Where can i report illegal use of LibVLC

[klaas2]

I found a non-opensource "paid" application on internet that workes with LibVLC but does not use it as GPL LibVLC describes.
Because i work on a project now, where i do take this rules very seriously.. this get me pist off

For starters.. the installer just installs vlc without giving the user a option to say yes or no.. it has vlc setup in his own setup.exe
and in the main directory of the application i see libvlc.dll.. so they distribute vlc in their product!

Well it looks like they use a bunch of other open-source project in the same application and their company is of course in.. Barbados
So it seems like a dead end..

[Jean-Baptiste Kempf]

Please, share a link to them.

[klaas2]

http://www.graboid.com/

[klaas2]

it's not paid but shurly closed source...

[klaas2]

also they use sabnzbd... also open-source project

[klaas2]

or am i wrong.. and is this allowed this way?

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

"That depends". I poke at their Windows binary installer ("adult" version).

It contains the pristine self-extracting installer of VLC version 1.0.1 for Windows 32-bits. I do not use Windows, so I do not know if they chain this instaler from their own.
But the installer also includes a large set of VLC plugins and the LibVLC run-time of what seems to be VLC version 0.8.6d as compiled by JB. Then they have a .Net wrapper "MediaPlayer.dll" around the legacy LibVLC API. The wrapper is used by GraboidClient.exe.

But first they don't owe source code to anyone unless explicitly requested. Second, they could argue that GraboidClient is not derived from VLC (only MediaPlayer). It's a matter of legal interpretation of the GPL and of derived works. And third, it might be odd to go after them right when the VideoLAN project is seeking to relicense LibVLC under LGPL.

Graboid.com is registered in the Barbados, although the web site seems to be hosted in the Dallas-Fort Worth area in Texas.

[Jean-Baptiste Kempf]

It contains the pristine self-extracting installer of VLC version 1.0.1 for Windows 32-bits.

I still don't get why people doing bad things with VLC use really broken versions of VLC... 1.0.1 is way more broken than 1.0.5 for example...

Back to the subject, they used to only use the VLC mozilla plugin of VLC.
Them using a .Net wrapper is news for me.

Compared to my archive, they use non-modified VLC plugins and .dlls.

However, so far, they should at least open MediaPlayer.dll
I probably should ask them for it, but beyond that, it is doubtful that they would comply (or need to)

[klaas2]

ok the installer is not the problem, but i also see libvlc.dll in their main graboid dir.. but than again i'm no lawyer but i thought this was illegal.

and to reply on Remi.. yes indeed why bother if the VideoLAN project is seeking to relicense LibVLC under LGPL.
(i read about this, how is the progress on that? is somebody working on that or is it just a idee that is waiting to be done)

j-b:`I still don't get why people doing bad things with VLC use really broken versions`
I think they use this version because after every update some changes are mate to the libvlc/api and they don't have programmers working fulltime to fix this. I have noticed some problem everytime a new update VLC was out, i had to edit things in our the program to make it work again. For example i could not get fullscreen working anymore after update to 1.1 http://trac.videolan.org/vlc/ticket/3710 we created a work around: viewtopic.php?f=32&t=77936 or viewtopic.php?f=32&t=78170

ok thx for the information