Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

MPlayer Alleges KISS Technology Violating GPL

Posted by CowboyNeal on Sat Jan 03, 2004 09:16 AM
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This discussion has been archived.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.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Where's the accusation? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Brahmastra (685988) on Saturday January 03 2004, @09:20AM (#7866815)
    If anyone is wondering where the link with the actual accusation is, it is on the main page of Mplayer's website.
  • A taste of their own medicine (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2004, @09:21AM (#7866816)

    don't Mplayer distribute hacked unauthorised divX,mpg4 and quicktime and realaudio .dlls for win32 ? ever thought why they are hosted in Hungary ?

    funny how the tables turn
    • by myzz (690332) on Saturday January 03 2004, @09:28AM (#7866835)
      ever thought why they are hosted in Hungary ?
      They are hosted in Hungary, because main developers are hungarians?
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:A taste of their own medicine (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2004, @09:42AM (#7866889)
      unauthorised distribution maybe, hacked no.

      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, .wma), real (.rm, .ra) and an apple (if they played hardball with sorensen) for quicktime around just to see the videos that are released on the net today ? i dont care about some eulas i havent read if i can watch these on a system that doesnt connect to the net everytime i play a video.

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:A taste of their own medicine by julie-h (Score:1) Saturday January 03 2004, @10:44AM
    • Re:A taste of their own medicine (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2004, @11:14AM (#7867245)
      don't Mplayer distribute hacked unauthorised divX,mpg4 and quicktime and realaudio .dlls for win32 ?

      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 ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • source available for download... (Score:3, Informative)

    by sirmalloc (648119) on Saturday January 03 2004, @09:21AM (#7866817)
    well it appears on their website that they offer the source for download here [kiss-technology.com]
  • sweet player... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by JThundley (631154) on Saturday January 03 2004, @09:22AM (#7866819)
    (http://www.jthundley.com/)
    That looks like a sweet player. Go loook at all the features. They include ogg support. Most people the use ogg are pretty cool and open-minded, so hopefully they'll open up what is required.
    • Re:sweet player... by sEEKz (Score:1) Saturday January 03 2004, @09:28AM
    • Re:sweet player... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tack (4642) on Saturday January 03 2004, @09:29AM (#7866839)
      (http://urandom.ca/)
      That looks like a sweet player. Go loook at all the features. They include ogg support. Most people the use ogg are pretty cool and open-minded, so hopefully they'll open up what is required.

      Well, if they stole MPlayer's code, they get Ogg support without having to be cool and open-minded. :)

      Jason.

      [ Parent ]
  • This is great... (Score:2, Insightful)

    Isn't this going to start a trend where hardware companies stop releasing ROM updates for their products?

    90% of my stuff wouldn't even work right if I couldn't update the firmware, and there are a number of people that patch ROMs to extend hardware capabilities unofficially. Maybe the companies will get around it by encrypting their updates, but that doesn't sound like a win for anybody else.

    • Re:This is great... by FrostedWheat (Score:2) Saturday January 03 2004, @09:37AM
    • 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)

      by penguin7of9 (697383) on Saturday January 03 2004, @10:49AM (#7867156)
      So, you are saying we should tolerate GPL copyright violations so that you can get updates to your ROMs from sleazy companies? I don't think so. As long as software copyrights are the law of the land, GNU has the same rights to enforce them as everybody else.

      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 ]
    • Re:This is great... by be-fan (Score:3) Saturday January 03 2004, @11:41AM
  • Mplayer is one of those apps I just can't live without on my machine. It handles just about anything and everything that I've thrown at it. I use it as my default mp3/movie player. And Quicktime movies are not a problem for Linux anymore.

    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 /home/sgant/music/playlist -shuffle" and I've got hours and hours of back to back music. When I want something a little more structured, I have different playlists.

    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.
  • The GPL is headed for a showdown... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fortunato_NC (736786) <verlinh75 AT msn DOT com> on Saturday January 03 2004, @09:33AM (#7866855)
    (Last Journal: Thursday September 28 2006, @01:08PM)
    Sometime in the near future, the GPL is going to be tested in court. This is a Good Thing, though, because I'm not sure that the Open Source movement can continue its momentum without an absolute guarantee by the courts that the work of developers will not be open to being "stolen" by proprietary software companies.

