Slashdot Log In
MPlayer Alleges KISS Technology Violating GPL
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:16 AM
from the code-by-another-name dept.
from the code-by-another-name dept.
bfree writes "Not for the first time, the people at MPlayer think they have found their code being distributed binary only, this time in at least one of KISS Techologies products. In their traditional quiet style the full story is now the first piece of news on their homepage including string comparisons between the player ROM and MPlayer. The 'evidence' presented relates to subtitle identification, where the KISS ROM includes the same list, in order, of subtitle formats as MPlayer (including their own format mpsub) and MPlayer's patterns for each of the formats are also there identically."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Where's the accusation? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Where's the accusation? (Score:5, Informative)
Main [mplayerhq.hu]
2 [mplayerhq.hu]
Switzerland [mplayerhq.hu]
Finland [mplayerhq.hu]
Parent
source available for download... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:source available for download... (Score:5, Informative)
Not to mention the fact that you need to include a copy of the full text of the GPL with your binaries, which they also seem to fail to do.
Parent
But, has anybody ever been sued for GPL violation? (Score:3, Interesting)
If nobody ever gets in any trouble for using GPL code in a closed project, then isn't it reasonable to assume that it'll happen more often?
And who is supposed to hire the lawyers on behalf of a free project? And don't tell me FSF will just handle everybody's legal troubles pro-bono...
Re:But, has anybody ever been sued for GPL violati (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:But, has anybody ever been sued for GPL violati (Score:5, Interesting)
The FSF is definitely about activism. Not all programmers are activists, but the FSF believes that the GPL gives them an edge that no proprietary development firm can beat - the fact that even if only a minority of GPL software users give back, they still receive more than proprietary vendors do from their community.
I'm not bashing those who disagree with the FSF - as I said the FSF is definitely an activist group. But they obviously have been successful despite their requirements regarding copyright assignment. GCC is probably the most widely used compiler there is...
Parent
Re:But, has anybody ever been sued for GPL violati (Score:4, Insightful)
Sort of. I'll say "yes" but qualify. You can't sue somebody for violating the GPL. It's not a contract. It's a license. If they don't agree to the license then it has no legal weight.
The impressive part about the GPL is that if they don't agree to the GPL then copyright law springs into effect. Copyright law can kick them in the teeth a lot harder than the GPL ever could.
So you don't really sue for a GPL violation. You sue for copyright infringement. You offer the GPL as an escape mechanism. If the guilty party accepts the GPL then they avoid the lawsuit. If they don't accept the GPL then... well... simply put, they lose in court.
There have been several examples of companies being sued for copyright infringement of GPLed software. I think they've all ended in settlement so far. So effectively the courts have been used to enforce the GPL. A recent example was MySQL vs NuSphere as reported on Slashdot.
Parent
Re:this page suggests they are compliant (Score:3, Informative)
Mplayer deserves it's props... (Score:5, Interesting)
I quickly made a list of all of my 10+ gigs of mp3/m4a files just using find and grep...touched it up a bit in vim and then use "aterm -e mplayer -playlist
Yeah, I probably could do this with xmms...but why?
Give Mplayer it's due. It's a fine piece of software and they deserve all the recognition they get.
Re:Mplayer deserves it's props... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's hard to explain, but I couldn't stand listening to several pieces of music without a playlist-based system like XMMS. For example, you have this list of 100 songs and you want to jump into a specific piece (not just the next or previous one). Try doing this with a keypress or two on mplayer -shuffle.
For movies I use MPlayer, and I like to keep these two things separate. I haven't come across a situation where I'd need a playlist of movies, and MPl
The GPL is headed for a showdown... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, there is the possibility that the GPL is struck down as being untenable. In that case, one of two outcomes exists:
1. All formerly GPL software reverts to merely being copyrighted by the author, who can then do what he wants (close the source, BSD style license, etc.).
2. All formerly GPL software is considered public domain. There is a massive "land grab" as companies snap up the sources out there for use in their closed proprietary products.
IANAL. I want to make that clear. I do believe that the GPL is valid, legal, and will stand up in court. I just hope the court system agrees with me.
Re:The GPL is headed for a showdown... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:The GPL is headed for a showdown... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:The GPL is headed for a showdown... (Score:5, Informative)
This is not that big a problem in the US. The US Copyright Act [cornell.edu] provides several remedies: (i) injunction (a court order for the infringer to stop), (ii) damages based on the copyright holder's actual damages _and_ the copyright violators profits or (iii) statutory damages (that is, damages specified by the statute without any need to show actual damages).
Parent
Re:The GPL is headed for a showdown... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see that as a problem. People who use the GPL want compliance, not vast amounts of money. The requirement to comply with the license doesn't go away even if there are no monetary damages.
The GPL already has big hammer: if you violate it, you lose all rights to the software. So, at this point, KISS faces the prospect of having to rip mplayer out of all their players, shipped, shipping, and on the drawing board, and looking for a substitute. That would amount to an enormous penalty and drive them out of business.
If the open source community feels an example needs to be set, that's what the authors of mplayer should demand.
