# I want to get NSMB Editor off FileTrip



## Dirbaio (Sep 20, 2012)

This is the reason:

This is the ONLY official download page of NSMB Editor: http://nsmbhd.net/?page=download
We have a build script setup so we can publish new versions of the editor as soon as there's new features in the repo. This means people can instantly download them, and provide feedback very fast, so we get new versions out fixing the reported bugs/suggestions.

The downside is that it means we get new versions out quite often (look at the dates!). It's impossible to keep all the mirrored files on the internet out of date. Including the mirror at FileTrip.

Here's the deal.
On Aug 20th, I reported for deletion all these three files which were all three ridiculously outdated. I explained the above thing in the flag reason.

http://filetrip.net/...-51-f22664.html
http://filetrip.net/...e-5-f12013.html
http://filetrip.net/...ion-f10228.html

Two of them were deleted, but I think it was because they were duplicates, not because my report.
The third one was left as-is and the link to the downloads page at NSMBHD was added to the description.

BUT: Since August 23rd, 13 people have downloaded the file from FileTrip (the increase in downloads count) and *ONLY 3* people have clicked the link to NSMBHD (I can see it on the NSMBHD stats. And I'm one of them, so it's only 2).
Clearly, people are dumb and go straight to the download button. So this is NOT a good solution.

I reported the file again, and it was completely ignored. The file is still there.

....

And then I saw this today: http://gbatemp.net/t...p-site-updates/
And I gotta say, this is the last straw.

Bundling crapware with downloads is the worst thing you can do. It's a bad download experience for users. Many dumb users won't even notice. Many others will notice that they've got crapware installed and think it's because of NSMB Editor, and not me. This is BAD.

AND it's *INCOMPATIBLE with NSMB Editor's license, the GPL*. You can't bundle GPL software in propietary installers that install additional non-GPL stuff. And this is a problem with ALL the GPL software that FileTrip is hosting.

See similar problem here: http://seclists.org/...-hackers/2011/5

For these two reasons, I demand that FileTrip takes that file down IMMEDIATELY, and that it doesn't accept more uploads of NSMB Editor (and GPL software in general) because it's against the license.

Thank you.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Sep 20, 2012)

Oh Hey, Dirbaio, yep, I agree, if its in that case, you are the owner of it, you have the right to have it removed! So yepperies, yep it should be removed.


----------



## jonthedit (Sep 20, 2012)

I hope it gets removed But before its removed, make sure you have a "old version" download page with all your past revisions.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 20, 2012)

GPL makes it interesting and I suppose I will have to look further into that before calling it (I am not the one that calls it in the end either).

I should however note on your link (bolding is my own)


> This is exactly why Nmap *isn't under the plain GPL*.
> Our license (http://nmap.org/book/man-legal.html) *specifically adds a
> clause* forbidding software which "integrates/includes/aggregates Nmap
> into a proprietary executable installer" unless that software itself
> ...



I will say though Filetrip offering old downloads is a lot of what makes filetrip what it is and as valuable as it is, especially when it comes to hacking tools which vary in features and stability as a matter of course (and given you are effectively offering nightly/current snapshot builds....).

"you are the owner of it"....GPL
I wonder how that actually works. Granted common courtesy might extend to removing it at request of the owner but in other ways that would seem to go against the spirit, if not wording, of the license.

In the meantime I did rework the description to hopefully draw more people to the main site.


----------



## Dirbaio (Sep 20, 2012)

Plain GPL says that "derivative works" need to be GPL too. The question is whether the crapware installer is a derivative work or not. Plain GPL doesn't make it clear, at Nmap they added a clarification. So did I in the 5.2 versions now.

So this doesn't mean that plain GPL allows the program to be bundled in installers. In fact, I'd say it qualifies for "commercial use", so it's probably not allowed.

Anyway this is just ridiculous. This discussion wouldn't need to happen in the first place.

And yes, you put the link more at the top. How useful. *People don't read the description. They go straight to the big download button*.


----------



## Sterling (Sep 21, 2012)

There's no need to be so angry about it. I'm sure that this thread will bring this to a swift resolution. The beauty of Filetrip is that it keeps a rolling queue of older files. So removal of the older files is kinda redundant and against the spirit of Filetrip. There's also no need to insult the people who use your work. I highly doubt that people aren't aware that there isn't a newer version available for download. If I recall correctly an alert comes up when an older file is attempted to be downloaded. If you're worried about people thinking that the bloatware is from you, add a disclaimer to the readme. All in all, I think you're being slightly unreasonable.