    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.
  • Kiss off (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bowie J. Poag (16898) on Saturday January 03 2004, @09:41AM (#7866883)
    (http://www.ibiblio.org/propaganda)


    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)

      by Alan Cox (27532) on Saturday January 03 2004, @10:36AM (#7867098)
      (http://www.linux.org.uk/diary)
      Thats not the way to do it. The KISS folks have been one of the people who seem to have got the Linux DVD player thing right with regard to the source modules. Secondly the mplayer people need to find out who that code came from - the kiss player if I remember rightly is based on a kit from Sigma designs.

      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 .. ranting and raving isn't how you solve problems because you make it hard for an accidental offender to correct a problem without losing face, which sometimes means they'll try and tough it out rather than sort it out.

      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 by Bowie J. Poag (Score:3) Saturday January 03 2004, @11:03AM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Not the way to do it by Kalroth (Score:1) Saturday January 03 2004, @12:38PM
      • Re:Not the way to do it by RickHunter (Score:2) Saturday January 03 2004, @01:07PM
      • Re:Not the way to do it (Score:5, Insightful)

        by demi (17616) on Saturday January 03 2004, @01:18PM (#7867824)
        (http://slashdot.org/~demi | Last Journal: Wednesday May 30 2007, @01:36PM)
        So firstly its quite possibly not their fault
        Secondly its quite possible they are all still on their christmas holiday

        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 ]
      • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • acknowledgement (Score:5, Insightful)

    by koekepeer (197127) on Saturday January 03 2004, @09:45AM (#7866899)
    ok the issue is about code that reads subtitles. other comments here already pointed out that (at least some of the) source is available at the KISS website

    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?


  • 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.m p3 [ibiblio.org]


    Thats the version of the GPL I prefer, personally.
  • ...going to get away with this.

    There is no way the KISS Army can withstand the awesome onslaught of the GNU Hurd! RSS will lead the charge against the interlopers, with the battle cry "They're properly called GNU/Linux Systems!" ringing over the Plains...
  • Unclear if in violation (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by madsdyd (228464) on Saturday January 03 2004, @09:56AM (#7866944)
    First off, please note that KISS offers download of the uCLinux kernel and busybox software sources very prominently at the same place where you download firmware for the players.

    Secondly: The people of KISS have never tried to hide that they were using GPL'ed software. Mabbe we should give them just one more chance to comply before getting all carried away...
  • i always wondered how ... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2004, @09:58AM (#7866951)
    dvd player companies can come up with a $50 player that supports mp3, vorbis, xvid, divx3/4/5, mpeg1-4, and whatnot..

    now i know, taking the code written in some manyears
    by open source developers and putting their company sticker on it.

  • The bastards (Score:5, Funny)

    by An Anonymous Hero (443895) on Saturday January 03 2004, @10:02AM (#7866969)
    We have one more pattern in our parser, which was commited on 2003 July 20, in effect of supporting a new subtitle format, called "ASS". Kiss Tech's files are missing this one, so they must have lifted our code before that date.

    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)

    by mindstrm (20013) on Saturday January 03 2004, @10:09AM (#7866994)
    It's a copyright violation.

    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.

  • by reallocate (142797) on Saturday January 03 2004, @10:12AM (#7867004)
    Why doesn't mplayer sue, if they think their intellectual property rights have been abused? Certainly seems more logical than posting unproven and potentially libelous assertions on their website.

    Before someone says that they're just a small band of impoverished but brave open source developers who can't afford to pay lawyers....well, tough.

    Civil claims don't get enfoirced as if by magic. If the broader open source community has no means to help individual developers enforce the GPL in court, then it will simply become unenforced and unenforceable.
  • download link for kiss source (Score:3, Informative)

    by sqrt529 (145430) * on Saturday January 03 2004, @10:24AM (#7867053)
    (http://t-butter.de/)
    I don't understand why they say it's a GPL Violation. The source is offered as a download on the kiss website.
    http://www.kiss-technology.com/?p=hot_news&v=users [kiss-technology.com]
  • by Trailer Trash (60756) on Saturday January 03 2004, @10:32AM (#7867084)
    (http://www.michaelchaney.com/)
    Guess what. Putting some proof and such on your web site doesn't mean anything. If they're violating your copyrights, you need to send a certified letter outlining your proof and telling them to stop. Note: emailing them and asking for source doesn't matter. If they ignore it or refuse, then you have to sue them. It's a copyright violation (there are no "GPL violations", it's simply a copyright violation) and the statutory damages top out at $150K per incident. The damages may be enough to put them out of business.

