Slashdot Mirror
Mplayer Charges License Violation
Several people have submitted stories about the author of Mplayer accusing Warpvision of, err, "borrowing" their code for Warpvision's OS/2 player. I have two reactions - one, someone still uses OS/2? And two, something about imitation being the sincerest form of flattery...Update from CD: Hold on there, everyone. I downloaded the WarpVision source and lo and behold the GPL is there in all its free software glory. I think Mplayer spoke too soon, too rashly, or alternatively, WarpVision was just too slow to update thier site. I'd love to hear both sides of this before we all freak out. Further Info: It was pointed out to me (CD) that the MPlayer program itself is not Open Source software (it calls itself Basically GPL, which, BTW, hasn't been approved by the OSI), so in the end this might just be proprietary software piracy. (Yawn)
Of course there is, just calling it "theft" is a misnomer. They're not stealing per se (unless they use the said information to take from the person whose identity they're using), they're illegally misrepresenting themselves, something like fraud. Of course, that's not what we call it, but the term does not change what it is.
I never said it must deal with the tangible. I said that to truly be theft, it must take away from a party. This is not the same as just taking without the "away" part. Remember, I said your rights are being stolen here. Rights are certainly not (directly) tangible items.
Aside from Mplayer not actually being under the GPL per se, let's assume for the sake of discussion it is. Taking GPL code and using it in a non-GPL product is not "stealing code," it is copyright infringement. It is "stealing community rights." That's what I'm saying.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Under the GPL, this sort of using is encouraged.
Correct. While complying with the license. By not releasing the source, their right to use the source was gone, and the effectively stole.
Look at this way: You walk into a car dealership and take a car out for a test drive. Fine, right? There's nothing wrong with that; it's fully legal. Now what if you don't come back? That's grand theft. Try telling the judge you were just "test-driving" the car all the way to Mexico.
If license violation can be proved to be intentional, that would be considered stealing. Period. (Again, assuming the GPL holds up in court.)
MPlayer:
1) contains GPL'ed code.
2) Says they have a license that doesn't allow binary distribution. At no point is that license documented anywhere, nor is it listed on which files it applies to.
3) MPlayer has beefs with _anyone_ distributing binary packages, including distributions, such as Mandrake and Debian. No wonder I didn't know they existed.
Primarily it seems that their beef is with having to support other people's compiles. Of course, they are perfectly allowed to selectively apply support, and to even put restrictions on re-distribution of the code that they wrote. Of course, that does mean that they will need to specifically _list_ the restricted code, which they haven't done.
Personally, I think MPlayer is just bitching because they are getting newbie questions on the mailing list. I think they've got a crap architecture (since it requires compile-time selection of platform). I also think that it would be very nice for someone to take the code, replace the non-GPL bits, and allow people to get on with their lives.
Jason Pollock