Of course, in the past, GPL authors have often been nice and simply permitted companies like KISS to come into compliance by posting the source code after the fact. But that's a friendly gesture from the open source community; the GPL license carries a bigger stick.
Parent
copyright holder entitled to infringer's profits (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the award is not necessarily based on the copyright holder's actual damages. According to 17 USC 504 (a), "an infringer of copyright is liable for either... the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c)." The emphasis on the additional profits language is mine, but it's important: the copyright holder is entitled to any additional profits the infringer made through use of the infringing material.
Even in cases where it's difficult to prove damages or additional profits from the infringing material, the copyright holder is entitled to statutory damages. See 17 USC 504 (c). That's $30,000 for infringement in general, and $150,000 if it's willful infringement. An infringer who uses language like "KISS off" or an infringer finding themselves back in court for doing it again will probably be facing the $150,000 number. Paying the judgement does not entitle you to future use of the copyrighted work.
Parent
YANAL, ie, informative my ass (Score:4, Insightful)
Statutory damages can be tremendous, I believe $150,000 per violation if wilful.
The other penalty is that KISS will have to stop distribution altogether if they lose in court. That basically puts them out of business.
GPL protection has nothing to do with using or modifying, only with distribution.
You barely have anything right. You need to read more groklaw.
Parent
Re:The GPL is headed for a showdown... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
You, my friend, are not aware of the SCO case. (Score:3, Interesting)
Start reading here
groklaw [groklaw.net]Kiss off (Score:3, Funny)
Their fax number is busy... Either they took the ringer off, or other people have the same idea.
Not the way to do it (Score:5, Insightful)
So firstly its quite possibly not their fault
Secondly its quite possible they are all still on their christmas holiday
Someone at mplayer might want to look at the other sigma based players firmware files.
And finally
There are lots of GPL infringements that get sorted out politely. Mostly involving large companies who regardless of what people like Microsoft may claim about Open v Closed most definitely DO NOT do any checking on what their contractors shipped them. They get sorted because the company can add a footnote to the manuals or put the tar source files up on the support page without embarrasment.
Parent
Re:Not the way to do it (Score:5, Insightful)
Amen. And thirdly, maybe KISS is just treating the mplayer people like they treat their own users: with hostility and inaccessibility. Considering that KISS release sources for busybox and Linux, I find it difficult to believe that they would somehow refuse to release mplayer source because they're evil. Most likely it's just an oversight that will be cleared up in time--too bad the mplayer people are so quick to pound the drum of aggrievance, but it's totally in character for them.
By the way, I like mplayer very much, the developers do a really excellent technical job; they just lack interpersonal skills--which are very necessary when trying to get a business to do what you want them to do.
Parent
acknowledgement (Score:5, Insightful)
besides possible GPL violation what i find disturbing is that apparently no credit was given to the mplayer developers.
one of the main motivations of working on something for free is being appreciated and acknowledged for the work you do. kill the motivation, and you kill the incentive to release for free. it's a gift, right?
Re:acknowledgement vs. DMCA (Score:4, Interesting)
Could this be true, or am I missinterrupting the DMCA (shudder, I hate that thing)?
Parent
Re:acknowledgement vs. DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:acknowledgement (Score:4, Informative)
While I fully agree that anyone stealing GPL software deserves whatever lawsuits they get, the Mplayer team has violated the GPL [debian.org] in the past as well.
Parent
GPL notice included in KISS DP-508 Media Player (Score:5, Funny)
In accordance with the GPL, the source for KISS DP-508 is available upon
request, for a nominal fee to cover media and shipping costs.*
.
.
.
* = The source code will be provided to you as a series of large, neon-lit
marquee letters shipped individually in wooden packing crates. Currently,
the world's supply of neon gas limits our ability to ship large quantities
of source code. The current expected wait time is 32 years, plus or minus
6 months, depending upon the condition of labor relations in countries with
substantial noble gas exports.
For more information, please inject crystal meth directly into your eyeballs,
and light yourself on fire while listening to the following song:
http://www.ibiblio.org/propaganda/pogo/easteregg.
Thats the version of the GPL I prefer, personally.
The bastards (Score:5, Funny)
So, not only they don't comply, they don't even kiss ass. Pretty damning if you ask me!
Once again, not a GPL violation. (Score:4, Insightful)
The GPL is not a contract you agree to before using or obtaining source... it is a license that permits you to do things other than those allowed by copryight law alone.
If they are using MPlayer's code without license, that's copyright violation, and all that entails.
They can either come to an agreement with the copyright holders, or cite the GPL as their permission, if they had followed it.
download link for kiss source (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.kiss-technology.com/?p=hot_news&v=user
Re:download link for kiss source (Score:5, Informative)
" Before I get another 10 mails about this: the GPL.ZIP file which they offer for download on their site contains only the Linux kernel and busybox sources, not MPlayer's!
Thanks."
Parent
Re:A taste of their own medicine (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
The Devil himself?!?! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:A taste of their own medicine (Score:4, Interesting)
ffmpeg is the replacement for all divx codecs based on the hacked microsoft dlls so thats fine.
and on the distribution bit, did it ever occur to you that you would have to keep a windows box for windows media (.avi,
Parent
Re:A taste of their own medicine (Score:3, Insightful)
then why should Mplayer expect anyone else to ?
they are distributing other peoples work for free illegally and then complain when someone else does the same ? haha gimme a break,
iam sure quite a few companies would like to address their copyright concerns to the Mplayer team
Re:A taste of their own medicine (Score:5, Insightful)
KISS, on the other hand, is allegedly using MPlayer source without releasing the sources to their modifications, and in essence are claiming the software as their own. This is a violation of the license MPlayer is released under.
This is quite different from repackaging and redistributing files that were freely available on the net.
Parent
Re:A taste of their own medicine (Score:5, Informative)
No, they don't. You're probably thinking of the Penguin Liberation Front codec pack, which is not part of mplayer itself.
You can compile mplayer entirely from source with DivX, mpeg4 and Quicktime support. This support comes from GPL'd source code, not from hacked binaries.
Parent
Re:sweet player... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if they stole MPlayer's code, they get Ogg support without having to be cool and open-minded. :)
Jason.
Parent
Re:Really In Violation ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Really In Violation ? (Score:3, Informative)
Yes there is
Re:Really In Violation ? (Score:5, Informative)
Every single one of their patterns match ours! This is not coincidence. This is stealing GPL code into a proprietary product! Kiss Technology failed to answer our inquiry for their source files (which they are obligated to provide), so this news entry is posted.
Sure looks like they asked for the source to me.
Parent
only if it is a customer of theirs (Score:4, Insightful)
If you ask me the evidence is a bit thin. They are offering a full rom update (btw what os is it?) and all they find on them is a couple of strings in a binary? You'd expect the whole player to be in there, not just some subtitle stuff.
Oh well, their server recieves a slashdotting and their pr-person(subhuman) gets scalded. Then they release the code and all will be good again...
Parent
Re:only if it is a customer of theirs (Score:4, Interesting)
We'll just have to see what KISS says about this. If they release the source, it's probably all good (at least it has been for the FSF in the past)
Parent
Re:I own one, it rocks. (Score:4, Informative)
I had the same player, and returned it. Hate to spoil, but
- it mutes the audio on AVIs with WMA audio encoding (DIVX AUDIO)
- it freezes on most SVCD discs I tried, usually after fast-forwarding
- it freezes on some older DIVX AVIs, usually within the first 20 seconds
- it turns into a slideshow on DIVX3 with lots of stuff moving, like eg in
Matrix when the world turns into green hex numbers, or explosions with
particles flying around
- it doesn't play MP3 discs headless (to replace CD player in stereo)
Other than that, it's a great product. I'd love to check their products again in a year or so.
Parent
Re:I own one, it rocks. (Score:5, Insightful)
How, exactly?
Really, I'm being serious.
Again, I ask, with all honesty, just how do products like these benefit the OS community; because frankly the way I see it, what's happening here is nothing more than greedy sons-of-bitches who are exploiting the hard works of others.
Parent
Re:I own one, it rocks. (Score:4, Informative)
Not entirely true. Read the GPL FAQ [gnu.org]:
Q. I want to distribute binaries without accompanying sources. Can I provide source code by FTP instead of by mail order?
A. You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the mail-order option, but FTP access to the source is not sufficient to satisfy section 3 of the GPL.
When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get the source from you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the job. But not every user can do such a download. The rest of the users are just as entitled to get the source code from you, which means you must be prepared to send it to them by post.
If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship one. But you cannot assume that.
Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the binary in the first place.
So as long as no one requests a physical copy of the source, you're right, sticking it on your site for them is good enough. The 24MB source zip file would be a little tough on dialup users, so there could be a case where they're required to provide the source on CD or whatever.
In any event, I just downloaded said file and here's what it contains (edited for lameness):
Archive: GPL.zip
Length Name
751701 busybox.tar.gz
24236327 uClinux-2.4.17.tar.gz
24988028 2 files
So unless they're offering the mplayer source separately, they're probably in violation of the GPL anyway.
Parent
Re:Gene Simmons and Peter Criss aren't... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is great... (Score:4, Interesting)
While that's unfortunate for you, the end customer, it's just too bad. If they're not playing by the rules and they're stealing peoples' code, then the problem is that they were crooks, not that they used free software. Wouldn't be much different from Microsoft stealing Sun code.
Perhaps it's a dawning age when businesses will be afraid to use proprietary software for fear that the company integrated GPL'ed source into their binaries without giving poper credit and/or providing the sources? Imagine, all the manadrones going from "Open Source is untrustworthy, we might get sued" or other such nonsense to "Proprietary systems are untrustworthy, they might get sued and we'd lose support".
Ahhhh.... sweet sweet vindication... maybe.
Parent
what are you saying? (Score:5, Interesting)
If KISS doesn't want to deal with the GPL, they can always license Windows XP/Embedded for their players and you can pay for it. And you can bet that Microsoft will enforce their licenses.
Parent