I thought Handbrake was free....

[krog]

.....but some are charging for it...click link below !

http://www.iPhoneunlockuk.com/app_package.php

[s55]

HandBrake is open source, thus free.

You get cowboys like these from time to time ripping off our code.

[Deleted User 11865]

I wonder whether they just used the MacGUI as a quick way to "port" their existing software to OS X. Look at what they did to the "WinGUI"!

[dynaflash]

lol. better yet you can pay for a very old version of what you can get here for free. Amazing. That screenie looks like 0.9.2.

[rhester]

I've pinged these guys. They are within the bounds of the GPL with their usage if their claims are accurate.

Rodney

[s55]

I don't see any source code on that site, thus they are in violation of the GPL

[rhester]

Per the GPL, source code distribution is required only if their changes represent a "derivative work". As they claim to have changed nothing except the titlebar, what they are doing does not qualify as a "derivative work" and thus no source distribution is required (i.e. the GPL really doesn't care whether they propagate a one-line titlebar string change or not).

Issues of copyright are something else entirely, and I'm not going there.

Rodney

[texasranger]

They should at least give the handbrake devs credit for their hard work!

[nexradix]

Per the GPL, source code distribution is required only if their changes represent a "derivative work". As they claim to have changed nothing except the titlebar, what they are doing does not qualify as a "derivative work" and thus no source distribution is required (i.e. the GPL really doesn't care whether they propagate a one-line titlebar string change or not).

Actually, that's not quite correct. The GPL requires anyone distributing binary copies of the software to provide access to the full, corresponding source code. If they are distributing it without charge, they may pass along a written offer for the source code provided by the original distributor (provided that source is identical to that used to produce the binary, and no changes have been made). However if they are charging for the binary, they themselves must provide direct access to the source code. This access need not be in the form of a free download however-- they are allowed to charge a fee no more than their physical costs of distribution for the source code (ie charge to mail a CD).

Rebranding and sale of GPL software is perfectly allowed, however. While I agree that doing nothing but changing the name of the software doesn't give proper credit, the GPL states that all copyright notices must remain in the source code, so attribution is preserved. When software is significantly modified (or in this case, very old), it is often appropriate to change the name before selling it in order to keep the original maintainers from dealing with the support issues that come from the distribution of code that is different from their current official versions. Moreover, with modified software, one can easily run into trademark issues if the names aren't changed, especially when dealing with well known software with trademarked names such as OpenOffice.org.