeware, these programs wouldn't exist. It's the open-source license that allows their existence (people work on them together, as the source code is open). It is absolutely essential - if you want, I'll give you a complete list of GPL-licensed programs on this server. Please mark the license properly as GPL.

The GPL definition is clear:

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

Also, read the Free Software definition:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Please realize that while freeware is software for free, the word "free" in Free Software means freedom, not price - you can sell Free Software for whatever price you want. And it happens - people distribute the GPL-licensed programs for money.

Very useful advices, am I right euromix?

But i think these "freeware" and "shareware" license infos are just brief descriptions on the site. Used mainly for the end-user side to inform: limited in usage or not.
You always have to read the detailed and entire license agreement before installing anything, or deciding to redistribute, etc.

GPL is the exact opposite of freeware in every aspect:

1. Freeware is closed-cource, GPL is open-source.

2. You can modify GPL software, you can't modify freeware. You can distribute the modifications of Free Software as your own software, you can't do that with freeware.

3. Freeware is free of charge, you can sell Free Software (contrary to popular myth, Free Software doesn't mean "software for free"; it's free as in "free speech", not "free beer").

As you can see, the only thing freeware and Free Software have in common is that it's software. Is it enough to justify spreading completely false information?


That's why GPL software shouldn't be marked as "freeware", because there's an exact definition of what freeware is - it is a type of license that gives totally different rights to the user than Free Software does and it is limited in things that Free Software is not limited (as I said, they're completely opposite in every aspect).


Then why is the license info there at all? When it's completely useless and false?

It's like listing a commercial program that costs $1000, labeling it as "freeware" and then saying "the license info is there just as a general guidance, the users always have to check the actual license for these minor insignificant details and nuances".

Besides, like I said, the majority of the most important software here is GPL licensed. Incorrectly labeling the most essential software that you have on your website as "freeware" (i.e. denying its existence, as it's GPL that allows their existence at all) is extremely disrespectful, to say the very least. I don't think there's any serious website that makes this mistake - every serious website labels GPL programs as GPL programs. If that's too much for you, just use the general category "open source", which also covers other open-source licences, not just GPL. I don't think that, in this world and age, there's anyone who has never heard of open source (which is much more significant and far-reaching than freeware).

J.M. is right.

Sorry, I was thinking more about spyware and adware programs, read my first post of this thread.

Perhaps you can help sorting in the right way all the software hosted here.

Of course, and you're right too.
Just take it easy

I'm afraid I can't help you with the adware and spyware stuff. I don't even use Windows too much, it's not my main OS, so I don't have much experience with this type of software (the only adware program I use is Opera).

But like I said, I can do my best to give you a list of (hopefully) all open-source programs on free-codecs.com, with the licenses they use. The offer still stands.


If "take it easy" means "don't do anything, be happy with the current state", then I definitely won't take it easy, I really won't.

No, "take it easy" actually means I'm sleepy
And i ensure u, euromix will come and review this thread and will make all the necessary changes and everything you're asking for and i agree as told and i'm sleepy but ok and

btw J. M., just seen you're member No. 1000 here well, receive our warm welcome!

OK, thank you very much. I really appreciate it. Good night.


Huh... Strange things have been happening to me recently, this is another one.

Clicking on Freeware link you'll see this explanation (overtaken from Snapfiles):

FREEWARE
Freeware programs are either distributed for the love of humanity, for fame, or as stripped down versions of programs that do cost money. Remarkably, some of the very best programs for using the Internet are completely free. Most freeware, even though it's not commercially sold, is copyrighted by the author. Always check the license agreement if you consider using the application for anything than your personal use.


As chp said, freeware and shareware are brief descriptions used to simplify things. Theoretically you're absolutely right but practically is hard to use so many type of licenses: Freeware, Shareware, Trialware, Crippleware/Liteware, Demoware, Postware, Public Domain Software, Adware and so on.

Maybe we can improve Freeware and Shareware explanations... If you have any suggestions, we are glad to hear (and use) them.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record - GPL has *NOTHING* to do with freeware.


You don't simplify things by spreading totally, completely false information.


Well, the brutal way of saying it would be - "if you can't do it properly, better don't do it at all". That is - don't list the license info at all. You can't justify spreading misinformation by "saying the truth is slightly more difficult for us, so we prefer lying instead".

Besides, I already said (repeatedly) that I can give you list of all open-source programs on your server. All you have to do then is change the license info for them. That's all. It ain't that hard, is it?


You can't seriously compare the significance of postcardware with Open Source - that would be way much more than crazy. Open Source is one of the 2 major software license types these days. You can't ignore it. The most essential software on your server is open-source. It is not one of many, one of a million license types (like the small postcardware "toys" etc.). It is one of the most important license types in the 3rd millenium. And no, open-source software is not freeware.

