MPlayer Alleges KISS Technology Violating GPL 423
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."
Where's the accusation? (Score:5, Informative)
source available for download... (Score:3, Informative)
this page suggests they are compliant (Score:2, Informative)
Re:this page suggests they are compliant (Score:1, Informative)
Re:source available for download... (Score:2, 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:source available for download... (Score:1, Informative)
It appears you misunderstood the parent post.
Re:this page suggests they are compliant (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The GPL is headed for a showdown... (Score:5, Informative)
I own one, it rocks. (Score:0, Informative)
I have the low-end because the networked one (DP-500) wans't in stock but I got this one cheap.
I don't think they have violated the GPL
If you get the chance and have the money. Buy it. It is products like these that are important to the Open Source community.
Re:Really In Violation ? (Score:3, Informative)
Yes there is
Re:Really In Violation ? (Score:5, Informative)
Every single one of their patterns match ours! This is not coincidence. This is stealing GPL code into a proprietary product! Kiss Technology failed to answer our inquiry for their source files (which they are obligated to provide), so this news entry is posted.
Sure looks like they asked for the source to me.
Re:The GPL is headed for a showdown... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The GPL is headed for a showdown... (Score:5, Informative)
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:The GPL is headed for a showdown... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Where's the accusation? (Score:5, Informative)
Main [mplayerhq.hu]
2 [mplayerhq.hu]
Switzerland [mplayerhq.hu]
Finland [mplayerhq.hu]
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).
download link for kiss source (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.kiss-technology.com/?p=hot_news&v=user
Re:But, has anybody ever been sued for GPL violati (Score:3, Informative)
AFAIK, it's never gone to court.
If nobody ever gets in any trouble for using GPL code in a closed project, then isn't it reasonable to assume that it'll happen more often?
I'd have to assume it'd be a gamble for both sides... would you really want to be the first company to test out the GPL? And even if you won, is that really the kind of PR you want?
And who is supposed to hire the lawyers on behalf of a free project? And don't tell me FSF will just handle everybody's legal troubles pro-bono...
I believe they will [fsf.org], if you sign over the copyright:
"...only the copyright holders are empowered to act against violations. The FSF acts on all GPL violations reported on FSF copyrighted code, and we offer assistance to any other copyright holder who wishes to do the same."
And failing that, don't forget that a lot of companies have significant interest in GPL'd software (think IBM, Novell, etc). If the GPL really ever came into question, I imagine you'd see more than a few significant financial contributions from third parties.
Re:acknowledgement vs. DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So Sue, Or Risk Making GPL Unenforceable (Score:3, Informative)
But their actions have no bearing on whether you or I can legally enforce the GPL against software we have created and released under the GPL. The GPL is just contractual language. Just because you may fail to enforce your contracts doesn't affect my ability to enforce my contracts even if the contracts we use use the same language.
If your line of reasoning applied, most of the real estate contracts people use (which are mostly standardized) would be unenforceable because many people fail to enforce their contractual rights under them.
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.
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
Re:I own one, it rocks. (Score:4, Informative)
Not entirely true. Read the GPL FAQ [gnu.org]:
Q. I want to distribute binaries without accompanying sources. Can I provide source code by FTP instead of by mail order?
A. You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the mail-order option, but FTP access to the source is not sufficient to satisfy section 3 of the GPL.
When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get the source from you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the job. But not every user can do such a download. The rest of the users are just as entitled to get the source code from you, which means you must be prepared to send it to them by post.
If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship one. But you cannot assume that.
Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the binary in the first place.
So as long as no one requests a physical copy of the source, you're right, sticking it on your site for them is good enough. The 24MB source zip file would be a little tough on dialup users, so there could be a case where they're required to provide the source on CD or whatever.
In any event, I just downloaded said file and here's what it contains (edited for lameness):
Archive: GPL.zip
Length Name
751701 busybox.tar.gz
24236327 uClinux-2.4.17.tar.gz
24988028 2 files
So unless they're offering the mplayer source separately, they're probably in violation of the GPL anyway.
Re:acknowledgement (Score:4, Informative)
While I fully agree that anyone stealing GPL software deserves whatever lawsuits they get, the Mplayer team has violated the GPL [debian.org] in the past as well.
Re:A taste of their own medicine (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe but it is distributed on and by the mplayer site, just click on "downloads".
You can compile mplayer entirely from source with DivX, mpeg4 and Quicktime support.
Yes. But they still distribute those binary codecs [mplayerhq.hu] in clear violation of the law.
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."
Re:The GPL is headed for a showdown... (Score:3, Informative)
The OSI which approves the GPL is the Open Source Initiative [opensource.org].
OSI, as an OSI 7-layer model, stands for Open Systems Interconnect [ic.ac.uk] and the standard is set by the International Organization for Standardization [www.iso.ch] (I guess IOS was already a Cisco trademark or something...).
copyright holder entitled to infringer's profits (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the award is not necessarily based on the copyright holder's actual damages. According to 17 USC 504 (a), "an infringer of copyright is liable for either... the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c)." The emphasis on the additional profits language is mine, but it's important: the copyright holder is entitled to any additional profits the infringer made through use of the infringing material.
Even in cases where it's difficult to prove damages or additional profits from the infringing material, the copyright holder is entitled to statutory damages. See 17 USC 504 (c). That's $30,000 for infringement in general, and $150,000 if it's willful infringement. An infringer who uses language like "KISS off" or an infringer finding themselves back in court for doing it again will probably be facing the $150,000 number. Paying the judgement does not entitle you to future use of the copyrighted work.
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:source available for download... (Score:1, Informative)
No, you didn't. IF you had you would know it does not contain the MPlayer changes or source.
HTH. GFY.
Re:Explain that, please (Score:3, Informative)
It uses patented technologies (which they certainly have not payed the royalties for). In Hungary, software patents are not (yet?) in existance, so it is legal to distribute from mplayerhq.hu. However, within the United States, the patents that apply to the program run afoul of the GPL (read the addition restrictions section of the GPL).
By distributing it from a country where it violates patents, they are violating the terms of the GPL.