Julf

I agree. Pretty horrible device. The autotune of its day...

The title of this thread is "Visual studio 2012 c++ and wasapi milimalist player". To me that implies that the program is written in Visual Studio 2012 and C++, using wasapi libraries, maybe with some sections optimized in assembler. With the new licensing, it seems the source code won't be made available, so I guess there is no way to verify it.

Dear Chris, I can see how that comment could be seen as derisive. I will try my best to ensure a more professional tone in the future.

I suggest you report any inappropriate and/or factually false messages from me to Chris, so he can take appropriate action.

I see sbgk has (very professionally) honored me with a special mention on his blog.

If questioning claims and assumptions is considered "baiting", then yes, guilty as charged.

One of the claims made on the blog site for the software discussed here was that it was open source (complied with the GNY GPL). Based on that many of us assumed people had been able to inspect the code. When I asked for the source code to be able to do the same, it turned out that the claim of GPL compliance was false, and the claim was removed from the web site. Irrelevant? The fact that nobody except sbgk has been able to see the actual code is pretty relevant, I would say, as well as the fact that the software isn't open source despite the initial statement that it was, is perhaps relevant too.

Quoting the GPL terms: "You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License". If you provide object/binary code under the terms of the license, you have to include source code under the same terms. Nobody is forcing you to comply with the terms of the GNU GPL, but if you choose to do so, then you can't pick and choose among the provisions of the license.

In that case I suggest you put your claim of GPL compliance back on your blog page, and see if the FSF agrees.

I guess you don't know what the GNU GPL is. I would of course not have asked for the source code unless sbgk had specifically stated that his project was GNU GPL compliant. That means the project is open source - the source code is freely available for others to study. That is what Open Source means, and that is what the GNU GPL stipulates. Sbgk is of course free to stipulate that the code isn't available, but then he can't claim the project is open source, or GNU GPL compatible.

You can give away or sell the object (binary) code as much as you want. You just have to include the source code (without additional fee) in the distribution. You didn't. So it wasn't open source. Open source means free access to the source code.

Well, the claim of GNU GPL was false (as the software isn't open source), so why claim it is if it isn't?

I do notice that you have removed the false claim of compatibility with the GNU GPL. Thank you.

I suggest you read the GPL.

According to MQn - Just Good Music MQn is covered by The GNU Project's General Public License. That license states that "if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.". I looked at the binary distribution of MQn, but couldn't find any source code. I also could not find any reference in the distribution that would show the terms of the GPL, nor any information about the availability of the source code. As such, it does seem like MQn violates the terms of the GPL. Could I please hereby request that either MQn be made GNU GPL-compatible (by adding the references to the GPL and the means to access the source code) or that the claim that MQn is covered by The GNU Project's General Public License be removed?