mediacoder is free in the same way being beaten to death is free

neither are good choices

this is no longer open-source. Despite his claims to the contrary, the developer has included adware in the new builds.

MediaCoder is most powerful as a freeware in its kind, but the bad is it's quite buggy all the time...

Almost an admission of guilt from alcalde.

That Mediacoder's becoming closed source software alongside many other software programs written in China around the same time as massive hacking attempts like operation Aurora and friends make me refuse to use Chinese software.

I have to say you could be a Chinese government employee. Especially considering your account was made just to say this. ( 2 hours ago for the creation time, post was made 1 hour ago )

MediaCoder is actually one of several encoding tools that have been put on ffmpeg's hall of shame due to a violation of the GPL.

As far as I understand the violation in this case is that the source code of ffmpeg is not being distributed along-side the code and that ffmpeg is not properly credited.

For those who want to have a look at the dispute themselves, here some links.

http://www.ffmpeg.org/shame.html

the discussion between ffmpeg and the MediaCoder programmer on the ffmpeg issue tracker
http://blog.mediacoderhq.com/mediacoder-serious-statements/

a response by the author of MediaCoder to this discussion on his blog (July 2009)
https://roundup.ffmpeg.org/issue1162

Bundling Open-Source software (like ffmpeg) with closed-source software
http://efreedom.com/Question/1-1004664/Can-Sell-Closed-Source-Software-Depends-Open-Source-Application

Mediacoder worries me after seeing Operation Aurora and it suddenly closing source. I don't suggest using it due to the risk the Chinese government has influenced its development ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aurora )

It appears format factory is from China as well.

Don't use Chinese software, folks.

As rigorous already said, this great tool isn't open souce anymore. It violates the GPL now. I changed the licence to free.

Whether Mediacoder should be considered 'dangerous' or whether it contains 'malicious' code (B) I cannot tell.

If the software indeed acts malicious - e.g. is used to take part in global software attacks or spies on the users PC - security experts should be able to disclose this behavior even without accessing the source code, e.g. by observing the behavior in a virtual machine and examining the network communication.
Since MediaCoder is merely a desktop software without extensive network communication (maybe for update checks?) malicious network behavior should be easily spotted.
Of course, if the software's user base is small and security experts take no interest, then there might be nobody to actually bother examining this software. Furthermore, the software might not contain any malicious code/behavior for now but might be used to orchestrate an attack in the future by including malicious code in a future software update.

If you worry about such things, I recommend you stay away from ANY closed-source software, and make sure that the Open Source software you use is actually actively monitored by other developers or security experts, because having the source code available will still not protect you from anything if nobody looks at it.

There is two issues being discussed here.

(A) One is whether Mediacoder violates the GPL or not.
(B) The other is whether Mediacoder contains malicious code or not.

My understanding on (A) is that Mediacoder violates the GPL because they distribute (that is offer for download) ffmpeg but do not include or offer the ffmpeg source code as well. Furthermore they do not properly inform the user about the ffmpeg GPL license and its terms.
This may sound like a minor offense but nevertheless it is part of the license ('contract') and therefore has to be respected otherwise it is a violation of the license terms which will void the license and make the use of ffmpeg illegal.

There is further the issue that there are different interpretations of the GPL when it comes to what is considered a derivative work which would require the whole software that is based on or includes GPL code to be released under GPL (Open Source) as well.
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) favors a more restrictive approach, others argue that merely calling the executable and interacting on the command line does not make the software a derivative work and therefore does not require the software that is using the GPL program to be GPLed as well.

This is merely a legal matter, but of course also an ethical one. The ffmpeg programmers intend to protect the hours of work they put into the project and also promote the idea of Open Source software.

The response from Mediacoder link that mistaecko posts refutes all of these charges being made. I also can't believe the charge that MediaCoder is some type of trojan horse put out by the Chinese government to bring the West to its knees.

Since ffmpeg is only being called by mediacoder with none of its source code being used by mediacoder, these gpl restrictions don't even apply. If you call fflpeg from your Windows command line, does that mean Windows must comply with the GPL? Of course not, and that's the exactly analogous situation with mediacoder.

TBH your other post sounded much like unproved conspiracy theory to me, and without any smiley there was no way of reading some irony into it... But good to know that you didn't mean your accusations 100% seriously.

I stick to my opinion that I haven't found any respectable source yet claiming that MediaCoder contains malicious code or is related to the Chinese government and/or 'Operation Aurora'.

Personally, I'd rather consider other reasons for the authors decision to going closed-source more likely, e.g. monetary considerations. The author offers a commercial 'Premium' version of the software and obviously intends to generate income from his work. There are quite a view projects out there which started off as Open Source to gain publicity and a user-base, and then go closed source again to protect their knowledge in order to allow making money off it.

And while I don't necessarily think that this is ethically correct, I wouldn't go as far as assuming other (far less likely IMHO) motives behind it.

Also check out the wikipedia article on MediaCoder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediacoder