Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 73

Thread: goodbye and some random thoughts

  1. #1
    Programmer
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    420
    Thanks
    28
    Thanked 153 Times in 18 Posts

    Thumbs down goodbye and some random thoughts

    Hi there!

    I was just browsing through the forums in a long time. I discovered the forum's irc-chat, too. To my suprise, decompiled ccm is still there. So, if you want to take a look, you know where to get it. *sarcasm*

    I think it's pretty sad, that a long time forum member is treated and disrespected in such a way by other well-known members. As a consequence, I'll shut down my homepage and leave the scene for good. Speaking only for myself, I don't see a reason for sharing any more tools freely.

    Have fun. Goodbye,

    Chris

  2. #2
    Tester
    Nania Francesco's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,565
    Thanks
    220
    Thanked 146 Times in 83 Posts

    Thumbs up Hi! Please !

    I believe Christian that you are certain right to be dissatisfied of what someone has wanted to do, but I believe, that also decompiled your programs would be difficult to also be interpreted for a very experienced PC programmer! I think that currently you, Bulat, Sami Runsas and Matt are the greatest experts researchers of compression data and is not correct for the one that appreciates your great job to leave everything this way!

  3. #3
    Administrator Shelwien's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kharkov, Ukraine
    Posts
    3,333
    Thanks
    209
    Thanked 1,007 Times in 532 Posts
    1. This "decompiled ccm" doesn't include the filters, so its not a
    direct competition for the real one.
    Also I stopped working on its decompiling the first time when Christian
    reacted, so the available source version is not completely readable.

    2. The linked source contains a nontrivial speed optimization (vector rc),
    which I wanted to share with people (including Christian)
    Code:
    Q9450 @ 3.52Ghz, ramdrive
    enc.tim dec.tim  (enwik8)
    32.235s 32.359s  ccm 1.30c 5
    28.187s 29.515s  ccm_sh1d9e
    3. I don't understand (or like) such attitude at all.
    - There was no no-reverse-engineering license or anything;
    - It basically takes a day with modern tools to acquire such
    source - its just dumb to think there're any secrets or anything
    when executable is available.
    - I don't claim it as my own work, or trying to make money with it,
    or plan to - just found a time to check out how it works -
    and can now suggest many improvements.
    - I don't like it when there's a disagreement about something,
    but nobody talks to me directly. Honestly, I don't understand
    this situation, and nobody tries to explain, and there're no specific
    demands even. So I'll keep the file where it is for now.
    Last edited by Shelwien; 26th November 2009 at 07:57.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    873
    Thanks
    47
    Thanked 106 Times in 84 Posts
    Very sorry to hear that.
    I always been a great fan of you work especially RZM.


    In think christian was very directly in his last post about the decompiling of his work.

    maybe it not mentioned in the licesn. but it was in the encode-ru "Codec" no to do such things
    Last edited by SvenBent; 26th November 2009 at 19:54.

  5. #5
    Member Vacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    523
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Hello everyone,

    I totally agree with Sven Bent and Francesco Nania. Christian's statement was very clear and distinct. It's one thing to do recompiling (for internal research) and another thing to do this (more or less) in public. The point "nowhere has been mentioned..." doesn't count for me either. Created work of others has to be dealt with respect. Imagine you find some stranger at night inspecting your refrigerator... <= NO JOKE! It's your house + your food and you probably will not ask him, if you could add some ketchup to the sandwich he takes off... (having the chainsaw in mind I see on Shelwien's avatar...)
    Just my two cents.

    Best regards!

  6. #6
    Member m^2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ślůnsk, PL
    Posts
    1,611
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    It's a huge blow.

    I also remember that Christian made it clear that he doesn't want his stuff decompiled. It should be removed then.
    I think that the reaction is too tempestuous, but anyway it's understandable.

    It's a huge blow.

