IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
WinZIP 11.0 beta using WavPack?!, If true is it legal?
DARcode
post Oct 23 2006, 20:43
Post #1





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 681
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Italy
Member No.: 18968



From the Maximum Compression home page:
QUOTE
[WinZIP 11.0 beta] now also has a special algorithm to compress .wav files!. Research done by Guillermo Gabrielli shows the audio compressor used for this is WavPack (using Lossless, High compression mode).
Is it true and if so legal?

More info from the guestbook:
QUOTE
posted: 10/20/2006 02:36 PM

>winzip v11.0 beta is out ..

The audio compressor is WAVPACK. The WinZip 11 archives can be decoded with WVUNPACK (Wavpack decoder). According to WVUNPACK -ss (Super Summary) it's using Lossless High compression, but no Extra:
WVUNPACK -ss MWZ.zip

WVUNPACK Hybrid Lossless Audio Decompressor Win32 Version 4.31 2005-12-10
Copyright 1998 - 2005 Conifer Software. All Rights Reserved.


file name: MWZ.zip
file size: 27780736 bytes
source: 16-bit ints at 44100 Hz
channels: 2 (stereo)
duration: 0:03:53.11
modalities: lossless, high
compression: 32.44%
ave bitrate: 953 kbps
encoder version: 4

Dc

EDIT: Post icon + guestbook part.

This post has been edited by DARcode: Oct 23 2006, 20:46


--------------------
WavPack 4.70.0 -b384hx6cmv/qaac 2.41 -V 100
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fandango
post Oct 23 2006, 21:07
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 1548
Joined: 13-August 03
Member No.: 8353



QUOTE (DARcode @ Oct 23 2006, 21:43) *
Is it true and if so legal?


Yes, it's true. I've downloaded the beta and indeed it produces Wavpack files (compression: optimize for maximum compression).

EDIT: WavPack is published under the BSD license, so I'm pretty sure it's legal. tongue.gif

This post has been edited by Fandango: Oct 23 2006, 21:09
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bylie
post Oct 23 2006, 21:11
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 14-July 02
From: Belgium
Member No.: 2593



If my memory serves me right didn't wavpack use a BSD license which would suggest that commercial use of the code is not illegal?

BSD and GPL licensing info A snippet from the original text :
QUOTE
The main differences between the two licenses is that revised BSD licenses are permissive while the GPL is copyleft. The GPL requires the software to always be free, including derivative works, by requiring the software to always be licensed under the GPL. The BSD license only requires acknowledging the original authors, and imposes few restrictions on how the source code may be used. As a result, BSD code can become proprietary software. For instance, parts of Mac OS X and the IP stack in Microsoft Windows are derived from BSD-licensed software.

I guess the only thing they are legally obliged to do is to acknowledge the original authors work (which they're possibly not doing at the moment so, yes, that part would be illegal).

This post has been edited by Bylie: Oct 23 2006, 21:14
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fandango
post Oct 23 2006, 21:14
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 1548
Joined: 13-August 03
Member No.: 8353



@Bylie: Exactly!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Oct 23 2006, 22:42
Post #5





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



Eh? So it creates files with an extension of .zip, yet which are in WavPack format? Boy, that'll go down well with people who haven't heard of WavPack . . . or am I missing something?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ggf31416
post Oct 23 2006, 23:48
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 1-June 06
Member No.: 31342



QUOTE (dv1989 @ Oct 23 2006, 18:42) *
Eh? So it creates files with an extension of .zip, yet which are in WavPack format?


The archives use the zip format, but the compressed data which is inside is in Wavpack format. While existing zip programs can browse the "new" zips WVUNPACK can, under some circumstances, skip the ZIP header and decode the wavpack data. However foobar2000 cannot play the files.

This post has been edited by ggf31416: Oct 23 2006, 23:51
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
xmixahlx
post Oct 24 2006, 00:09
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 1394
Joined: 20-December 01
From: seattle
Member No.: 693



sounds like a good idea to me!


--------------------
RareWares/Debian :: http://www.rarewares.org/debian.html
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Oct 24 2006, 00:55
Post #8


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



It is indeed perfectly legal. Are they crediting "Conifer Software" somewhere? That's the only meaningful requirement in the license.


