Slashdot Log In
MPlayer Alleges KISS Technology Violating GPL
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Sat Jan 03, 2004 09:16 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This discussion has been archived.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.
MPlayer Alleges KISS Technology Violating GPL
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 423 comments
| Search Discussion
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)
Re:Where's the accusation? (Score:5, Informative)
Main [mplayerhq.hu]
2 [mplayerhq.hu]
Switzerland [mplayerhq.hu]
Finland [mplayerhq.hu]
A taste of their own medicine (Score:1, Insightful)
don't Mplayer distribute hacked unauthorised divX,mpg4 and quicktime and realaudio
funny how the tables turn
Re:A taste of their own medicine (Score:5, Funny)
The Devil himself?!?! (Score:4, Funny)
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,
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.
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.
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.
Re:But, has anybody ever been sued for GPL violati (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
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...
Re:But, has anybody ever been sued for GPL violati (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.manu.com.au/)
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.
sweet player... (Score:1, Interesting)
(http://www.jthundley.com/)
Re:sweet player... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://urandom.ca/)
Well, if they stole MPlayer's code, they get Ogg support without having to be cool and open-minded. :)
Jason.
This is great... (Score:2, Insightful)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA-DReZYftg | Last Journal: Sunday November 12 2006, @01:05AM)
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... (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.gh-sts.com/HOWTO | Last Journal: Tuesday November 01 2005, @09:39PM)
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.
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.
Mplayer deserves it's props... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://scottgant.blogspot.com/)
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.
The GPL is headed for a showdown... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday September 28 2006, @01:08PM)
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)
(http://fredrik.obra.se/)
Re:The GPL is headed for a showdown... (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Thursday September 28 2006, @01:08PM)
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).
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.
copyright holder entitled to infringer's profits (Score:5, Informative)
(http://brianr.978.org/)
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.
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.
Re:The GPL is headed for a showdown... (Score:5, Informative)
Kiss off (Score:3, Funny)
(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)
(http://www.linux.org.uk/diary)
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.
Re:Not the way to do it (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/~demi | Last Journal: Wednesday May 30 2007, @01:36PM)
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.
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)
(Last Journal: Tuesday April 17 2007, @10:25AM)
Could this be true, or am I missinterrupting the DMCA (shudder, I hate that thing)?
Re:acknowledgement vs. DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:acknowledgement (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.nixnuts.net/ | Last Journal: Monday November 01 2004, @01:43PM)
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.
GPL notice included in KISS DP-508 Media Player (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.ibiblio.org/propaganda)
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.
Gene Simmons and Peter Criss aren't... (Score:2, Funny)
(Last Journal: Thursday September 28 2006, @01:08PM)
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)
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)
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)
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.
So Sue, Or Risk Making GPL Unenforceable (Score:2)
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)
(http://t-butter.de/)
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."
yet again, clueless open source developers... (Score:1, Flamebait)
(http://www.michaelchaney.com/)
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)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday February 11 2004, @08:13AM)
I have been saying that M$ has been... (Score:1)
Greedy Stupid Bastards (Score:1, Redundant)
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.
CES (Score:1)
Stand Clear and fingers in youre ear! (Score:2, Informative)
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
Isnt Kiss using Sigma Design tech? (Score:2, Interesting)
What people keep forgetting... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
kiss will be at CES las vegas (Score:1)
Quality sign (Score:2, Interesting)
Imitation is the highest form of flattery? (Score:1)
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)
(Last Journal: Thursday November 03 2005, @02:42PM)
Cryptographic enums for code watermarking? (Score:1)
(http://introspector.sourceforge.net/ | Last Journal: Saturday December 11 2004, @08:42AM)
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
This is why so many dislike the GPL (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Tuesday September 12 2006, @03:31PM)
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)
(http://davidsimmons.com/)
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.)
Well, what about their own violations? (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Thursday November 29, @09:35PM)
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)
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)
(I'm half serious here; what is supposed to happen after copyright no longer exists?)
Uhm... Doesn't this mean they're okay? (Score:1)
(http://slashdot.org/~x00101010x/)
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...
Violating copyright (Score:2)
Shit or get off the pot (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Monday May 05 2003, @06:46PM)
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.
Damn Their Black Hearts! Damn Them to Hell! (Score:2)
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)
US law irrelevant here (Score:2)
Re:Really In Violation ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Really In Violation ? (Score:1, Redundant)
(http://fommil.homeunix.org/~samuel | Last Journal: Wednesday March 10 2004, @08:30AM)
"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 :-/
Re:Really In Violation ? (Score:3, Informative)
(http://sirius.cine7.net/)
Yes there is
Re:Really In Violation ? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://meh/)
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.
Re:Doesn't this count as fair use? (Score:2, Insightful)
(http://blog.jrock.us/ | Last Journal: Sunday October 10 2004, @04:11AM)
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?
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.
Re:I own one, it rocks. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.ellenburg.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday April 15 2006, @01:04AM)
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.
Re:I own one, it rocks. (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.kudla.org/)
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.
Does it play files with mplayer format subtitles ? (Score:1)
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/dougs55)
Also, does it play other codecs like xvid or lavc, or files with features like b-frames, qpel, and gmc ?
Re:I own one, it rocks. (Score:2)
(http://www.iola.dk/)
only if it is a customer of theirs (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://linux-studie.nl/ | Last Journal: Wednesday April 21 2004, @01:22PM)
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...
Re:only if it is a customer of theirs (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://jdhutchin.ath.cx/)
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)
Re:I own a KiSS 450 (Score:1)
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.
Re:I own a KiSS 450 (Score:2)
(http://slashdot.org/)
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.
Re:I own a KiSS 450 (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Thursday November 01, @09:12PM)
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.
Re:I own a KiSS 450 (Score:3, Insightful)
Even assholes have rights, no matter how much other assholes might dislike them.
Question (Score:2)
(http://www.pobox.com/~meta/ | Last Journal: Sunday February 29 2004, @09:19AM)
I'm not interested in AVI files, I want real MPEG-4 support.
Re:NOT NEWS!!! (Score:1)
Re:Almost as bad as the RIAA (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:But it's still ok to violate RIAA copyrights? (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Monday January 12 2004, @10:47AM)
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.