  7. #7
    Tester
    Black_Fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    [CZE] Czechia
    Posts
    471
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian View Post
    To my suprise, decompiled ccm is still there.
    Where? There was a thread dedicated to this in August and the link went dead about two days after posting.
    I am... Black_Fox... my discontinued benchmark
    "No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time? I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again." -- Bill Gates

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    111
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Nobody lives for oneself and nobody dies for oneself. The world does not exist in a vaccum. Other people will always have ideas, sometimes better than your own. Nothing you own is really so valuable as you think it is. (Most software is entirely abandoned in five years or so as obsolete.) In other words, I don't know why you're so defensive, this community is about sharing ideas and code. If that isn't your goal, you came to the wrong place.

  9. #9
    Administrator Shelwien's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kharkov, Ukraine
    Posts
    3,333
    Thanks
    209
    Thanked 1,007 Times in 532 Posts
    Well, to make it clear, I honestly didn't expect such reaction from Christian,
    as his posts in the forum seemed rather friendly.
    And people actually helped me to make sense of the code, instead of explaining why I can't do that.
    And now this.

    So,
    1. I did remove the actual decompiled code (deccm) after initial notice.
    And stopped working on its reverse-engineering.
    And right from the start I wasn't really interested in Christian's works
    specifically.
    I just developed some new tool for reverse-engineering and needed a good
    target to try it on. And I was asked quite a few times before, why I can't
    decompile ccm, so I did.

    2. So all this noise is for nothing actually.
    I bet that nobody from people who posted here bothered to look
    at the source in question (including Christian).
    Basically, if I didn't keep the name, nobody would notice - there's
    not much of original, really (in ccm_sh).
    Its a completely different program with different characteristics too.
    Just that I thought that it would be a good chance to demonstrate
    the benefits of some ideas.
    And not to advertise them and sell - but to help people here to make
    better compressors.

    3. I might have different beliefs/morals/ethics from other people
    here (and that should be expected as there're local differences with that).
    But I may conform with other people's rules, if somebody would
    be patient enough to properly investigate the problem and explain
    to me what's wrong - instead of showing off here.
    Basically, I want to be treated like a person first - talk to me directly
    (instead of complaining to people that I'm doing something wrong), and
    state specifically what you want, and explain why, if I don't understand.
    Is there anything wrong with that?
    But no, instead we have Christian blowing up immediately after seeing
    letters "ccm" in somebody's url - likely without even looking inside.
    And if I may add, I have no _legal_ reason not to do what I did -
    its only a matter of ethics and whatever.
    And to me, learning from other people's works is perfectly ethical,
    while claiming people's works as my own, and/or selling them is not.

    4. Also, think about this:
    <toffer> i read that stuff on the forum
    <Shelwien>
    <toffer> well i can partially understand that. on the other hand christian never gave any more or less preciese information
    <Shelwien> it'd all be settled right away if only he said directly to me something like
    <Shelwien> "please don't post any sources for my works because it hurts my sales"
    <toffer> i don't think its about sales
    <Shelwien> he said it this time
    <Shelwien> i mean "I don't see a reason for sharing any more tools freely"
    <toffer> nah - i think it's meant like he isn't willing to any longer
    <Shelwien> so as i understand it
    <Shelwien> he made them available for advertisement of his services
    <Shelwien> and never felt like letting people learn something from his work or anything like that
    <toffer> i agree there
    <toffer> but i still don't think it's about money
    <Shelwien> i don't see any other reason to write such tools and not make them public
    Last edited by Shelwien; 27th November 2009 at 06:54.

  10. #10
    Member m^2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ślůnsk, PL
    Posts
    1,611
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Shelwien View Post
    2. So all this noise is for nothing actually.
    I bet that nobody from people who posted here bothered to look
    at the source in question (including Christian).
    I did. But I saw that it's not readable enough to be worth my time (I was 99% newbie back then), I could learn more efficiently otherwise. So I just went to other things.

  11. #11
    Administrator Shelwien's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kharkov, Ukraine
    Posts
    3,333
    Thanks
    209
    Thanked 1,007 Times in 532 Posts
    No, I mean specifically ccm_sh1d9e.rar which caused this thread to appear.