    On the other hand, if you're going to bitch and moan about it on your web site and do nothing else, then I don't see why they'd change their course of action. Obviously, they're not struck by moral or ethical arguments or they wouldn't have gone this far. That leaves legal arguments as the only possibility, but I'm not sure if they need to worry...
  • Couldn't resist... (Score:3, Funny)

    by MImeKillEr (445828) on Saturday January 03 2004, @10:36AM (#7867099)
    (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday February 11 2004, @08:13AM)
    "Gene Simmons unavailable for comment."
  • by kaytea2k (599130) on Saturday January 03 2004, @10:49AM (#7867149)
    doing this for years and people say I'm nuts!
  • Greedy Stupid Bastards (Score:1, Redundant)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2004, @10:53AM (#7867166)
    When will these idiots untie their silk nooses and let the air return to their "business educated" minds? Without a GPL style license, there would be no KISS player, or for that matter, no legal Divx codec, at all.

    OK - note to all businesses using open source code in their products: Good Job! You've just brought a superior product to market, harnassing the collaboration of hundreds if not thousands of developers! You did it cheaper, better and faster than with closed source, in house programming! The only condition is, YOU PUBLISH YOUR SOURCE CODE. That's it.

    You want to try make an inhouse developed Divx/xvid/MPEG-4 player? GOOD FREAKING LUCK! You'll never get it done, because its nearly impossible.

    So, just in case any assholes from Forbes are reading, when open source developers give of themselves to create open source products, they are not completely free, nor are they in the public domain. You may use it, provided you give back to the community any changes you make. You can sell it, but you have to provide the source code. Again, if you want to do it alone, no one is forcing you to accept the source code. But when the FSF blows down your doors, don't call them communists. They are merely the enforcers, much like the BSA is for Microsoft. You break the license, you meet the man. Simple as that. Just because you didn't have to pay for the license, doesn't mean its not in effect.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • CES (Score:1)

    by fuck_this_shit (727749) on Saturday January 03 2004, @11:43AM (#7867375)
    According to their site they will be at the CES in Las Vegas from the 8th until the 11th of January. Just take this evidence, go to their booth and have a chat.
  • Stand Clear and fingers in youre ear! (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2004, @11:56AM (#7867445)
    Wow, these devices are realy cool. Before someone shouts rape, just look on their website:

    http://www.kiss-technology.com/?p=gnu&v=users

    It states that they use gpl'd software, nice ;-).
    This also includes a link to de full source code.

    About MPlayer, their player rocks. This is just good advertisement for them, nothing more.

    Keep it cool homys

    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Isnt Kiss using Sigma Design tech? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by shakey_deal (602291) on Saturday January 03 2004, @12:04PM (#7867475)
    Kiss are using a lot of sigma stuff in their products. Not sure if they are in this case but maybe it is Sigma who did yet another cut n paste?
  • What people keep forgetting... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Xugumad (39311) on Saturday January 03 2004, @12:15PM (#7867530)

    Is that it only takes one lazy programmer for their to be a GPL violation. I don't see this is being some high-up manager instructing their programmers to use mplayer to save time, I see this as someone realising they needed subtitles code and mplayer had it already, so they did a quick cut&paste.

  • by manifest37 (632701) on Saturday January 03 2004, @12:33PM (#7867594)
    Soo if anybody is going i'm sure you'll be able to inquire about this issue. BTW it's January 8 through the 11th.
  • Quality sign (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Waldeinburg (737568) on Saturday January 03 2004, @12:39PM (#7867627)
    This shows that MPlayer is of a quality worth stealing. Way to go!
  • by InsomniaCity (599389) on Saturday January 03 2004, @12:45PM (#7867668)

    If it wasn't for the legal problems, I'd be quite impressed if my software was being used like this :)

  • Weird (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by Cat_Byte (621676) on Saturday January 03 2004, @01:00PM (#7867740)
    (Last Journal: Thursday November 03 2005, @02:42PM)
    They had to reverse engineer the KISS software to see the "stolen code". So why were they reverse engineering competitions code? Makes me wonder if THEY were planning on stealing code.
    • Re:Weird by dpete4552 (Score:2) Saturday January 03 2004, @02:23PM
      • Re:Weird by broeman (Score:2) Saturday January 03 2004, @03:11PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Is it possible to watermark code?

    Is it possible to change strings values and integer variables to contain cryptographic values?

    Is it possible to add bytes or set bits in the code that can be scanned for? what about all the wasted bits in enums?

    What about slight changes to all the enum values, all the contant values that are not really important. insertion of md5 checksums into the unused data of the program?

    That could be done to the source code at a given time. You could setup rules that would use parts of the codes values in the compiler to produce the checksum. The gcc could be extended to allow for a crytpgraphic digest function. That would allow for the code to be signed. Basically the checksum would be stored in the wasted space. When you have the checksum of the entire program (after scanning all the executabl code), you also know where are the free space is. Then you pass through that and insert the checksum into the free space. That is then a fingerprint of the program. Then you can check yourself if the code has been copied.

    Now to apply that to only parts of the code, given only the binaries? Well you could make it very hard to guess at all the changes made to the code.
    I think there is a big chance in watermarking code that could be recogised in the binaries.

    mike

    . What about hidden values in variable? Hidden constants? What about using cryptographic enums? If the enum values were generated by a cryptographic function, then you could look for them. The enum is generally 16-32 bit
  • I consider myself pro-GPL, but headlines like these really piss me off. It's not so much that the GPL is at fault in any way, but many people who advocate it seem to have the impression that the phrase "violating the GPL" is something that everyone should understand, and the bottom line is that it isn't. Further, it really only worsens the cause of people who advocate the GPL, because it further causes the misconception on the part of commercial entities that are against the GPL that it is the GPL itself that is bad for commercial software development. This is a false perception, but why further propogate that belief when it is trivial (and equally just) to avoid it?

    Instead of the folks at MPlayer saying that they are guilty of violating the GPL, which whether or not they are, is irrellevant, since the GPL itself is only a license and not actually law, why can't they just say that they are guilty of copyright infringement? This is a more likely statement to get some degree of respect from commercial developers, even those who might otherwise dislike the GPL, and may help soften the hearts of anti-GPLists. The statement that they are violating copyright is more accurate, since copyright actually *IS* law. Also, wording it in that way has the upshot of not helping to foster the misconception that the GPL is bad for commercial software development.

  • Amazing. (Score:2)

    by tachyonflow (539926) on Saturday January 03 2004, @02:31PM (#7868240)
    (http://davidsimmons.com/)
    It's hard to believe that companies are dumb enough to blatantly violate the intellectual property rights of open-source software. There's a possibility that KISS is just ignorant and thinks mplayer is some sort of public domain freeware or something. However, I've heard of companies stealing GPL code before. Perhaps their ignorance lies in thinking that noone will notice and they can get away with it.

    I've worked in the consumer electronics industry, and I can attest to the fact that mplayer is a sweet, sweet, sweet piece of code to these companies, and is great to use in products. One particular large corporation I've done consumer electronics work for leverages GPL code extensively, but goes to extreme painstaking measures to comply 100% with the GPL.

    I expect KISS to quickly do whatever it takes to comply with the GPL. No company pragmatic enough to have a released product should be willing to put their necks on the line in a GPL validation trial.

    (Argh, this "posting right after waking up" business has already led me to posting a blank message on this thread.)

    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by evilviper (135110) on Saturday January 03 2004, @02:50PM (#7868366)
    (Last Journal: Thursday November 29, @09:35PM)
    Here's my problem with MPlayer (as well as other GPL'd projects like LAME)...

    While they say they have a GPL'd project, the GPL explicitly forbids the distribution of GPL'd code if it falls under any enforcable patents.

    If you go to mplayer's site, you'll see that there are direct download links from the USA. So, at the very least, the MPlayer developers are implicit in the violation of the GPL license which they chose themselves. At worst, they are actively violating the license, and their entire project is illegial.

    I'm a big user of MPlayer myself, but I've always been disturbed by GPL hypocracy. Can anyone explain this issue away? If not, then how can they be so critical of companies that are just voilating the same license that they are currently violating?
  • free != free (Score:2, Interesting)

    by RVT (13770) on Saturday January 03 2004, @03:16PM (#7868505)
    Violating the GPL can cause 'real' monetary damages.

    Please get the concept that 'free' software can cost money!

    Just because English is a piss poor language does not mean reality has to accommodate it.

    How can an author lose mone by some company violating the GPL? Easy. If the company wanted to keep their modifications to my code proprietary, they would have to contact me for a licence other than the GPL, which I would have gladly given them; in return for some $$$.

