Talk:ClipGrab

Trojan

The installer program currently contains a Trojan, so be cautious. MartinezMD (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

License - GPLv3 but no source code accessible?

Can anyone link to the source code so that we can be sure of the status as open source? I can't find it anywhere. --86.147.203.63 (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The ClipGrab Git Repository The Free Encyclopedian (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.252.79.14 (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

ClipGrab 3.7.0 source tarball--read (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

That source link is not shown anywhere on the website. I have just been through the website and see no evidence presented by it that the software is open source. It just says it's free. There's none of the usual proof via checksums etc either. Obviously it's a user friendly website but it's also to the extent of not providing enough information on the actual software, let alone the source code. Conflatuman (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

ClipGrab has always been licensed and still is licensed under the GPLv3. The source code of the most recent version is also available on [1]. Clicking on "Show all download options" you’ll find the source code (listed under "Linux" - but it's the same source code for all platforms). The website literally states "ClipGrab is a GPLv3-licensed Open Source project" Wmnnd (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I have added more detail to the License section noting the GPL - that is clarified now. Have also noted that ClipGrab is unusual for an open source project in not sharing a public repository, issue tracker or a number of other conventional open process tools.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ClipGrab. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150402123804/http://git.clipgrab.org/ClipGrab/blob/master/COPYING to http://git.clipgrab.org/ClipGrab/blob/master/COPYING

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit Disputes Around Viruses, Malware and InstallCore

There seems to be an edit dispute over how descriptions of viruses and malware should be presented in this article. I have started this section to discuss and hopefully resolve it. Would be good to have input from @Wmnnd: who made a number of recent edits. Conflatuman (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Malware - specifically Potentially Unwanted Programs - are mentioned in many sources relating to ClipGrab. One source of this is due to the use of the installer program installCore. Quoting a recently reverted version of the page ...

Installers including installCore have sometimes been classified as a potentially unwanted program (PUP) or potentially unwanted application (PUA), by some anti-malware product vendors. Perhaps due to the dependency on installCore, versions of Clipgrab have been described as loaded with adware and malware . It has been described as a "browser hijacker that urges users to buy products or services from sponsors" and "a virus". . Online virus scanners report viruses and trojans in the supplied binary, including Riskware.Win32.Generic.1!c, W32/FusionCore.A.gen!Eldorado, Trojan.InstallCore.2889, W32/FusionCore.A.gen!Eldorado, Trojan.Malware.9883574.susgen.. Viruses reported on the ClipGrab forum have not received a developer response .

This is crucial, recurring information about this application. It should be represented in the body and intro to the article. I don't see how a simple reversion accommodates this.

I can imagine - in an attempt to steelman - a view where the video capture features of ClipGrab are seen as worth the cost of the adware and spyware risk from installCore and other potential included programs. If there were a source that clearly stated that view, I can imagine it being worth citing and referencing here. Similarly if there is some argument that concerns about adware, spyware and installCore are overblown, incorrect, or should be ignored, that could be linked to and summarized using NPOV. I would think such perspectives would have to be presented next to malware concerns about this same software.

In the meantime, I am restoring this content to the article. I have retained extra content added by User:Wmnnd on conversion features.

I have also restored the membership of Category:Software using installCore, as that doesn't appear to be disputed.

Conflatuman (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think there is an argument to be had about the fact one of the two available Windows versions of ClipGrab includes installCore. However, using extremely loaded language in the introduction paragraph does appear to violate Wikipedia’s neutral point of view. It is certainly possible to find extremely negative quotes from users about almost any piece software. If we started including these most extreme user complaints in the introductory paragraphs of articles about all software, almost every program would have to be described as useless, bad and/or malicious.

What’s more, this criticism is exclusively related to the installation program of ClipGrab on Windows. It does not concern the software itself (which can also be installed through other means or compiled by users themselves) or other platforms. On the other hand, I think it’s certainly fair to have a paragraph criticizing the practice of software bundling and I have no objection to that. Wmnnd (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Though it's plausible enough that the virus issues are purely related to the installCore version on Windows, that's not really what the linked pages say. If there is some third party article or clear statement by the developer about that, it seems relevant to link. FWIW when I dug through the front page download options and found the non-installCore Windows version, Windows defender didn't find any problem - but that's also pretty close to Original Research.

I've seen plenty of angry user commentary about Microsoft Word and the Apache Web Server over the years, but I've never seen them called a virus by a security firm with virus scan results to prove it. NPOV, in my understanding, does mean being cautious around emotive language, but it doesn't mean eschewing negative descriptions by established sources. If I look at the wikipedia page intro for Genghis Khan, it notes both that he prefigured the largest contiguous empire in history and that his armies conducted massive civilian massacres.

This seems like an extremely important fact to flag about this application. Based on the feedback above I have attempted to paraphrase the sentence in the intro such that it uses less emotive language. Conflatuman (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

References