4 ms·

What this program seems to do is create some screenshots from an mp4 and feed them through 2 .exe files, then display the results in a React app

dynamite-ready 5y ago
Yep. It's classic hack. If this was for a product, the first thing I would have done, was drop half the tools in the stack for their inefficiency! For example, the GUI shell is using Node Webkit (which I prefer to Electron, but is essentially the same thing). That in itself is quite bad, but it's not the worst approach to building a desktop app, as Microsoft and Slack have already proven. But the .exe's you mentioned are also quite large. The code is very transparent though. I doubt you'd have been the only one to note how clunky this all is!
MayeulC 5y ago
Yep, two random exe, and no license is just what I saw before closing the page.
- dynamite-ready 5y ago
  Actually, there's a GNU license in both the CLI and GUI project. And the source code for the two 'random exe' can be found here - https://github.com/dynamite-ready/movie-parser-cli https://github.com/dynamite-ready/movie-parser-cli
  - maleldil 5y ago
    There isn't a LICENSE file in the GUI project. The LICENSE file in the CLI project seems to be the GPLv3, but the text is non-standard.
    - dynamite-ready 5y ago
      It's in a subfolder for the GUI project. Do you have any advice on the non standard text in the license? This is a concern I've never had before. Tbh, I'm surprised anyone has read it!
      - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
        The first thing I notice is: > Please link to <https://raskie.com https://raskie.com>, if you intend to redistribute this .exe. Now that's probably okay so long as it's a nice request ("please"), and not a requirement; AIUI, GPLv3 doesn't (generally) allow you to add conditions (ex. a license file that says "GPLv3 but no commercial users" isn't allowed by the text of GPLv3). But IANAL and I'm sure this is more complex than I think it is. Which brings us to a reasonable useful point: I would suggest never putting anything in a license file other than the exact standard form of the license; adding anything else, at best, makes people have to read it and try to understand what you've done rather than being able to say "oh, it's GPLv3 and I've cached that that's 100% okay for me" and stop thinking about it.
      - wiseleo 5y ago
        Modifying a single byte in the license file means the license is no longer what it purports to be. Don’t do it. The license file needs to be in the root of the repo. The first thing many developers who have been bitten by this in the past do is run all the boilerplate files like licenses through diff. Some probably have it hooked to every git clone request.

dynamite-ready 5y ago

Yep. It's classic hack. If this was for a product, the first thing I would have done, was drop half the tools in the stack for their inefficiency! For example, the GUI shell is using Node Webkit (which I prefer to Electron, but is essentially the same thing). That in itself is quite bad, but it's not the worst approach to building a desktop app, as Microsoft and Slack have already proven. But the .exe's you mentioned are also quite large. The code is very transparent though. I doubt you'd have been the only one to note how clunky this all is!

MayeulC 5y ago

Yep, two random exe, and no license is just what I saw before closing the page.

dynamite-ready 5y ago
Actually, there's a GNU license in both the CLI and GUI project. And the source code for the two 'random exe' can be found here - https://github.com/dynamite-ready/movie-parser-cli https://github.com/dynamite-ready/movie-parser-cli
- maleldil 5y ago
  There isn't a LICENSE file in the GUI project. The LICENSE file in the CLI project seems to be the GPLv3, but the text is non-standard.
  - dynamite-ready 5y ago
    It's in a subfolder for the GUI project. Do you have any advice on the non standard text in the license? This is a concern I've never had before. Tbh, I'm surprised anyone has read it!
    - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
      The first thing I notice is: > Please link to <https://raskie.com https://raskie.com>, if you intend to redistribute this .exe. Now that's probably okay so long as it's a nice request ("please"), and not a requirement; AIUI, GPLv3 doesn't (generally) allow you to add conditions (ex. a license file that says "GPLv3 but no commercial users" isn't allowed by the text of GPLv3). But IANAL and I'm sure this is more complex than I think it is. Which brings us to a reasonable useful point: I would suggest never putting anything in a license file other than the exact standard form of the license; adding anything else, at best, makes people have to read it and try to understand what you've done rather than being able to say "oh, it's GPLv3 and I've cached that that's 100% okay for me" and stop thinking about it.
    - wiseleo 5y ago
      Modifying a single byte in the license file means the license is no longer what it purports to be. Don’t do it. The license file needs to be in the root of the repo. The first thing many developers who have been bitten by this in the past do is run all the boilerplate files like licenses through diff. Some probably have it hooked to every git clone request.