    Get it now?

    This is why a lawsuit can show real damages. Based on the companies revenues and typical licence fees.

    P.s.: Most other languages seem to have different words for free/freedom and free/beer. Only native English speakers seem to be hung up on this.
  • In compliance with RMS? (Score:2, Funny)

    by CaptKilljoy (687808) on Saturday January 03 2004, @05:13PM (#7869059)
    Isn't RMS's stated goal to destroy copyright altogether? Logically, at that point anyone will be able to use or "steal" code in any way they want because there will be no way to enforce the author's wishes. Maybe KISS Technologies is just ahead of the game. ;)

    (I'm half serious here; what is supposed to happen after copyright no longer exists?)
  • From their website [kiss-technology.com] they have a page (about 3 clicks away from the product link [kiss-technology.com]) that seems pretty compliant, the label of the button that brings up that page says GPL on it. It was right under the support pages (from their top menu, second link from the left).
    I didn't RTFA though, so maybe there's something wrong/broken with this page? Or maybe MPlayer want's more credit on the packaging? (like a "Powered by MPlayer" sticker?)

    Maybe they just put that page up in the last day or two?

    Anywho, I'm off to read the actual MPlayer accusation page now...
  • by gr8_phk (621180) on Saturday January 03 2004, @06:17PM (#7869456)
    Remember what we've all learned from previous cases. One doesn't take someone to court for violating the GPL, you take them to court for violating your copyright. If they choose to claim the GPL allows redistribution then they've 1) admitted doing what you claim, and 2) validated their acceptance of GPL. Then they need to show they've complied with their end of the GPL, which is where the problem will be.
  • by swordgeek (112599) on Saturday January 03 2004, @07:04PM (#7869704)
    (Last Journal: Monday May 05 2003, @06:46PM)
    To the mplayer development team and anyone else concerned about this or any other hypothetical violation of an as-yet untested license, I say this:

    Put your money where your mouth is. If you can't negotiate with KISS, then take them to court. Prove or disprove the validity of your claims for once and for all.
  • by JudgeFurious (455868) on Saturday January 03 2004, @07:18PM (#7869772)
    I always knew Gene and Paul were evil and looking to grab whatever they could to make some more money (That's why Ace and Peter left) but this is simply unbelievable. KISS has done a lot of things in their time but this one takes the cake!

    That's the last time I pay to see their "Farewell" tour.

    RTFA? Oh wait, just a second.....nevermind about all that.
  • libjpeg?!! (Score:2)

    by Performer Guy (69820) on Saturday January 03 2004, @08:09PM (#7869988)
    GPL theft is GPL theft, but my eyes roll when these self serving police start to claim that libjpeg strings are in there too, as they are now claiming on their site. libjpeg is LGPL, it instantly calls into question their objectivity.
  • by LeftOfCentre (539344) on Saturday January 03 2004, @11:51PM (#7870808)
    A lot of people in this discussion are analyzing the consequences for KISS following a potential court defeat. However, are any of the people contributing to that discussion taking into consideration that KISS is a Danish company, not American, and that Danish law applies? Furthermore, MPlayer is also not American.
  • Re:Really In Violation ? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kastberg (726375) on Saturday January 03 2004, @09:42AM (#7866893)
    From Mplayers homepage: Kiss Technology failed to answer our inquiry for their source files (which they are obligated to provide), so this news entry is posted.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Really In Violation ? (Score:1, Redundant)

    by samhalliday (653858) on Saturday January 03 2004, @09:45AM (#7866901)
    (http://fommil.homeunix.org/~samuel | Last Journal: Wednesday March 10 2004, @08:30AM)
    does nobody RTFA aruond here??? i mean really, this is in the linked news article. and i quote

    "Kiss Technology failed to answer our inquiry for their source files (which they are obligated to provide), so this news entry is posted."

    hmm, i just got caught by a troll, didnt i :-/

    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Really In Violation ? (Score:3, Informative)

    by theefer (467185) * on Saturday January 03 2004, @09:45AM (#7866902)
    (http://sirius.cine7.net/)
    There are no notes on the MPlayer site stating that someone asked for the source code.

    Yes there is :
    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.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Really In Violation ? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sacarino (619753) on Saturday January 03 2004, @09:46AM (#7866905)
    (http://meh/)
    Um. Not to be difficult or anything, but the last bit of the news article states...

    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 ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Doesn't this count as fair use? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jrockway (229604) <jon-nospam@jrock.us> on Saturday January 03 2004, @09:48AM (#7866915)
    (http://blog.jrock.us/ | Last Journal: Sunday October 10 2004, @04:11AM)
    Are you smoking crack? Personal use? They're using (maybe) MPlayer's source SO THAT THIER PRODUCT WILL SELL. That's not personal use. That's comercial use.

    And not costing MPlayer a penny? No. But you can't copy the source or binaries unless you accept the GPL which says you have to release your modified code. Frankly, if the Mplayer team found strings in there then they didn't do much modifying of the code, eh? So they can just put mplayer.tar.bz2 on their website and everyone will be happy.

    I think you know that though. Your post read like you were trying to be `funny' by comparing/parodying slashdotter's views on compying mp3s. Frankly, that IS fair use because 1) there's no license and 2) they're raping you by charging too much money. Mplayer costs exactly $0.00 to use in your product. See the difference?
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:I own one, it rocks. (Score:4, Informative)

    by jetmarc (592741) on Saturday January 03 2004, @09:56AM (#7866946)
    > I own one of their players (The DP-450). I love it, simply love it.

    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)

    by gellenburg (61212) <george@ellenburg.org> on Saturday January 03 2004, @10:01AM (#7866965)
    (http://www.ellenburg.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday April 15 2006, @01:04AM)
    It is products like these that are important to the Open Source community.

    How, exactly?

    Really, I'm being serious.

    • Does KISS donate any revenues or profits received to any OSS projects?
    • Does KISS publicly acknowledge and recognize the hard work from all the MPlayer developers?
      • After all, their product wouldn't be what it is today without the hard work of others.
    • Does KISS offer to host a mirror of the MPlayer code & binaries to help show their support?
    • Does KISS contribute back their code changes to the MPlayer project so the entire project benefits? (changes do not have to be accepted, however.)

    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. by UltraWide (Score:1) Saturday January 03 2004, @10:10AM
      • Re:I own one, it rocks. by gellenburg (Score:1) Saturday January 03 2004, @10:26AM
        • Re:I own one, it rocks. by Jah-Wren Ryel (Score:2) Saturday January 03 2004, @10:54AM
        • Re:I own one, it rocks. by HiThere (Score:2) Saturday January 03 2004, @11:15AM
          • Re:I own one, it rocks. (Score:4, Informative)

            by raindog2 (91790) on Saturday January 03 2004, @11:57AM (#7867448)
            (http://www.kudla.org/)

            OTOH, making the source available on the internet is one of the specifically allowed methods of distributing it under the GPL.


            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 ]
      • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:I own one, it rocks. by StormReaver (Score:2) Saturday January 03 2004, @06:22PM
  • I'm really curious about that one.

    Also, does it play other codecs like xvid or lavc, or files with features like b-frames, qpel, and gmc ?

    [ Parent ]
  • by daserver (524964) on Saturday January 03 2004, @10:23AM (#7867048)
    (http://www.iola.dk/)
    " Buy it. It is products like these that are important to the Open Source community." What have they ever done for the Open Source community? Not like Lindows that actually gives back to the community (reiser, gaim). Sigma (the chipmaker of the gfx used) has a very long history of _not_ complying[1] and even releasing specs[2] for their hardware. So if you want to "support" Open Source I would recommond not to buy anything with these sigma chips! [1] http://www.busybox.net/shame.html [2] http://dxr3.sourceforge.net
    [ Parent ]
  • only if it is a customer of theirs (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nietsch (112711) on Saturday January 03 2004, @10:25AM (#7867058)
    (http://linux-studie.nl/ | Last Journal: Wednesday April 21 2004, @01:22PM)
    The GPL states that you only have to provide the sources along with the distibution. The distibution is in this case embedded in their player, so the only thing they would have to answer to is a demand from a verified owner of the player.

    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 ]
  • by damiam (409504) <davmre@gmaCOLAil.com minus caffeine> on Saturday January 03 2004, @10:40AM (#7867116)
    How they got access to the C code for the comparisons if the ROM is closed source?

    They ran "strings" on the binary, and compared the output to "strings" on the mplayer binary. It's fairly obvious the code is the same.

    It's there for download, only a click away of the firmware page!

    No, that's code for uclinux and busybox. The code for the modified mplayer is not included.