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fandango
post Oct 24 2006, 01:21
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 1548
Joined: 13-August 03
Member No.: 8353



QUOTE (ggf31416 @ Oct 24 2006, 00:48) *
However foobar2000 cannot play the files.
That's not completely true. When the extension is not ZIP but WV, foobar2000 will (try to) skip the PK header, too. tongue.gif

QUOTE (rjamorim @ Oct 24 2006, 01:55) *
It is indeed perfectly legal. Are they crediting "Conifer Software" somewhere? That's the only meaningful requirement in the license.
Hehe... now that you mentioned it. It's interesting that WavPack isn't mentioned anywhere on their website or the documentation that comes along with the software... instead we can read stuff like this:
QUOTE
Zip .wav Music Files
A special algorithm will compress .wav files smaller than ever.
Also the MS help files that come along with the Packer don't acknowledge WavPack or its creator at all. You can check for yourself. Just in case they silently add the Acknowledgement, the MD5 of the installer is: D0AE7158522F12E20953F1C88D1A9CCC (wz110beta.exe - Build 7291)

IMHO, that's hardly legal. It doesn't matter if it's not yet final, even a beta release is a release. David Bryant should contact them, so it can be fixed. I don't think it's a big deal when they agree to include his name. But nevertheless, the total absence of "Wavpack" or "Bryant" in all documentation and also the way of introducing the new audio compression feature leaves me with a very special feeling that they wanted to sell the new "special algorithm" that "compress[es] .wav files smaller than ever" as their very own creation.

This post has been edited by Fandango: Oct 24 2006, 02:00
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bryant
post Oct 24 2006, 07:16
Post #10


WavPack Developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1290
Joined: 3-January 02
From: San Francisco CA
Member No.: 900



Thanks for the heads-up on this, it's very interesting to say the least! smile.gif

The BSD license obviously allows them to use the code if they include the copyright notice somewhere in their distribution. However, also according to the license, they're not supposed to use my name (or perhaps even the name "WavPack") to endorse or promote their product without my permission. Of course, if it turns out to be a "buggy" implemention of WavPack, I'd rather not have everyone knowing where it came from!

Anyway, they're obviously not trying to be sneaky because they made no effort to hide the fact that it's WavPack. I'll shoot off an e-mail and see what's up...

David
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Oct 24 2006, 07:53
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 1523
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



Awesome stuff..


--------------------
Wavpack -b450
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Liisachan
post Oct 24 2006, 08:27
Post #12





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 119
Joined: 9-July 04
Member No.: 15225



QUOTE (Fandango @ Oct 24 2006, 00:21) *
Hehe... now that you mentioned it. It's interesting that WavPack isn't mentioned anywhere on their website or the documentation that comes along with the software... instead we can read stuff like this:
QUOTE
Zip .wav Music Files
A special algorithm will compress .wav files smaller than ever.
Also the MS help files that come along with the Packer don't acknowledge WavPack or its creator at all. You can check for yourself. Just in case they silently add the Acknowledgement, the MD5 of the installer is: D0AE7158522F12E20953F1C88D1A9CCC (wz110beta.exe - Build 7291)


They also say:
QUOTE
Zip .wav Music Files
When you select our Best Compression Method, we use a new compression algorithm for lossless compression of .wav files. A must-have for music lovers who don't want to compromise the file integrity or sound quality.

It's a good idea, but the above explanation is slightly insincere, as true music lovers don't and shouldn't use ZIP this way to compress standalone .wav. "A must-have for music lovers who don't want to compromise the file integrity or sound quality" is, obviously, not WinZip but WavPack or other lossless compressors.
Imho this new approach of WinZip would work best for game lovers when they compress some kind of a game ISO image, so called mix-mode, which consists of track1.iso+track2.wav+track3.wav+...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Liisachan
post Oct 24 2006, 08:54
Post #13





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 119
Joined: 9-July 04
Member No.: 15225



And, if 7-ZIP, WinRAR, etc. are going to try to be compatible with WinZip, the WavPack algo might be spread internally on many different apps all over the world.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Borisz
post Oct 24 2006, 14:48
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 381
Joined: 27-September 03
Member No.: 9041



QUOTE (Liisachan @ Oct 24 2006, 09:27) *
Imho this new approach of WinZip would work best for game lovers when they compress some kind of a game ISO image, so called mix-mode, which consists of track1.iso+track2.wav+track3.wav+...

Which begs the question: does Winzip actually search for pcm algorythms when using the wavpack compression, or will it only use wavpack when it encounters a wav file? Because if it actually compresses based on code and not file header/extension, it could be a powerful tool for zipping bin/cue images with audio tracks (raw pcm).


