- This topic has 16 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 3 days, 19 hours ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Have something to say about Ant Download Manager PRO? Say it here!
Have suggestions, comments, or need help? Post it here! If you know of better software than Ant Download Manager PRO, post it here! If you know of issues with Ant Download Manager PRO, post it here! Share your knowledge with all of us. :-)
Previous offer of this soft, on feb 2026 (2.16.6) was 64 bits. This one is 2.17.8 but 32 bits.
There is undoubtedly an error.. It appears the developer equipped the site with two versions—one 32-bit and the other 64-bit—yet.. from what can be observed only the link for the 32-bit version has been displayed! I shall not install this particular version even if it proves functional for my operating system is 64-bit..
Thanks Sharewareonsale for this amazing app.
[@jacki_old_man] Generally speaking most 32bit software will run under 64bit windows, even Windows 11… some developers deliberately detect if they are running on a 64bit system and refuse to operate and tell you to get the 64bit version it is because it requires matching access with shell extensions i.e. only 64bit shell extensions are compatible with 64bit windows 64bit shell. Normally it makes no difference. If ant download manager has a shell extension then the consequence of running a 32bit edition on a 64bit system is the shell extension will not operate or appear in the right click menu, that’s it! Might have some issues with browser plugins if plugins are 32bit and browsers are 64bit but I never use browser plugins so couldn’t confirm.
Oh of course this abuses open source GPLv3 FFMPEG binaries to merge media files when downloading youtube videos. Closed source Ant Download Manager DOES NOT NEED TO STEAL GPLv3 code and could without losing any functionality use the LGPLv3 build of FFMPEG binaries LEGALLY IF THEY WANTED TO OR CARED TO BE LEGAL SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS!
[@jacki_old_man]
For this specific type of software application, the 32-bit version offers two major advantages:
Broader Compatibility: It covers a much wider user base by running flawlessly on both 32-bit and 64-bit Windows operating systems without any issues.
Efficiency: It requires significantly less disk space and consumes much less RAM compared to a 64-bit build.
In our case, a 64-bit assembly offers no technical advantages or performance improvements whatsoever — it serves purely as a marketing checkbox. The 32-bit version will run perfectly and with maximum efficiency on your 64-bit OS.[@Zik]
Facts check:
Legal aspect: AntDM does not link, embed, or modify any FFmpeg code within its closed-source core. It executes the compiled standalone binary strictly via the standard Command Line Interface (CLI) as an independent process. According to the FSF guidelines, this is completely legal and does not violate GPL/LGPL terms.
Technical aspect: The official FFmpeg community discontinued and deprecated 32-bit (x86) Windows builds long ago. Mainstream modern compilers only distribute 64-bit binaries. Since AntDM maintains a lightweight 32-bit architecture for lower RAM usage and broader OS compatibility, the developer uses the only technically viable and stable x86 binary available to ensure the video merging feature actually works for everyone.
There is no “stealing” here—just standard software architecture and platform limitations.Ant Download Manager PRO is Excellent softwae for use. Thank you very much.
The program is completely useless, when trying to download a video it gives the following error: win2 {the system cannot find the file specified}!
[@Zik] fact check GPLv3 license specifically prohibits distributing GPLv3 code within a non-GPLv3 compliant program… if it were any other way there would be zero need for the LGPLv anything license. It was specifically created and incorporated into FFMPEG.ORG project build options to allow the project binaries to be used in closed source proprietary licensed combine products. This program is a combined work and as such should be licensed under the same terms as the FFMPEG.ORG binaries or a compatible license… the Ant Downloader license does not make available for at least 3 years the source code of the combined works, in fact if denies rights to the source code of the combined works this is why only the LGPLv3 licensed build is legally compatible with combined works such as this. It is immaterial whether an old discontinued version of GPLv3 software is used the copyright remains valid and in force. There is NO GOOD REASON for Ant downloader to use GPLv3 code in their closed source proprietary licensed combined work illegally they could and should without losing ANY functionality use the legal to use LGPLv3 build and give proper attribution and provide a copy of the relevant and current license files. You argument that it is ok to steal depreciated versions of software is specious one might as well say “it is ok to steal any product that is no longer manufactured” which of course is wrong… I cannot legally steal your car if it’s no longer in production… the laws protecting it are still in place as are the copyright and patent laws still in place protecting such protected materials. Now if ffmpeg.org team NOT FSF said that old depreciated version of GPLv3 software is now placed in the public domain that would be a different matter but to my knowledge they have not done that. Also modern versions of FFMPEG.ORG software are being developed that still run under 32bit windows even XP… obviously codecs that also have GPU accelerations that require 64bit code to access them are not included just the CPU codecs are included but nothing is being abandoned by developers out there even if the main FFMPEG.ORG code base has moved to a 64bit dev system that does not produce windows 7 compatible code any more.