EDIT: Apparently the revenue system is going to need a bit of tweaking too.


----------



## Cyan (Sep 21, 2012)

About the newer version, his concern was not while the user click on an old version on Filetrip (there's a big notice saying a newer file exists), but when the newer file on filetrip is outdated and that users don't go to the official website to find the real latest release.
It happens with many other programs if nobody upload a newer version. not only on NSMB editor.

You could add in the readme to check the official website to find if there's a new version in case the user downloaded it from another website.


I understand your concern about the installer. I don't like installers either


----------



## SifJar (Sep 21, 2012)

Perhaps it may be an idea for FileTrip to look into creating an API for allowing scripted updates of files? Of course, the initial version should be uploaded manually, to prevent abuse, but perhaps thereafter it may be possible to submit updates via scripts, for projects like this one where it would probably just require a few lines to be added to an existing script so that new versions would automatically be available on FileTrip? (Perhaps limiting this ability to trusted users would further prevent abuse).

I'm not saying this would solve the problem here, as it would seem the OP does not wish his work to be distributed anywhere besides the official project website, and that wish should be respected, but in other similar situations it may be helpful.


----------



## Dirbaio (Sep 21, 2012)

There's two problems, yes:
- I don't wish NSMBe to be mirrored all over the internet.
- I don't want NSMBe to be bundled with malware/bloatware/whatever.

The second reason alone is enough for the file to be removed because it violates NSMBe's license.


----------



## Dirbaio (Sep 22, 2012)

Given my recent investigations on this BetterInstaller/Somoto thing, I've arrived to the conclusion that this looks way too sketchy to be acceptable. I don't want to be part of this.

Therefore I demand that all my files be removed immediately and permanently. This includes NSMB Editor and Fireworlds.


----------



## Dirbaio (Sep 25, 2012)

The zip with a .url is "kinda" a good solution. It's still behind the crap downloaders but still, if you're so insiting in keeping it, that's fine.

About the older versions of the file. You have to REMOVE THEM. Putting them in adware installers is against the license.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 25, 2012)

I will have to look up the 2.2 vintage one (I think that was under Treeki's remit and I am not sure what he licensed it as- there does not appear to be much in the download) but as I understand it 5.2 build 345 and older at the time were released under GPL v3 where now it is under a modified GPL v3 that would appear to conflict with filetrip's present incarnation. Were new versions of it to be uploaded (give or take hypothetical things based on what it coming in the rest of the post) we would then be duty bound to remove them as long as filetrip's download method conflicts with your new license (I find toolbars pretty distasteful as well). However the grounds for removal of the 5.2 build 345 are slim to non-existent as I hold that that file is, in fact, a GPLv3 licensed piece of code.

My underlying logic/similar situation/going for an analogy- WINE and cedega where the WINE project went GPL (from a MIT License I think it was) and the cedega project then effectively forked from the last MIT licensed version where it continues to this day. For a slightly less high profile one perhaps TACO (later Abine) and the fork in Beef taco in the firefox addons world.
Theoretically you are within your rights, as the owner of the IP as a whole, to relicense the old builds on your site (by the looks of things they are probably still technically offered for download under standard GPLV3*), but if there is a version out there in the wild (as indeed this would appear to be) that would arguably be (or could be considered to be) a fork of the GPLv3 vintage version and there would be precious little you can do on the matter. For my money this would be one of the merits of the GPL and similar licenses but that is a different discussion.

*furthermore how that plays out in your github I am not sure either owing to the rather nice versioning nature of the GIT version control system.


----------



## Dirbaio (Sep 25, 2012)

No no no no wait.

Versions up to b345 are licensed under the "original" GPL.
The GPL states that any derivative works must be GPL too. *And an installer that bundles NSMB Editor is considered a derivative work.*

If you're talking about this: https://github.com/Dirbaio/NSMB-Editor/commit/24e0820797ec7da0044de52a27669194c5103ed0
That's a *clarification*. Not a *modification* of the license.

Therefore you're still violating the license and * you must remove them*.

About NSMBe 2.2: You're right. It's not licensed under any license. You might be free to distribute it with crapware installers, so users get a spyware toolbar plus an editor that displays the level in green rectangles and blows up if you try to add a sprite. I'm pretty sure that would really improve your user's satisfaction.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 25, 2012)

I will have to ponder it for a while and talk with others (again I am not the one that gets to make the final call) but at present I would argue what you have made is actually a modification of the license by virtue of your forbidding things that the stock GPL does not explicitly or seemingly even implicitly forbid (I had a quick look to see if there is anything out there on the matter and all I really got back to was the NMAP stuff). I might argue that is it a poorly merged modification but for the sake of this I am going to assume it is solid.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation would possibly be applicable here as well- the installer/downloader/bundler is not required for the version of the program it provides. Beyond that I would also argue your first piece of bolded text is your own interpretation of the license or indeed an interpretation of your modified version rather than an accepted one of the GPL.


----------



## Dirbaio (Sep 25, 2012)

> If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program.
I guess that says it all.

Also I'm 100% sure it qualifies as commercial usage, since the installer is adware.

This discussion is stupid and ridiculous. If I, the author, ask it to be removed, it SHOULD be removed without me having to use the license.
I've never liked FileTrip's aggressive file mirroring policy, but now FileTrip's reputation is below NULL. First you put adware in your downloads, and then you refuse to delete files I'm the author of!? REALLY!?!


----------



## enarky (Sep 25, 2012)

Wow, completely missed this crapdownloader in the news. WTF?? Really, better get rid of Filetrip instead of relying on such ridiculous schemes! If you can't afford hosting that stuff without, here's an idea: *don't fucking do it!*

As a long time GBATemp user I support Dirbaios request of taking his files down. This downloader is a disgrace.


----------



## Dirbaio (Sep 25, 2012)

enarky said:


> Wow, completely missed this crapdownloader in the news. WTF?? Really, better get rid of Filetrip instead of relying on such ridiculous schemes! If you can't afford hosting that stuff without, here's an idea: *don't fucking do it!*
> 
> As a long time GBATemp user I support Dirbaios request of taking his files down. This downloader is a disgrace.


Thank you! 
And yeah, no wonder you missed the adware thing. The news headline reads "Filetrip Site Updates! Uploading, embedding, and general site changes", when in fact, the one and only important change is this adware thing 

And the fact I'm having so much problems to get this thing removed is utterly and completely ridiculous. FileTrip is ruined.


----------



## raulpica (Sep 25, 2012)

We're taking care of this. We'll try to resolve this swiftly.

Thanks for your patience


----------



## Another World (Sep 26, 2012)

the file can be downloaded by clicking on a section of the text in the pop-up. the downloader only works for windows, and does not work if javascript is turned off. so, by no means is the downloader required nor is it the only method to download the file. regardless, we will discuss the GPL concern and do our best to understand the circumstances verses the documentation. 

we also offer this solution:


> i will make it so if you click the manual download (w/out installer) it asks you "do you want to download without the installer for future downloads?" if yes, it will remember and not give you the downloader again


from what i've read, my understanding for your reasons for wanting it removed is because you want full control over the distribution. you seem upset that your homepage receives fewer downloads. as a result you are receiving less bug reports. while i can appreciate these concerns, i do not understand how that is the fault of any hosting service. 

the goal of filetrip is to preserve the history of these types of projects. in this moment you feel it hurts the project, but 10 years from now when your page is dead and gone, filetrip will be the only place still hosting the correct files. this very idea is what is so import to us, what we uphold, and what we are currently debating in regards to your files.

i would also like to point out that no where on your download page (http://nsmbhd.net/?page=download) does it state that files are not to be mirrored.

for future reference, anytime someone clicks to download the page will up the count by 1. regardless of if the download was completed or not. while this is a mistake, we obviously never foresaw a situation where a developer would use those numbers as actual fact.  

we have opened a thread voicing your concerns for the staff. we will discuss it. when we have concluded those discussions, we will PM you with our decision and take any required action.

i do believe that we have your concerns noted. i also believe that the decision falls to the staff and that we will have that discussion privately. i would like to avoid further post that favor one way or the other yet do not solve the problem. for that reason this thread will be closed.

-another world


----------

