[Null Byte]

I do think the source should be available to all members... That's sort of the point of open-source and linux in general. Nonetheless, great work!

[Null Byte]

Quote the clause in the HF Help Docs that says open source software is prohibited.

[Loki123]

You're not allowed to share parts of source codes from this program on HF.
It's against the rules of HF.

I suggest you to read the Help Docs like any other decent user:
https://hackforums.net/misc.php?action=help
It's also clearly stated in the readme.txt file, if you want, I can but it in a pdf with a bigger font-size so it's easier to read for you?

This isn't only against the rules and piracy, but also really disrespectful.
Post is reported!

Also, there is nothing wrong with cat, it was even suggested on several forums.
Normally system functions are bad in C++, but not in this case, I clearly thought about the positives and negatives effects of it regarding this application, and there were more positive effects, also because it's only for Linux.

Please, if you have nothing interesting/good to share and don't know the rules, don't criticize me.

Post reported.

And I did it for a reason, a good reason it seems. :)

You really that stupid to say that this is piracy ?

Please read the GNU/GPL please...
First of all, every modification made to application under the GNU/GPL has also to be released under the same license. (This falls under modified version)
You are not allowed to distribute Binary - executable only.

He didn't do ANYTHING illegal here. What he did is not piracy, not against the rules nor disrespectful as you are currently the one breaking the laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General...#Version_1

[Loki123]

It is disrespectful because I clearly stated I didn't want that anyone would publish the source code.
+ It is against the rule on HF to share parts of a source code of an application made by a HF user.
https://hackforums.net/showthread.php?tid=4368240

Again, you are breaking the law by not publishing the source code. He isn't leaking anything as stated in the GPL license your application is required to follow.

[Loki123]

I did follow the law. You fully decide yourself if you make an application open-source or not.

Ah, not really... Modification made to a application (In this case ClamAV) are required to use the same license if using GNU/GPL (In this case ClamAV does use GNU/GPL).

Now, as stated in the GNU/GPL if you release binary file for a application that uses GNU/GPL which you application does as it is required to use GNU/GPL you have to release the source code also. So in this case you do not fully decide if it is "open source" or not.

Version 1 of the GNU GPL,[17] released on 25 February 1989,[18] prevented what were then the two main ways that software distributors restricted the freedoms that define free software. The first problem was that distributors may publish binary files only—executable, but not readable or modifiable by humans. To prevent this, GPLv1 said that any vendor distributing binaries must also make the human-readable source code available under the same licensing terms (Sections 3a and 3b of the license).

The second problem was the distributors might add additional restrictions, either by adding restrictions to the license, or by combining the software with other software which had other restrictions on its distribution. If this was done, then the union of the two sets of restrictions would apply to the combined work, thus unacceptable restrictions could be added. To prevent this, GPLv1 said that modified versions, as a whole, had to be distributed under the terms in GPLv1 (Sections 2b and 4 of the license). Therefore, software distributed under the terms of GPLv1 could be combined with software under more permissive terms, as this would not change the terms under which the whole could be distributed, but software distributed under GPLv1 could not be combined with software distributed under a more restrictive license, as this would conflict with the requirement that the whole be distributable under the terms of GPLv1.

No, you didn't follow the law really. Breaking the license isn't legal at all.

I know, GNU/GPL sucks.

[Loki123]

I never did a modification to ClamAV, I made an extension for it which USES ClamAV.
You're free to download ClamAV-Easy and uses it interface without having ClamAV at all.

Probably won't work well though...

hah..

tell me, what does your extension do ?
Does your application and ClamAV make function calls to each other and share data structures ? Or is it a simple fork & exec ?

[Loki123]

Hehe, I didn't knew about that GNU license thing so I mailed a lawyer about it to know sure.
The application will be open-source after it's been 100% optimized.

So have patience and there you have the open-source.
Can we now get back on-topic please? :)

Currently we are talking about your application and it's license. That is on topic...

Now answer my post.

Code

tell me, what does your extension do ?
Does your application and ClamAV make function calls to each other and share data structures ? Or is it a simple fork & exec ?

[Cyber Saint]

Nice that you update this. I've talked to Niely before and I know that he knows what he's doing when it comes to this sort of stuff, ClamAV-Easy is a great choice. Vouch for my friend.

[Cyber Saint]

Update:
Daemon option:
Added Daemon option so you can also use the extremely fast ClamAV-Daemon as well!

Test option:
Option to get a safe Eicar test file to see if your ClamAV-Easy is running well.

Access www.ClamAV.net:
Access www.clamav.net fast from our application!

Thanks a lot! :)

Glad to see an update, looking forward to future updates.