For example - if you read the notes of the VirtualDub author on his webpage, he even says that distributing VirtualDub binaries without the source code is ILLEGAL. Yet, you insist on confusing people by saying that VirtualDub is freeware (VirtualDub is, of course, licensed under the GPL).

There is an exact definition of what Free Software is and there is an exact - formal - definition of what Open Source is:

http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

and which licenses are formally accepted as Open Source licenses:

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/

As you can see, GPL is one of them - GPL has an exact definition which you can read in any GPL-licensed program package, i.e. in many important programs on your server.


Your freeware descriptions have 3 flaws:

1. It is vague, not exact or formally precise. Various people have different interpretations based on their personal opinion. On the other hand, Open Source is EXACTLY FORMALLY DEFINED and much more important (for example, more than 50 million people have downloaded Firefox 1.0 which had a rather dramatic impact on many things - and no, Firefox is not freeware).

2. It is obsolete - freeware could be important 10-20 years ago, but today, open-source software is much more important and influential than freeware. These descriptions that say there's only freeware, shareware and commercial software (and deny the existence of open source) are 10-15 year old descriptions that don't reflect current reality, the importance of open-source software in the 3rd millenium. These descriptions are outdated.

3. GPL has NOTHING to do with freeware, GPL is *NOT* a freeware license. GPL is a Free Software license and it is also formally, officially, accepted as an Open Source license. I already explained the difference many times.

Come on...

Is it so hard to change the "freeware" to "GPL" or "Free Software" or "open source"? Is it really so hard? I really can't understand this. When other servers can get it right, why do you refuse to do so? Why do you refuse to accept the existence of one of the most important software license categories in the 3rd millenium and at the same time accept the existence of less important ones? Why do you think you know better than the software authors do what license types they use? Why do you think you know better than the license authors what license types they are? Why do you refuse to accept the truth, objective facts and formal definitions and insist on spreading false information, subjective interpretation and personal opinion? I really don't want to start some flamewar here or anything, but this is really... I just don't get it. This is not a matter of opinion - this is a matter of accepting well-defined objective facts, regardless of what you personally think about them.

Please be more more calm...

Well, do it.

Probably it is done good enough 'cause everybody (or at least 99.8% of them) coming to free-codecs.com can understand what these descriptions mean.
Freeware and open-source programs ARE similar that you "don't have to pay for using their main function" (decoding/encoding when codec, ripping when ripper, converting when converter, etc.) and this is what counts on a download page. In case of Free Software, additionally you're granted to modify the prog., etc. but the 99.8% won't care about this, cause they (and I) just "wanna watch that video, that's all".
This is why the descriptions are simplified and good.

But you're right as it has been said already. The proper definitions are different and a popular site like this have to care about that. I think the 3 categories: Freeware, Free Software and Shareware would fit here.
Other solution is declaring FREEWARE on free-codecs.com (and only here) means you're free to download these programs (actual version, build) and use it until you die AND it may be open-sourced as well. For more: read the License Agreement of each Software.

No need for Adware definition, no programs use advertising in the function you're downloading them for. Calling them Adware would be misleading. Rather call them Ad-Supported but the notes on download pages related to this issue are written down clearly.
Be patient and calm down. Thank You!

Well, OK:

AC3 ACM Decompressor - license: GPL

AC3 Delay Corrector - license: GPL

AC3 Filter - license: GPL

Audacity - license: GPL

AVIcodec - license: GPL

Avidemux - license: GPL (note: the application name is "Avidemux", not "AviDemux")

AviSynth - license: GPL

AVSEdit - license: GPL

BeLight - license: GPL

BladeEnc - license: LGPL

BonkEnc - license: GPL

CoreAAC - license: GPL

CoreFLAC - license: GPL

CorePNG - license: GPL

CoreVorbis - license: GPL and QPL

CoreWavPack - license: BSD and GPL

CDDA Ripper XP - license: GPL (note: it says GPL on the sf.net project page, but there's no proper license info in the source code)

CDex - license: GPL (ditto)

CDXA Reader - license: GPL

DGMPGDec - license: GPL

Dirac - license: MPL

Dirac Splitter - license: GPL

Direccional - license: GPL

DirectVobSub (VSFilter) - license: GPL

DivFix - license: GPL

DivX DRF Analyzer - license: GPL

DivXRepair - license: GPL

Dscaler MPEG Filters - license: GPL

dvdauthor - license: GPL

FLAC - license: Xiph.org license (BSD-style) and GPL

ffdshow - license: GPL (note: the correct name is "ffdshow", not "FFDShow MPEG-4 Video Decoder" or "FFDShow" or "FFDSHOW". ffdshow contains many codecs, not only MPEG-4).