  12. #12
    Programmer Bulat Ziganshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Uzbekistan
    Posts
    4,501
    Thanks
    741
    Thanked 664 Times in 358 Posts
    <toffer> but i still don't think it's about money
    <Shelwien> i don't see any other reason to write such tools and not make them public
    it's YOUR opinion. let's allow other people to think other way and don't think that they lie if they are different to you

    ps: i personalkly think that almost all here hide their sources because they want to make records and don't want that other people make records using their ideas

    also i think that better way to be recognized is to publish sources and you will not get money until you will be recognized

  13. #13
    Administrator Shelwien's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kharkov, Ukraine
    Posts
    3,333
    Thanks
    209
    Thanked 1,007 Times in 532 Posts
    1. That chat log contains _two_ opinions, if you didn't notice.
    Also nobody said anything about some universal truth here.

    2. As I said, I can conform to other's rules - but I want a proper treatment too.
    Something else than presuming that I intentionally did something wrong and
    expecting that I'd fix that at first notice.

    3. Please, please, check what are you talking about before making any
    statements. Did you look at the source in question? Can you say that
    its a ccm source, if _I_ didn't say that? Can you explain why you think
    that availability of this specific source is "disrespectful" to Christian or
    hurts him in any way?

    Well, to me, it looks like Christian found the words "decompiling" and
    "ccm" and reacted without thinking or checking anything.
    Same as most people in this thread.
    Like a damned state machine.

    4. This is a very small problem if you didn't notice.
    Nobody is actually interested in ccm source beside me and 2-3 other people.

  14. #14
    Programmer Bulat Ziganshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Uzbekistan
    Posts
    4,501
    Thanks
    741
    Thanked 664 Times in 358 Posts
    Eugene, i commented just this one phrase, not something else. don't consider this as position against you nor against Christian

  15. #15
    Administrator Shelwien's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kharkov, Ukraine
    Posts
    3,333
    Thanks
    209
    Thanked 1,007 Times in 532 Posts

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    France
    Posts
    863
    Thanks
    459
    Thanked 257 Times in 105 Posts
    It's also possible that Christian is no longer willing to be active in the community of free experimental compression programs (Update rate has slowed down quite a lot these last few monthes).

    In such circumstances, finding an "external" reason can make the last step easier ...

  17. #17
    Member Vacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    523
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Shelwien View Post
    1.
    [...]2. As I said, I can conform to other's rules - but I want a proper treatment too.
    [...]Can you say that
    its a ccm source, if _I_ didn't say that? Can you explain why you think
    that availability of this specific source is "disrespectful" to Christian or
    hurts him in any way?
    [...]Same as most people in this thread.
    Like a damned state machine.

    4. This is a very small problem if you didn't notice.
    Nobody is actually interested in ccm source beside me and 2-3 other people.
    Well, as I said some postings above: the problem is not what you do in private. The problem arises because you did (kind of) public. If _you_ wouldn't have done that => nobody would care
    Did you notice the "scandal" Microsoft had shortly? They gave a tool to the masses to make Win7 install from USB-sticks. Out of a sudden the tool was gone. Why? Because it became obvious that they used GPL (2.0?) code from ImageMaster. One can only imagine how that was find out but fact is: they have stated that they will release full source-code of their tool in the next days They were trapped = they have to take the consequences.
    Just to make it clear: I do not accuse you! But I'd like both parties a little bit more tolerant. If Christian had been more open, you would not have to crumble his application. Think about the hungry man in your kitchen

    Best regards!
    Last edited by Vacon; 27th November 2009 at 16:26. Reason: typos

  18. #18
    Administrator Shelwien's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kharkov, Ukraine
    Posts
    3,333
    Thanks
    209
    Thanked 1,007 Times in 532 Posts
    > But I'd like both parties a little bit more tolerant.

    I'm very tolerant and open to discussion.
    But Christian apparently has nothing to discuss with me.

    > If Christian had been more open,
    > you would not have to crumble his application.

    "Unfortunately", that was kinda bound to happen.
    I made a new reversing tool and had to test it at something.
    And there's kinda not much targets for that in compression area.

