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."
sweet player... (Score:1, Interesting)
Mplayer deserves it's props... (Score:5, Interesting)
I quickly made a list of all of my 10+ gigs of mp3/m4a files just using find and grep...touched it up a bit in vim and then use "aterm -e mplayer -playlist
Yeah, I probably could do this with xmms...but why?
Give Mplayer it's due. It's a fine piece of software and they deserve all the recognition they get.
Re: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:Really In Violation ? (Score:4, Interesting)
You, my friend, are not aware of the SCO case. (Score:3, Interesting)
Start reading here
groklaw [groklaw.net]Re:acknowledgement vs. DMCA (Score:4, Interesting)
Could this be true, or am I missinterrupting the DMCA (shudder, I hate that thing)?
But, has anybody ever been sued for GPL violation? (Score:3, Interesting)
If nobody ever gets in any trouble for using GPL code in a closed project, then isn't it reasonable to assume that it'll happen more often?
And who is supposed to hire the lawyers on behalf of a free project? And don't tell me FSF will just handle everybody's legal troubles pro-bono...
Re:But, has anybody ever been sued for GPL violati (Score:3, Interesting)
If the FSF gets one or two cases with significant penalties, companies will fall in line. If a company knowning violates the GPL and sells a billion dollars worth a product they could face huge penalties - the loss of several billion dollars isn't worth saving a few million in development costs by ripping off the code...
Re:only if it is a customer of theirs (Score:4, Interesting)
We'll just have to see what KISS says about this. If they release the source, it's probably all good (at least it has been for the FSF in the past)
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.
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.
Re:Not the way to do it (Score:3, Interesting)
Hi Alan,
True. But you have to agree there was some degree of professional neglect on their part. While it's true the GPL doesn't necessarrily require an inheritant to go out of their way to contact the benefactor, as is the case with KISS, its good practice to do so, at least from a professional standpoint.
AFAIK, nothing in the GPL obligates me KISS to have any substantial dialogue with the mplayer guys. Much the same as nothing obligates me to say "thank you" when someone keeps an elevator door open for me. It's just common courtesy. KISS should have acknoqledged their concerns. GPL or not, it's undeniably rude to take someone's code and run off making major commercial plans with it. Call it personal consideration, professional ethics, or whatever.. I don't think it's beyond the ability of any company, no matter how large, to be considerate to people.
(For the record, I couldn't manage to send a fax to them. And it was worded much like above, not a flaming zealous nasty-gram. )
Cheers,
Isnt Kiss using Sigma Design tech? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Where's the accusation? (Score:1, Interesting)
This seems like a growing trend that is getting out of control, and we can't do anything about it. The worst we could do is force them to not use the gpl'd software and hit them up for lawyers fee's.
for most companies thats not even a dent in the wallet, so i guarantee they will continue to use gpl'd software incorrectly with not even a slap on the wrist.
Re:The GPL is headed for a showdown... (Score:3, Interesting)
So within the bounds of the legal system, I think the GPL holds little sway. However, what companies are intimidated by is the possibility of a boycott. The market of poeple who care about the GPL and stay aware of these cases maybe relatively small, but still sizable. For an embedded device company in particular, where the main draw is the hardware and the software merely an enabler for selling the hardware, the cost of disclosing source is infinitely smaller than even 300 lost customers due to boycott. Now for software packages that offer little benefit over a lesser known open source package they based themselves on, things change, as disclosing source under GPL means that a) competing almost as good free package gets attention and they lose sales and b) people can redistribute their product under terms of GPL and they face a new competing product they helped to develop and receive no benefit. However, for these companies they would likely want to keep the whole thing quiet (don't want potential customers finding out there is an open source project out there that is almost as good as their commercial product), and make a donation in exchange for the project not complaining loudly about the violation.
Quality sign (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:But, has anybody ever been sued for GPL violati (Score:5, Interesting)
The FSF is definitely about activism. Not all programmers are activists, but the FSF believes that the GPL gives them an edge that no proprietary development firm can beat - the fact that even if only a minority of GPL software users give back, they still receive more than proprietary vendors do from their community.
I'm not bashing those who disagree with the FSF - as I said the FSF is definitely an activist group. But they obviously have been successful despite their requirements regarding copyright assignment. GCC is probably the most widely used compiler there is...
You want recognition? Then don't use GPL! (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
How odd to read someone writing negatively about violation of the GPL when the one thing that the FSF said made the original BSD license non-free was the advertising clause! If you want credit that badly, use a license that insists upon it. The GPL doesn't ask for it, and asks for a lot of other stuff, so it apparently doesn't matter to folks who release their code under the GPL.