    [ Parent ]
  • by dollargonzo (519030) on Saturday January 03 2004, @10:41AM (#7867118)
    (http://slashdot.org/)
    they *didn't* get access to the C code. if you were careful enough to RTFA on the mplayer website you would have noticed that all they did was compare strings from the binaries.

    it's been mentioned a number of times in different posts: the source code provided on the kiss website is *not* for the allegedly stolen code.

    plus, that lame linux kernel vulnerability *was* kind of lame, as the fix wasn't included until 2.4.23. debian got hit with it too :)

    if you read the *reason* for switching from debian to slackware is that the old maintainer knew debian and the new one doesn't. a bunch of hungarians might not necessarily be the nicest guys in the world, but they aren't stupid either.

    [ Parent ]
  • by Kymermosst (33885) on Saturday January 03 2004, @11:10AM (#7867235)
    (Last Journal: Thursday November 01, @09:12PM)
    How they got access to the C code for the comparisons if the ROM is closed source? It's there for download, only a click away of the firmware page!

    RTFA, and follow the F links. They aren't comparing C code to C code. They downloaded the firmware update from KiSS (which is binary), and compared it to the MPlayer binary using the "strings" program. It's all posted right there on MPlayer's home page.

    KiSS offers some GPL source code, but only for busybox and uClibc, I believe.

    Mplayer are famous for two main reasons: first, for programming a killer app for linux, and second, for their constant insults to others developers...

    I'm sure they'd insult you, too, after reading your ignorant post.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:I own a KiSS 450 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tin Foil Hat (705308) on Saturday January 03 2004, @12:09PM (#7867503)
    This isn't about whether or not the MPlayer guys are socially adept, it's about whether or not KiSS Tech is violating their license.

    Even assholes have rights, no matter how much other assholes might dislike them.
    [ Parent ]
  • Question (Score:2)

    by metamatic (202216) on Saturday January 03 2004, @12:26PM (#7867570)
    (http://www.pobox.com/~meta/ | Last Journal: Sunday February 29 2004, @09:19AM)
    Does it play MPEG-4 files? I've been unable to find a definitive answer. It says in the spec it does, but has anyone actually tested giving it a .MP4 file and seeing if it plays?

    I'm not interested in AVI files, I want real MPEG-4 support.
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Question by UltraWide (Score:1) Saturday January 03 2004, @01:35PM
    • Re:Question by bobstay (Score:1) Saturday January 03 2004, @03:39PM
  • Re:NOT NEWS!!! (Score:1)

    by Namaseit (668654) on Saturday January 03 2004, @02:36PM (#7868273)
    Maybe you should RTFA and look at some of the other posts. They are not distributing the source of MPlayer. The only thing they are distributing on their site is Linux kernel and busybox. No Mplayer code. So maybe *YOU* should check before you open your mouth.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Almost as bad as the RIAA (Score:3, Informative)

    by 1000StonedMonkeys (593519) on Saturday January 03 2004, @05:37PM (#7869160)

    No, he's actually correct. He's just been using mplayer longer than you.

    Back in the early days of Mplayer the developers used some third party code that wasn't released under the GPL. As a result, they forbid people from distributing binaries of MPlayer, as they felt that this would violate the GPL. Eventually that code was replaced, and you can now get MPlayer binaries legally, but this wasn't always the case.

    Not quite the same situation same situation as KISS, but worth noting none the less.

    [ Parent ]
  • by cerenyx (250774) on Sunday January 04 2004, @12:30AM (#7871038)
    (Last Journal: Monday January 12 2004, @10:47AM)
    That's an exaggeration of the common set of attitudes on Slashdot; there tends to be no explicit endorsement of music piracy here. But I would agree that:

    Someone finds way to circumvent DRM and publishes it, effectively allowing other people to copy 10,000 songs == Slashdot hero.

    Though similarly

    Apple finds way to sell music cheaply, using a business model that works -- iTunes == Slashdot hero.

    Seriously, sometimes I think you would actually DIE for the GPL. GET A LIFE!

    For many developers, the GPL is the assurance they hang on to that their hard coding efforts don't go down the drain, or go towards helping some other n00b yuppie get a new bungalow, because he ripped off someone else's open source. Though the usual copyright laws still apply, the GPL is an added layer of assurance, and is thus defended as such.
    [ Parent ]
  • 18 replies beneath your current threshold.