    I guess, what I really shouldn't have done, is trying to improve it.
    But I thought that 10% speedup for ccm would be more impressive,
    than if I applied it to BWTmix or something.

    So if not for that - there'd be no reason for me to keep decompiled
    ccm online - its not really that interesting by itself, although such
    examples of quality programming are relatively rare.

  19. #19
    Programmer
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    420
    Thanks
    28
    Thanked 153 Times in 18 Posts
    I just want to comment on some things which have been said to clear things up - hopefully. And I want to thank those of you, who support me with this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eugene
    3. I don't understand (or like) such attitude at all.
    ... its just dumb to think there're any secrets or anything
    when executable is available. ... just found a time to check out how it works -
    and can now suggest many improvements...
    I think I was pretty clear about it.

    Then, I never assumed, that an executable prevents anyone from reverse-engineering it. Even though, I don't like the attitude, I can't keep people from doing so. But doing this privately is a different thing compared to posting a topic about it on the very SAME forum (where the things was first released).

    Additionally, this is not about you suggesting improvements. Heck, what kind of justification is that? I never asked you to do so. And since CCM was MY first compressor, I obviously do know quite a few points for improvements myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rugxulo
    ... (Most software is entirely abandoned in five years or so as obsolete.) In other words, I don't know why you're so defensive, this community is about sharing ideas and code. If that isn't your goal, you came to the wrong place.
    I don't see any point here. If I want to share my compressors, I release them as OSS. If I don't, I don't. As simple as that.

    FYI, when I started a couple of years ago, this community was a place for people who were interested in data compression. We shared our tools, ideas or whatever. It was not about doing whatever you like, because it's possible, or disrespecting the decisions of others.
    Now, with people like you, I don't see any reason for any author of closed source software, to ever release anything again. But I agree, maybe this forum has become the wrong place for people interested in data compression. The main focus might shift to doing whatever you want and decompilation/hacking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eugene
    Well, to make it clear, I honestly didn't expect such reaction from Christian,
    as his posts in the forum seemed rather friendly.
    And people actually helped me to make sense of the code, instead of explaining why I can't do that.
    And now this.
    I AM a friendly guy. But come on, you know that your doing is wrong. Was similar with Shkarin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eugene
    http://data-compression.tripod.com/index.htm
    http://christian.martelock.googlepages.com/index.htm
    I removed the homepage. I'll put up a notice the next days - if I still care. But I have a family, a job and other interests I want to persue. So this takes some time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyan
    It's also possible that Christian is no longer willing to be active in the community of free experimental compression programs (Update rate has slowed down quite a lot these last few monthes).

    In such circumstances, finding an "external" reason can make the last step easier ...
    I am working on something new for quite some time now. It's similar to FreeArc or NanoZip, just my version of it. It includes many special codecs and some refreshingly new ideas. The codecs work standalone, too, but there's no point in me releasing some parts before I don't think the whole thing is mature enough.
    But since the first decompile and now the irc incident, I don't want to release it anymore to the public. Heck, there are only a handful of poeple in this very forum who have even said anything about the decompile at all. I wonder, how many more authors must be scared off before someone reacts?

    So, again, thanks to those who supported me all these years and stood up in this thread!

  20. #20
    Administrator Shelwien's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kharkov, Ukraine
    Posts
    3,333
    Thanks
    209
    Thanked 1,007 Times in 532 Posts
    > But come on, you know that your doing is wrong.

    I think its fairly obvious that I don't know that.
    Or I'd not post that thread on the forum.
    Just include a license with your terms, instead of
    "USE IT AT YOUR OWN RISK" and it'd be ok.

    > Was similar with Shkarin.

    Yeah.
    Btw, that's how S.Osnach and I learned about proper SSE use.
    So I really wonder how'd paq look like now, if not for that.
    Unfortunately we didn't find anything that good in ccm, though.

    And another difference is that Shkarin directly asked me
    to remove the file, and so I did.
    While you only talk about scariness of hacking and probably
    expect me to feel guilty and do something by myself.

    > FYI, when I started a couple of years ago, this community
    > was a place for people who were interested in data
    > compression. We shared our tools, ideas or whatever.