--------------------
http://evilboris.sonic-cult.net/346/
Sega Saturn, Shiro!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fandango
post Oct 24 2006, 15:09
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 1548
Joined: 13-August 03
Member No.: 8353



QUOTE (bryant @ Oct 24 2006, 08:16) *
The BSD license obviously allows them to use the code if they include the copyright notice somewhere in their distribution.
Well, that's missing at the moment.

QUOTE (bryant @ Oct 24 2006, 08:16) *
However, also according to the license, they're not supposed to use my name (or perhaps even the name "WavPack") to endorse or promote their product without my permission.
Ah, so this explains the fact that Wavpack wasn't mentioned anywhere. In fact they neither said it was yours nor it was theirs. Then I take back all my allegations I made before concerning selling it as their own. biggrin.gif Because that's probably not going to happen... tongue.gif

QUOTE (bryant @ Oct 24 2006, 08:16) *
Of course, if it turns out to be a "buggy" implemention of WavPack, I'd rather not have everyone knowing where it came from!
laugh.gif Haha, I can understand that. And I guess it's what the abovementioned BSD license term is about...

On the other hand, if they do it right... maybe this will be good publicity! smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ggf31416
post Oct 24 2006, 15:15
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 1-June 06
Member No.: 31342



QUOTE (Borisz @ Oct 24 2006, 10:48) *
Which begs the question: does Winzip actually search for pcm algorythms when using the wavpack compression, or will it only use wavpack when it encounters a wav file? Because if it actually compresses based on code and not file header/extension, it could be a powerful tool for zipping bin/cue images with audio tracks (raw pcm).


I renamed a wav file to iso and Winzip used PPMd instead of Wavpack for compress it, so it's based on extensions.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fandango
post Oct 24 2006, 15:18
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 1548
Joined: 13-August 03
Member No.: 8353



QUOTE (ggf31416 @ Oct 24 2006, 16:15) *
so it's based on extensions.
Which leads me to the question... have you tried the opposite? The result might be interesting. laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ggf31416
post Oct 24 2006, 15:40
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 1-June 06
Member No.: 31342



QUOTE (Fandango @ Oct 24 2006, 11:18) *
Which leads me to the question... have you tried the opposite? The result might be interesting. laugh.gif

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Oct 24 2006, 16:24
Post #19


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (Fandango @ Oct 24 2006, 11:09) *
QUOTE (bryant @ Oct 24 2006, 08:16) *
However, also according to the license, they're not supposed to use my name (or perhaps even the name "WavPack") to endorse or promote their product without my permission.
Ah, so this explains the fact that Wavpack wasn't mentioned anywhere. In fact they neither said it was yours nor it was theirs. Then I take back all my allegations I made before concerning selling it as their own. biggrin.gif Because that's probably not going to happen... tongue.gif


The only correct course of action for Corel (owners of WinZIP) would be giving credits somewhere (about box?) to "Conifer Software".


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Oct 24 2006, 18:43
Post #20





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



^ Well, there's the first evidence of a mention . . .

Still, I don't like the way that they have called it a "new" algorithm and other spiel; it's not all that new at all.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bryant
post Oct 26 2006, 05:00
Post #21


WavPack Developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1290
Joined: 3-January 02
From: San Francisco CA
Member No.: 900



WinZIP contacted me early today before I was even able to send off an e-mail. They have no plans to ignore the license and wanted to get my permission to credit me publicly. So, all is fine.

Now I just need to test their implementation. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DARcode
post Oct 26 2006, 08:50
Post #22





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 681
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Italy
Member No.: 18968



QUOTE (bryant @ Oct 26 2006, 06:00) *
WinZIP contacted me early today before I was even able to send off an e-mail. They have no plans to ignore the license and wanted to get my permission to credit me publicly. So, all is fine.

Now I just need to test their implementation. smile.gif
That's great! Then fantastic pubblicity it is! smile.gif


--------------------
WavPack 4.70.0 -b384hx6cmv/qaac 2.41 -V 100
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Firon
post Oct 26 2006, 09:14
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 830
Joined: 3-November 05
Member No.: 25526



THat's pretty cool, having WavPack be more widespread is always a good thing.
It's also good that they e-mailed you about it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Oct 26 2006, 10:59
Post #24





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



Congratulations, David! smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Oct 26 2006, 13:23
Post #25





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



Indeed. A nice bit of well-deserved publicity for WavPack hopefully. Congratulations David. smile.gif


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th July 2014 - 11:31