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This discussion has been archived.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)