    Well, I still do share tools, ideas, and whatever, unlike you.
    I just don't understand the concept of secret ideas,
    but I can do stuff even without understanding,
    if asked politely.

    > It was not about doing whatever you like, because it's
    > possible, or disrespecting the decisions of others.

    Yeah, well. I considered my IRC channel private enough,
    as only a few people ever visit it, and forgot to remove the link
    when it was attached to the forum.
    But after such a reaction I'd just keep being stubborn,
    and won't remove the link until directly asked to do so.

  21. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    111
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian View Post
    Then, I never assumed, that an executable prevents anyone from reverse-engineering it. Even though, I don't like the attitude, I can't keep people from doing so. But doing this privately is a different thing compared to posting a topic about it on the very SAME forum (where the things was first released).
    Should he care what you think above the law? If the law allows it, why do you try to prevent it? Or do you really think it's immoral? (doubt it)

    I don't see any point here. If I want to share my compressors, I release them as OSS. If I don't, I don't. As simple as that.
    You're free to do what you want, but don't expect everyone else to not do similarly! You can't even expect to control people, they aren't meant to be controlled. Sorry, but it's ridiculous. Apple doesn't want Mac OS X installed on non-Mac hardware, but people still do it. MS doesn't want you to do various things (due to insanely random licensing), but people do it anyways.

    FYI, when I started a couple of years ago, this community was a place for people who were interested in data compression. We shared our tools, ideas or whatever. It was not about doing whatever you like, because it's possible, or disrespecting the decisions of others.
    Now, with people like you, I don't see any reason for any author of closed source software, to ever release anything again. But I agree, maybe this forum has become the wrong place for people interested in data compression. The main focus might shift to doing whatever you want and decompilation/hacking.
    Do you know how many compressors don't work anymore? And they can't be ported to other OSes either. They can't take advantage of newer compiler optimizations, SSE2, 64-bit, etc. They are stuck in the dark ages. It's not just because it's closed source but because the author abandoned them. You really expect me to believe that CCM will still be developed in five years? No, it will probably rot like 90% of all software. So all this is heavily moot because even you will lose interest eventually.

    But since the first decompile and now the irc incident, I don't want to release it anymore to the public. Heck, there are only a handful of poeple in this very forum who have even said anything about the decompile at all. I wonder, how many more authors must be scared off before someone reacts?
    I never used or saw CCM, the decompile, etc. I have other things to worry about. But I think you're overreacting anyways. (BTW, I would like a DOS port, but that will never happen, esp. without source code. Hexen 2 used the Quake engine yet was Win95 only. Guess what? Thanks to source code it's now able to run on Linux or DOS or Win64 or ...!)

  22. #22
    Programmer
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    420
    Thanks
    28
    Thanked 153 Times in 18 Posts
    Rugxulo, why do you expect me to develop CCM in five years? If I don't, why is this a moral justification to decompile it? Why can't I abondon my own tool when I want to? And if I do, I obviously give you the right to decompile it and share the code and stuff, right?
    This is madness. But, I just remembered. The law does not prevent you. And even if it would, you wouldn't care anyway. You should think about the damage you do with that kind of behavior. Vacon's analogy put it quite nice. I know you obviously don't care, same as Eugene.

    I still like data compression. I do research, I develop new tools. I would have released something for free in the next quarter. But I don't need to share anything. I don't depend on it at all. And I won't share anything freely anymore.
    You are right, you can't control people. But is it so wrong to assume that people from the very same forum, a small community, don't go behind your back? That they have some decency and don't turn against each other.

    Whatever.
    1. The TCC aren't worth anything anymore.
    2. I wanted to point out, that it was you, Eugene, who made me quit releasing stuff.
    3. I won't ask you, Eugene, AGAIN to remove any decompiled or derived code.
    4. It's a pity, that so few people in this community actually care.