[@Zarko] That could be due to windows protected folder (ransomware protection). It could be blocking the write of the downloaded file into the chosen download location… I would have expected you to have received a notification that the write was blocked and given the option to allow the programs writes in the future with the windows 10 built in system… Maybe you have all notifications disabled or are using a 3rd party ransomware protection suite that is not alerting you to the attempt to write to the protected locations… but not being able to find after trying to write it is a sign the write was blocked at a system level.
[@TK]
1. The “Combined Work” Myth: A “combined work” or “derivative work” under the GPLv3 license only occurs if a proprietary program links directly to GPL libraries (via static or dynamic linking like .dll, .lib, .so) or compiles GPL source code into its own binary. AntDM does not link to FFmpeg code. It operates strictly by calling a completely unmodified, standalone external ffmpeg.exe file via the standard Windows command line interface (CLI) using CreateProcess().2. Official FSF Position: The Free Software Foundation (the creators of the GPL) explicitly states in their official licensing FAQ that running a standalone GPL executable as a separate system process via a command-line invocation does not turn the invoking proprietary program into a combined or derivative work. The communication happens at the OS level (arguments/pipes), which is legally compliant. If it were otherwise, proprietary operating systems (like Windows or macOS) wouldn’t be allowed to execute GPL tools at all.
3. The x86 Reality: The issue is not about FFmpeg “abandoning CPU codecs,” but about the official automated infrastructure. The official main builds distributed by the FFmpeg project (such as BtbN or Gyan.dev) completely dropped pre-compiled 32-bit (x86) binaries years ago. While custom enthusiasts might still compile specific 32-bit forks on GitHub, a commercial product cannot rely on unverified, unofficial third-party repositories for its user base due to security and stability risks.
Summary: There is no code theft, no licensing abuse, and no GPL violation. Running an unmodified GPL-licensed .exe as an independent CLI process is a universally accepted, fully legal software architecture standard utilized by hundreds of closed-source applications worldwide.
[@Zik] Your claims make zero sense if it were true the LGPLvN licenses would have been depreciated… they have not so the wording of the GPLv3 being the latest stands and redefinitions OUTSIDE the GPLv3 or later documents does NOT change the license documents… if they want to change the documents they should issue newer GPLv4 or above that redefines it to mean one can have GPL code incorporated into proprietary closed source without attribution or copy of original license for there to no longer be theft. They are STILL abusing GPL code and not giving proper attribution or including a copy of the original license document WHICH IS REQUIRED. You are currently making assertions without citing online references to backup your alleged redefinition of GPL licensing that totally defeats the purpose of the GPLvN licenses and negate the need for LGPLvN license and of course you are ignoring the lack of accreditation and providing copies of the relevant license files. The binaries being discussed were generated under GPLv3 License not any fictional GPLv4 license that as far as I know has not even been released as a draft yet! You are trying to turn GPL licensed works into public domain works which is never the intent of FSF no matter how you twist things. Many GPL source contributors will simply refuse to contribute to GPLv4 or later projects under the lax terms you espouse as it ensures no availability of the source to modify or reuse.
2. Official FSF Position: The Free Software Foundation (the creators of the GPL) explicitly states in their official licensing FAQ that running a standalone GPL executable as a separate system process via a command-line invocation does not turn the invoking proprietary program into a combined or derivative work. The communication happens at the OS level (arguments/pipes), which is legally compliant. If it were otherwise, proprietary operating systems (like Windows or macOS) wouldn’t be allowed to execute GPL tools at all.
If that is all that is going on and the end user provides the FFMPEG.EXE or FFPROBE.EXE that would be true but where the compiled GPLv2 or 3 binaries are combined into a single work and are supplied by the vendor in a single installer or a distributed installer and the end user is not sourcing the the binaries then it is an illegal distribution of GPLv2 or 3 software in an illegal closed source product. They HAVE to include the GPLv3 license in their license documentation and cannot restrict the FFMPEG.EXE binary usage in their license by not differentiating the FREE software from their closed source do not reverse engineer license. The passage you write does not deal with combined works where the binaries are distributed as part of the combined work by the closed source devloper/vendor… again if it were the way you are trying to twist things to mean there would be no need for LGPLvN licensing.
Why do you want to protect predominantly Chinese IP thieves taking GPLv3 or even non-free and undistributed and never giving attribution to the original developers and rights owners and never providing license files where one exists and always ignoring internation copyright treaties.
Also before you rant any more give URLs to back up your claims… my claims come from the COPYING documents themselves not some perverted and twisted re-write of someone elses opinions that if taken YOUR way invalidates the documents and makes GPL software public domain… anyone can claim it as their own plagiarists win!
Downloads reported as unsafe by Microsoft Defender Can’t be downloaded