Re:The GPL is headed for a showdown... (Score:3, Interesting)
GPL is a license like any other. To use the software, you must adhere to its rules.
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.
Re:Minor correction. (Score:2, Interesting)
Lets see if we can resolve that address:
Hrrmmm...
Lets just check [keylanroute.com].
Magic internet faries, you've done it again.
Forgive my sarcasm, I've been battling AC's and its left me jaded and cynical.
Re:source available for download... (Score:3, Interesting)
The parent was correct. The free for providing the source cannot exceed the costs for physically transferring the source. See GPL section 3b:
" b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange;..."
However, I may have discovered a loophole that allows the charges to be extremely high, and here it is:
The GPL does not state that fees cannot exceed the cost of physically distributing that copy of the source, but merely that the fee cannot exceed the cost of source distribution.
Suppose your primary method of source distribution is Internet based and you maintain your own T3 (for example). You could theoretically and arbitrarily assign a large portion of the total T3 maintenance cost to providing bandwidth for source distribution for all the programs you provide in binary-only form.
Then you provide your binaries with the written offer for the source, but you charge each recipient, for each source package, the assigned costs of maintaining your T3. This can easily run into thousands of dollars per source package.
Common sense would suggest that the intent of the GPL applies not to your cost to provide source as a whole, but the cost of transferring just that one copy of the source. However, the GPL is somewhat ambiguous in that regard.
Yes... and No... (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, but...
"Contract Law" is a bit like saying "Intellectual property". It isn't right. Contract law is really "tort" law, and a "tort" is a twisting (violation etc) of an agreement. The word "contract" is just a place-holder for the formula for an agreement, and it is broader than you might imagine.
A contract exists when (if I recall correctly) consideration (value) is exchanged under terms of agreement. In point of fact, there is legal precident for the idea of a "social contract". In other words, a contract is just an agreement of a certian complexity that meets certian requirements. All the penalties and violations happen in/as "tort" and that is a broad brush indeed.
In gerenral, if the author finds value in having his work used, and indeed worked on or modified and distributed, this argument becomes stronger. But... (always more buts... 8-)
-- Default terms were offered.
-- Acceptance of those terms is inferred by re-distribution. (this is as valid as a click-through in terms of being evidence of agreement.)
-- Value was exchanged more-or-less, though some of that value is a little esoteric.
-- The failure of KISS to fulfill their agreement is tort (kind of like not paying after you agreed to pay.)
IF you insist that you had no agreement *THEN* it is copyright issue.
The thing is, there is nothing to be had by persuing the tort, as the tort can be resolved by providing the source and licencing terms. The remedies under tort are huge if you *need* the product and you insist on your refusal to pony up the source. This is why the GPL violations are essentially resolved by production of the source, which is much easier than pulling the product etc. If the distributor fulfills the agreement and causes the tort to disapear, the issue is over.
GOD SAVE the company that insists the GPL is invalid, refuses to comply whit it, has not other agreement to use the material, and thereby gets things promoted into the copyright law.
So, in fact, the License Agreement is a contract. But just as a man with a legion standing behind him is stronger than a man standing alone; the license agreement (as a concept) has copyright law standing behind it. It creates a "deal with me or deal with my armies" kind of condrum that brings lawyers nicely to heel.
These bodies of law overlap a good bit, but here is the key thing: I have a copyright and I proffer terms for its use. There isn't a special body of law saying what those terms may be. There are no explicit "copyright assignment statutes". The fact that I cannot require you to do bizzare and incidental things comes from "contract law" and not copyright law. The word "agreement" is the great unifier here. Only certian kinds of agreements are enforcable. What those kinds are is covered in contract law. (and so on, forever, ahmen... 8-)
The GPL is a CONTRACT dealing with the assignments of copyright rights.
just as
The purchase agreement on a home is a CONTRACT dealing with the transfer of real property (rights) between parties.
just as
If I ignore my Microsoft EULA, particularly if I do something having nothing to do with "copying" such as actually securing my system against Microsoft's right to snoop on and upgrade my box (8-) or deleting all the microsoft logos and replacing them with pictures of blowfish, I am liable for things like lawyers fees but I am not automatically thrown to the $150,000 sharks.
If you violate the GPL, you tort a contract, if you abrogate that contract by any means so there is no governing agreement at all, THEN the copyright holder can hammer you for viloating his copyrights.
Remember, there is no magic to "signing something", a signature is *ONLY* evidence of agreement. For a contract to exist there needs *only* be an agreement by all parties that isn't otherwise illegal as an agreement per-se. (e.g. an contract to murder someone isn't legally