ffvfw - license: GPL

Gordian Knot - license: GPL

Gordian Knot Rip Pack - license: GPL

GPL MPEG-1/2 DirectShow Decoder Filter - license: GPL

HuffYUV - license: GPL (note: it's version 2.1.1, not 2.2.0)

Koepi's XviD Codec - license: GPL

Lagarith Lossless Video Codec - license: GPL

LAME - license: LGPL

LameFE - license: GPL

MAD TransForm Filter - license: GPL

MatrixMixer - license: GPL

Matroska Splitter - license: GPL

Media Player Classic - license: GPL

MP3Gain - license: LGPL (note: the name is "MP3Gain", not "Mp3Gain"

MP4 Input Plugin - license: GPL

Musepack - license: LGPL

Nic's XviD Codec - license: GPL

Ogg Cutter - license: BSD

Ogg Vorbis - license: Xiph.org license (BSD)

Ogg Vorbis CODEC for MSACM Xiph.org (BSD)

Predictor and Mhuffyuv - license: GPL

QuEnc - license: GPL

RazorLame - license: Open Source

REALmagic MPEG-4 - license: GPL

RealMedia Splitter - license: GPL

Speex - license: Xiph (BSD)

Speex Voice ACM - license: Xiph (BSD)

tooLAME - license: LGPL (note: the name is "tooLAME", not "tooLame")

True Audio DirectShow Codecs Suite - license: GPL

TTA1 - license: GPL

uManiac's XviD Codec Build - license: GPL

VirtualDub - license: GPL

VirtualDub-MPEG-2 - license: GPL

VirtualDubMod - license: GPL

VLC - license: GPL

VobSub - license: GPL

Vorbis Ogg ACM Codec - license: Xiph (BSD)

VP3.2 - license: VP3.2

WavPack - license: BSD

Winamp plugin: out_lame - license: BSD

x264 - license: GPL

XCD DirectShow filter - license: BSD

XviD Media Codec - license: GPL

If I made any mistakes in the list, I apologize, it was not intentional.

Note 1: The list is not complete - I haven't checked all software on Free-Codecs.com, plus various packages contain open-source software, too (i.e. the individual components can be open-source). AudioCrusher is even based on cdparanoia, which is GPL-licensed, which means that AudioCrusher should be released under the GPL, too - apparently it isn't, so AudioCrusher may be illegal, violating the GPL.

Note 2: GPL, LGPL, BSD, MPL and QPL belong in both Free Software and Open Source categories, so either "Free Software" or "Open Source" would be a sufficient general license info in the program description. Or you can specifically say "GPL" etc. if you want to be specific.

I suggest this short Free Software description when you click on the Free Software license info:

"Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of "free" as in "free speech," not as in "free beer."

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software.

Alternatively, you can use other descriptions from www.gnu.org, www.fsf.org or www.opensource.org.

To differentiate freeware from Free Software, you could change the freeware description to this (taken from Wikipedia freeware description - BTW, I recommend reading the whole page, it contains other terms, too, such as adware etc.):

Freeware is computer software which is made available gratis/free of charge. Typically freeware is proprietary; distributed without source code. It usually carries a license that permits redistribution but may have other restrictions, such as limitations on its commercial use.

That's a much more appropriate description.


Yes. But some commercial software variant could be added, too (shareware may not be enough).


If you really must simplify it to max, you could write "License: Free". This is true for both freeware (free beer) and Free Software (free speech). Then you'd have to change the description. But that's the worst of the good solutions (or best of the bad ones?).


That's not true. You (and 99.8 % of people as you say) care about it very much, you just don't know/realize it - if the difference (GPL vs. freeware) wasn't there, this software wouldn't exist in the first place (people would often - not always - be unable to develop it). Now look at the list I wrote above - if the software wouldn't exist, what would Free-Codecs.com be then? There wouldn't be much left. People wouldn't be able to download it (and "watch the video" etc.) at all because the software wouldn't be there.

I can't think of a more substantial difference than exists-doesn't exist.


If I was a saint, I could be. But as an imperfect human being, I'd prefer either "No, you're wrong, GPL is freeware" or "Yes, you're right, GPL is not freeware". But euromix said "Yes, you're right - GPL is freeware".

Now, you suggested plenty of ways to solve this license issue. Hope euromix can choose now.
Thanks for your efforts!

You certainly are passionate about a cause.
Maybe I should get you to scrutinize and re-organize my music collection into proper genres to meet music industry standards.
Sarcasm aside.... we do applaud your effort and admire your persistance.

JM you have a lot of time and passion, indeed!

This is a technical issue (and i'm not specialist) - we have to make few database modifications, i think. Give us some time 'cause we're very busy lately. Our staff isn't large and usually we're working with other companies to solve technical issues like this one.