  23. #23
    Administrator Shelwien's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kharkov, Ukraine
    Posts
    3,333
    Thanks
    209
    Thanked 1,007 Times in 532 Posts
    Really, it was just a small misunderstanding, but its
    you who're making it difficult to fix.
    Clearly I wasn't thinking about your feelings, but now is
    basically the first time when you talked to me in a few
    years on this forum, and do I really have to care about
    feelings of unfamiliar authors of any programs that I (mis)use?
    But instead of simply asking me to fix the problem,
    you're trying to make me to admit that I did something wrong.
    Which I can't do. I could even promise that I won't ever
    decompile any of your stuff if you asked.
    But I have no way to do what I want without reverse-engineering,
    and I like it by itself, so it would be plain hypocrisy
    if I'd admit my defeat here.

    > But I don't need to share anything. I don't depend
    > on it at all. And I won't share anything freely anymore.

    Ok, ok, you already did say that in the first post.

    > 2. I wanted to point out, that it was you, Eugene, who
    > made me quit releasing stuff.

    You're just cornering yourself here.

    > 3. I won't ask you, Eugene, AGAIN to remove any decompiled or derived code.

    You _never_ asked me to remove anything, and you didn't do it this time too.
    I know its nit-picking, but I think that its the right way to solve this.
    So, if you don't want the link staying where it is, then talk to me, not preach.
    Ask me to remove it.
    Ask me to promise not to decompile your other stuff if you want.
    Patience is a virtue.
    And I won't have any problem with agreeing to that.
    But I won't admit that I did anything wrong.

  24. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    111
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian View Post
    Rugxulo, why do you expect me to develop CCM in five years? If I don't, why is this a moral justification to decompile it? Why can't I abondon my own tool when I want to?
    Here's a thought: perhaps users will have data packed with it that cannot be unpacked natively due to incompatibilities that you didn't foresee. Do they matter or should they just throw all that data away because you lost interest?

    And if I do, I obviously give you the right to decompile it and share the code and stuff, right?
    This is madness. But, I just remembered. The law does not prevent you. And even if it would, you wouldn't care anyway. You should think about the damage you do with that kind of behavior. Vacon's analogy put it quite nice. I know you obviously don't care, same as Eugene.
    WHAT DAMAGE??? From what I can tell, it's not a commercial tool or headed that way, so why care? It's not even like somebody is taking credit either. No offense to Vacon, but I didn't understand his analogy at all (lost in translation). And obviously I don't think Eugene is really a high criminal here.

    I still like data compression. I do research, I develop new tools. I would have released something for free in the next quarter. But I don't need to share anything. I don't depend on it at all. And I won't share anything freely anymore.
    You don't have to whine and throw a tantrum. Just do what you want, but be reasonable! This is not the dark ages, we are all enlightened. State clearly what you want and why, but don't expect everyone to agree. (You missed the point that Apple and MS both have irrational requirements that aren't even necessarily legal, much less reasonable.)

    You are right, you can't control people. But is it so wrong to assume that people from the very same forum, a small community, don't go behind your back? That they have some decency and don't turn against each other.

    Whatever.
    1. The TCC aren't worth anything anymore.
    They never were! They are a joke! I prefer to obey the real commandments, not some arbitrary rules set on a whim. And since nobody has stolen your lunch, then nobody is hurt here, just maybe your pride.

    2. I wanted to point out, that it was you, Eugene, who made me quit releasing stuff.
    Don't pretend he's some big bad evil person here. I refuse to let him become a pariah. You can blame him all you want, but it's pointless.

    3. I won't ask you, Eugene, AGAIN to remove any decompiled or derived code.
    4. It's a pity, that so few people in this community actually care.
    Care about what? Laws? Morals? One person's personal crusade to make his own rules? Sorry, I'm just tired of lame licenses and EULAs because you can't follow them even if you wanted (which is rare). I am not a lawyer, and I don't like being treated like I have to sign an NDA just to wipe my ass. (Too bad for you and everyone else who thinks they have a patent on it!)

  25. #25
    Tester
    Black_Fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    [CZE] Czechia
    Posts
    471
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts
    I will probably speak for more people from this forum than just myself. I've been visiting Encode's forums long before the transition to this engine from MiniBB but still never been to local IRC. I didn't give a damn about decompiled CCM and I still don't, this is just a (negative) advert for it.
    I am... Black_Fox... my discontinued benchmark
    "No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time? I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again." -- Bill Gates

  26. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Germany, Hamburg
    Posts
    408
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Oh my God Rugxulo. I didn't want to post here but what a bunch of waste is what you have written?
    Why do you mean to have to talk in this form - while this in first instance isn't your subject.
    Every single sentence makes no sense and at the end I only have to ask myself what you want to achieve.

    I wrote more text with some examples of your convictions in other areas but I removed them because I highly guess you never get the point.
    Not for everyone the internet is only a joke where most rights have no importance.

  27. #27
    Programmer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    PL
    Posts
    309
    Thanks
    68
    Thanked 172 Times in 64 Posts
    I understand Christian and Eugene, but the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

    Eugene: I believe that Christian asked you indirectly to stop reverse-engineering his compressors. So I ask you, please remove all "ccm" and "deccm" (doesn't matter how much it have in common with the original ccm).

    Christian: If somebody wants to steal you code he will do reverse-engineering by himself. Moreover, not many people (except from this forum) ever heard of CCM and many other programs, maybe because there are closed-source. The most known programs are open-source: zip, bzip2, LZO, LZMA, PPMd, and PAQ. Some of them even have commercial counterparts (LZO/UCL with NRV, PPMd with PPMonstr).
    Last edited by inikep; 28th November 2009 at 13:39.

  28. #28
    Administrator Shelwien's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kharkov, Ukraine
    Posts
    3,333
    Thanks
    209
    Thanked 1,007 Times in 532 Posts
    @inikep:
    > I believe that Christian asked you indirectly to stop reverse-engineering
    > his compressors.

    Yeah, and in fact I did stop at that point, and removed the links from the forum,
    even though I didn't like his choice of words.
    But later we discussed rc optimizations in the channel and I had
    a (bad) idea to demonstrate them on ccm.
    There were like 3 people in the channel then, so its the same as
    private communication - just as well I could use email instead.
    And much later we attached the chat link to the forum, and I didn't
    think about that link, and then Christian discovered it and exploded.
    I'd just post it in the forum instead, if I intentionally wanted to annoy
    Christian or anything like that.

    > So I ask you, please remove all "ccm" and "deccm"
    > (doesn't matter how much it have in common with the original ccm).

    I'd do that right away, if you asked me before Christian started this thread.
    But now he said too much already, and I don't feel like backing down.
    I'll still think about it.
    But for now, can you please read my previous post and tell me whether
    my request is unreasonable and/or hard to fulfil for Christian?
    It won't be even his "loss" or anything - in the end, _I_ won't be able
    to use _my_ code as I wish.

  29. #29
    Programmer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    denmark
    Posts
    94
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Copyright

    Christian has claimed copyright ("CCM 1.30 - Copyright (c) 2007-2008 C. Martelock - Jan 7 2008"), so publishing a modified version or any source code is illegal per default.

    Please respect copyright laws.
    Last edited by Lasse Reinhold; 28th November 2009 at 14:28.

  30. #30
    Administrator Shelwien's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kharkov, Ukraine
    Posts
    3,333
    Thanks
    209
    Thanked 1,007 Times in 532 Posts
    @Lasse:
    I didn't know that.
    I guess, if you're right, that makes this forum a complete pirate's lair,
    as there're quite a few copyrighted programs posted as attaches etc
    without any agreement with their authors.
    But anyway, I just want Christian to say what you said, or what
    inikep said - instead of what he does. Is it really that much of a problem?
    And I'm talking about this since my first post in this thread.
    I agree that Christian has the right to ask me to remove that file.
    But he doesn't ask.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Dark Space Random Thoughts
    By Tribune in forum The Off-Topic Lounge
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 14th March 2009, 16:22
  2. Random Data Question.
    By Tribune in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 13th June 2008, 20:30
  3. rnd - simple pseudo random number generator
    By encode in forum Forum Archive
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 14th January 2008, 03:41

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •