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)
They'll probably still be using it in 2101, too. Watch out; they're a rabid bunch. To imply that OS/2 is on its way out will surely result in a swift and vicious attack.
Michael, please click the link to Mplayer's site. They took the entirety of the mplayer source, changed the output plugin for OS/2, and released it as binary-only. It appears that source has now been released and the issue has been resolved, but at least read the article before letting them off light. They tried to pull a fast one on Mplayer using very little or no code of their own. I don't know if you call that imitation, I call it stealing.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
Yes, the commuity radio station that I volunteer at uses it on one computer for their satellite downloads.
Damnit, Jim, I'm an anarchist, not a F@#$!^& doctor!
I guess FSF (Free Software Foundation), ffmpeg authors, would eagerly sue them to fucking hell! Such an action against humanity can't go unpunished! They will die a dog's death for sure I swear! Lay back, we'll teach them that stealing from OpenSource is a BAD thing, and stealing from MPlayer is even WORSE!
Take it easy, guys. Nobody needs to die a dog's death here. It'll all work out. Relax, smell the flowers. It's just software. Hey, what are you doing with that axe? aaaaaaaaggg
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
Who knows the truth? I don't, but if they did "borrow" the code, at least they 'fessed up pretty quick. Perhaps we should of asked first what was happening?
I have suffered way too many "Still using CLI?" for using Linux, haven't you? If someone want to *write* programs for OS/2, all the power to them. "Burrowing" source code is not so good, but that is cleared up now (read above posts!).
Codeala - Just another mindless drone
Im sure it is the otherway around I have heard bout Microsoft mettings where they talk about reverse engineering all the time. And if they can decompile and reverse engineer it they buy it.
Support Texas Troops use TXGoogle
Go to Mplayers Home Page, they used the entire code of Mplayer and only changed the output plugin.
--
FearLinux.com
Michael, computing has cultural implications and you're a jerk.
how can a russian coder steal source code? he's using it in a way the author did not intend, but he's not under the same laws. in russia, code is not property, and unless it is property, it cannot be stolen.
No, it is not flattery, it is plagiarism.
Cave, wreck, and deep diver.
My division of Prudential Insurance (Can't say where, sorry) uses OS/2 on all its desktops here, that's 3,000 machines. Nifty OS!
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
" I have two reactions - one, someone still uses OS/2? And two, something about imitation being the sincerest form of flattery..."
So basically, if I break in and steal Michael's computer, he won't want me prosecuted so long as I explain to him that I was flattering him by imitating him
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
...
Isn't that the ./-way?
Buurrrap. Oops, must've been the turkey.
Poof.
Firstar bank uses OS/2 in their ATM's for some ungodly reason. A friend of mine recently lost their old revision card in a machine - it rebooted when they tried to withdraw, and watched in horror as it went through an OS/2 bootup sequence.
In any case, I would hope the matter is settled, and a proper port of mplayer done.
so yeah, it looks like they *did* steal some source code from mplayer. "but now they've released source, its ok," you say. no it isn't. apparently, they now claim that warpvision is/was GPL software. well, mplayer is released under a couple of licenses... its not all GPL, so that does not allow redistribution completely under GPL for derived works. (does that make sense to antybody else?) hmmm...
i do have to say, however, that i'm a bit disappointed in Arpad's rather immature reaction.
Arpad! you listening? rabit, knee-jerk reactions like this make us look bad. i have a lot of respect for you as a programmer, but your reaction is way out of line.
"They will die a dog's death for sure I swear!" its SOFTWARE, for god's sake. lighten up.
The update to this story mentions that everything's ok because the WarpVision code has the GPL, but the Mplayer author contends that Mplayer is not GPL, hence the following quote from the Mplayer homepage:
They also claim to be GPL. They aren't because MPlayer that they modified, also isn't GPL. It has its own license. So that's another lie.
"Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
Check the Mplayer web site. (they have an update in response to the source release) This is not resolved yet.
One of the big issues appears to be that Warpvision is GPL, but Mplayer is NOT GPL. It has its own, different license. Just taking the code and changing the license to one you like better (even if it is the GPL) is not acceptable, no matter how much credit you give people.
Believe it or not, there is this thing called "open source", based on the little-known fact that if you get information from someone, they still have it. Or at least I think some guys named Thomas Jefferson, Richard Stallman, and Eric Raymond were saying something about that. I think they, like, said something about how it's different from material things because you don't deprive the original owner of it when you "steal" it.
Good analogy, otherwise. *cough*
They stole, but this is not what they stole. Using someone else's code is not stealing, since the party whose code is used does not lose their code. Under the GPL, this sort of using is encouraged. After all, this is one of the things Free Software is truly about. So they did not "take" Mplayer's code, or "steal" Mplayer's code, they used it, and that's fine.
But then, they stole. (If indeed this is what happened... that's what is claimed, and seems to be resolved, and we will for discussion assume it is the case.) They stole from the community the right and ability to reuse and modify the code. This is what the GPL is designed to protect. And this is where we must be careful.
Code cannot be stolen. No form of "intellectual property" can be stolen by being copied and used. This is not stealing, there is no loss. The loss and theft occurs when the right and ability to modify and use or reuse is taken away. This right is the only thing that can truly be taken away by theft. Let us all beware of such things.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
OS/2 is still widely used in banking, as the underlying OS for ATM machines and elsewhere whenever uptime and reliability are of utmost importance. Personally, I haven't used it in five years, just thought I'd let you know.
We(being the psuedo-gov organisation i support) just migrated 4500 users from an OS2 Domian to NT4. The OS2 boxes and domain are still "on line", although not used for authentication for the last week but smply in case we need to back out :P
It was ugly and hard to use..
Micheal, I would suggest you try to learn a few things about OS/2 before you assume that it is dead.
Many banks all around the world use OS/2 for their ATMs and office computers because of one reason, it is even more rocksolid than your precious Linux/Unix.
The last released version of OS/2, Warp Ver 4 (merlin) was amazing. In 1991 it had and impresive list of features such as: Voice recognition software that was 98%+ accurate;
OpenGL 1.0; every network protocol nameable, Partial Win32 API compatibility and full Win16 compatibility.
As Slashdoters, you should support OS/2 and learn about it. It was most likely one of the most powerful and stable operating systems in existence, and probably still is. It had great potential to become THE operating system. If it wasn't for Microsoft boycoting/strong arming IBM out of development of OS/2. I would suggest you read "Hard Drive" which is a biography of Bill Gates and Microsoft. (It is written by an author with the last name Wallace. I can't remeber his first name). It explains the situation very well.
I am quite shocked that you sheepish Slashdotters would not like OS/2. You should just because of the fact that Microsoft took it down. Obviously you are not a knowledgable herd of sheep. (You can run Xfree86 in OS/2!!!! WOWZERS!)
In truth I use Windows XP. I would use 0S/2 if it wasn't so hard to install and if it had a greater list of features. OS/2 does have alot of problems to overcome in the modern day, and probably isn't the best operating system to use on a daily bassis for regular computer usage. (sounds like linux to me.) It could have been, and still could be though.
Their explanation is extremely vague. I understand why you couldn't include the Windows DLL files, the Divx4 codec, etc. with a binary distribution. But why couldn't you compile it with the FFmpeg GPL codecs only, and distribute that as a binary if you make the source code available? The FFmpeg decoders seem better than the Windows DLL files anyway, and they can run on non-x86 platforms.
Maybe you should get both sides of the story before posting it to Slashdot in the first place?
max
A few weeks ago there was something about a company reselling parts of products of another company. The EULA said this was not allowed, but when taken to court it was said that in order to take parts from a bundle of software, you don't have to install it and therefore you may not have read the license and most certainly not have clicked `i agree'. Actually this situation resembles the MPlayer-situation a bit. It's waaay to easy to install MPlayer without ever reading about some license. Most source-files are totally license-less. I wonder what would have happened if this particular case would have been taken to court...but I'm glad that wasn't necessary.
0x or or snor perron?!
I remember seeing a Meridian phone system (the hub that all the phone lines go into) and it was running OS/2! I was really surprised and my first thought was, "That's fuckin' cool!"
You just plugged a keyboard and mouse into the inside of it, and if you had the right boot disk, you could load up the software and change stuff. OS/2 was the heart of the phone system.
I just thought it was really cool that you could change mailboxes and stuff without using a phone, but a real keyboard.
I have no signature
On the MPlayer News page, it is also claimed that WarpVision forgot to mention the authors of ffmpeg in their credits file. The strange thing is, ffmpeg is released under the GPL, and is also used by MPlayer -- then, I wonder, how can MPlayer not be released under the GPL?
Now who's in violation of the GPL here?
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
How does that work?
I think we need a Spelling Nazi "to update thier site. I'd"
- There are two things in this world, Windows and Gates.
NOT OSI APPROVED? SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP!
I CANNOT TELL YOU HOW SICK I AM OF PEOPLE ARGUING OVER THESE STUPID SIMPLE SEMANTICS.
If I have the source code it is OPEN SOURCE. I don't care what 12 white men living under a rockthink about the license!
AAAAAARRRRGHG!!!!
I feel better.
They'll probably still be using it in 2101, too.
Will OS/2 set up us the bomb?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Alas the WarpVision mailing list isn't archived anywhere that I know of, but I'll do my best to sumarise:
Someone noticed that WarpVision had changed a lot between two versions, doing some things better but some no longer. Someone else then noticed that the debug output was much like that of MPlayer
At that point, the MPlayer guys were alearted, and decided that it was very likely that WarpVision was an uncredited port of MPlater to OS/2, and also a closed source one. They mailed the WarpVision Developers, and asked what was up.
The WarpVision guys initially played dum, then said they had only used a tiny bit of code and would release the source later.
Tempers flared, and a lot of discussion went on between the WarpVision guys and the MPlayer guys. In the end, the WarpVision developers credited MPlayer, and released the source.
Now, the flame is over who was in the wrong, who needs to apologise, and if the projects should remain seperate, or if the WarpVision changes should go into the offical MPlayer tree. The issue isn't resolved, but the GPL violation is
This post will enter the public domain 70 years after my death, unless Disney buys another extension.
When a submission contains such an obvious troll, it should come with a premade put-your-flame-here post where all the trollees can put their "I run WarpVision on my ATM" replies.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Believe it or not, there is this thing called "open source", based on the little-known fact that if you get information from someone, they still have it. Or at least I think some guys named Thomas Jefferson, Richard Stallman, and Eric Raymond were saying something about that. I think they, like, said something about how it's different from material things because you don't deprive the original owner of it when you "steal" it.
Good analogy, otherwise. *cough*
Beleive it or not, there is something called 'intellectual property'. This has absolutely nothing to do with open source. If you don't believe me try grabbing a copy of the code for Windows XP, rebuilding it, packaging it as your own and selling it. I am sure Thomas Jefferson will rise from the dead to defend you from yourself when you do. *cough* *cough* *hack* holy shit
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Just because the folks over at warpvision did not want to release alpha code, does not mean they intended to steal it. This issue has come up many times before with other GPL products, though I must say, the mplayer reaction was, to put it mildly, childish.
I also find it very funny that the first thing the opensource project (mplayer) threatens to do is sue. They did not even bother to contact the waprvision folks first.
Oh well, nothing changes. People like to overreact as it seems to make them feel better.
-sirket
You all forgot two things : :)
1. It is me that is writing the news, not A'rpi,
so blame me
2. MPlayer is NOT GPL. And that's one of the
reason why binaries (whether MPlayer or warpvision) are illegal. GPL and non-GPL
can't be mixed in binaries, but can be in the
source.
(btw it's in TFM)
--
Gabucino of MPlayer team
The Bank of Brazil http://www.bb.com.br, the greatest bank of brazil, use OS/2 in all yours cache machines.
The few times I've seen an ATM (banking station, not network pipe) crash, it was running OS/2. I can't say why, not having used it, but it seems to be pretty reliable in its role doing bank transactions & verification all day.
A software project, which uses codecs from another operative system and binary code from lots of different companies, not to talk about the DivX codecs which is hacked microsoft codecs (yes, there are alternatives nowadays) are angry at someone else for using THEIR fake-GPL code. Yeah, that's not two-faced. Really.
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
From the MPlayer home page, it seems the MPlayer authors are mostly concerned about WarpVision stealing credit. They make a good case for that having happened.
:-).
Their claims about license violations seems confused at best. They claim MPlayer is released under its own license, but I found no such license in the source code for MPlayer 0.5. The closest I found is the following quote in the documentation:
MPlayer would be distributable under the terms of the
GNU GPL, but distributing binary packages is forbidden
Of course, the GPL forbids imposing such conditions on redistribution, so one must interpret this as saying that MPlayer is not distributable under the GPL, and since there is no other license supplied, must one understand MPlayer is not distributable at all?
Additionally, MPlayer uses code that is under the GPL, notably the MGA video drivers and some of the monitor frequency synchronization drivers. Thus either MPlayer is GPL or MPlayer violates the GPL or copyright laws.
Given MPlayer's licensing confusion, I'm not surprised WarpVision treated it as GPL. IMHO, that's the most reasonable interpretation that can be made of the situation. Regardless of licensing, of course, WarpVision should have more accurately and prominently advertised the debt it owed to MPlayer.
By the way, the vitriolic and childish attitude of the MPlayer author on this issue is yet another reminder of why it's a good idea to only use and contribute to really free software (which MPlayer apparently isn't)... I would hate to subject my use of a piece of software to the whims of such an apparently confused and aggressive person. And of course, I would hate to have such a person use code I wrote to impose their whims on others, which is why I use the GPL
The docs say I have to setup a skins dir in /usr/local/share... But they don't say anything about the skin configfile... What is he format of this file, and where does it go?
/home/*******/.mplayer/codecs.conf: can't open '/home/*******/.mplayer/codecs.conf': No such file or directory
/usr/local/share/mplayer/codecs.conf: 21 audio & 58 video codecs
/home/*******/.mplayer/font/font.desc
/usr/local/share/mplayer/font/font.desc
Output of gmplayer(homedir censored to protect the anonymous):
MPlayer CVS-011123-18:04(C) 2000-2001 Arpad Gereoffy (see DOCS!)
CPU vendor name: GenuineIntel max cpuid level: 2
CPU: Intel Celeron 2/Pentium III Coppermine,Geyserville
Testing OS support for SSE... yes.
Testing OS support for SSE unmasked exceptions... yes.
Tests of OS support for SSE passed.
CPUflags: Type: 6 MMX: 1 MMX2: 1 3DNow: 0 3DNow2: 0 SSE: 1 SSE2: 0
vo: X11 running at 800x600 with depth 16 and 16 bits/pixel (":0.0" => local display)
Reading
Reading
font: can't open file:
font: can't open file:
SKIN dir 1: '/home/*******/.mplayer/Skin'
SKIN dir 2: '/usr/local/share/mplayer/Skin'
[app] skin configfile not found.
The last thing you want will be your bank replacing your local (OS/2 operated) ATM with one that uses NT/W2K.
BSOD while trying to get my cash........no way!!!
If the borrowed from the iTunes installer (if it were open source, that is) they could have said "see, if formats hard drives just like our installer does".
Case closed.
oh, and from the mplayerhq website:
MPlayer stolen by russian OS/2 users !
Don't think of it as stealing think of it as "adding your distinctiveness to our own".
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
(it calls itself Basically GPL, which, BTW, hasn't been approved by the OSI)
Huh? Is this saying that GPL is not approved by the OSI?
Then why is it at the top of this list?
I suggest another book to read. It is "The Microsoft File" by Wendy Goldman Rohm, Wired author.
n qu iry.asp?userid=69MGSQEXJK&mscssid=C32W2UB51W259LAN VVMF0U0XBR39BXS3&isbn=0812927168
Here is a link for it (Amazon boycott still runs?)
http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnI
I want scandal damn it!
OS/2... hand wave... GPL violation... OS/2...
Si
I looked at the licensing discussion on the mplayer web site. It really is GPL, as far as I can tell.
There are some files in the distribution which are not GPL, however.
Implication: You can redistribute the sources, but you cannot redistribute the binaries that use the non-GPL'd pieces. If you make a binary that uses only the GPL'd pieces, then you can redistribute that.
All of this is allowed by the GPL.
Looking at the mplayer web site, it appears that mplayer *is* released under GPL.
There are a few files that are not GPL'd in the mplayer software, however. To compile and use mplayer you need the non-GPL'd stuff linked in. But you can do anything you want with the GPL'd stuff.
My reading of the GPL is that this is allowed.
Using GPL lib/code doesn't automatically make the derivative work GPL, it just creates a situation where you can either distribute it under the GPL or not at all. In this case the latter seems to be the only option, as MPlayer also uses third party non-GPL components which they simply can't distribute under GPL (because they're licensed in a different way, and even the source code is not available).
Think about it. They're infringing the copyright of whatever GPL code they didn't write themselves by linking it with non-GPL code (for example the codec DLLs), even if they claimed MPlayer was GPL. So legally MPlayer can't be distributed at all without infringing the copyright of at least the authors of included GPL libraries.
Many banks throughout the world continnue to use OS/2 for a lot of their systems. Just about the closest banks to Microsoft's main Redmond campus is a Washington Mutual branch, which happened to use OS/2 for their loan-clerks' desktop machines. I don't know if that is standard for all of their branches (or for their newly acquired branches). Incidentally, they use multiple information technology platforms, including IBM mainframe, AS400, UNIX variants, Windows NT, Novell, and OS/2 distributed environments.
Also, the vehicle title office for Austin, TX (in Georgetown) uses OS/2 for their license and vechicle database used behind the counter.
Don't waste those cycles! Put them to use! http://www.distributed.net/
I wonder ... Looking at their website with it's
... in reading the opinions on the news
... if there are certain parts of this
... Does this concern know
... does this concern know what a
p ers.html
... 'Law'.
bumper graphic, who would want any sort of
graphical viewer produced by such a concern ?
Hmmm..
I wonder
page (take a look at the 2nd info page, too),
why anyone should want to invest their (or their
company's, their shareholder's, etc) money or
their time (effort, hopes) in such a concern.
Hmmm...(spirited !)
I wonder
concern's 'product' that are GPL, and other
parts that are not, why doesn't this concern
make it clear (or reasonably so) what is and
what is not GPL ? (
the difference ?)
>> Publish the GPL source part only per the
GPL terms (blah, blah, blah).
>> Make demands on other developers about how
to credit you for your efforts on the LGPL
part(s),
>> CLEARLY INDICATE the non-GPL/LGPL parts.
I wonder
binary distro is ? Check out: http://www.mplayerhq.hu/DOCS/users_against_develo
especially read under Reasons
Other thoughts:
"MPlayer STOLEN by russian OS/2 users" ??? (my
emphasis from the MPlayer news page). What a
crock of shi**t. (lets start by "Which OS/2
USERS 'stole' MPlayer" ??? or maybe just "Let's
NOT SUPPORT CRIMINALS" blah, blah, blah).
Last thoughts:
fishes under the bridges eating the worms near
the net. where does the mirror reflect ?
"There's a difference. When you use the handicapped space in the parking lot you don't steal it, do you? No. You perform a moving violation."
You couldn't be more wrong. Stealing the space is exactly what you are doing. For the time you occupy it when someone who really needs it you are stealing it from them.
"Ask Microsoft. Billy Gates started this whole IP crap with his "open letter" about people "stealing" his crappy BASIC compiler."
This is a perfect example of how truly misinformed you are. Do you really think the first IP laws were only passed in the 1980's ? Do you really think Bill Gates had that much power back then. I'm not a big fan of history, but in this case a little knowledge would go a long way to helping you see how truly absurd your statements are.
"Remember that next time you support IP. You're telling the goverment you are only worth $30 to them, as far as I see it. The US couldn't even pay off their debt at that rate!"
I didn't "support" IP, I merely stated that such a thing exists. I never indicated whether I liked the way things are, only that they are in fact that way. And you might want to take a look around you
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
payment is.
++PLS
>"Burrowing" source code is not so good,
.NET, dotGNU and Mono is what I'm talking about, too early to tell, but if they are, we'll all know within a few years.
That's what free(GPL and non-GPL) software is all about, so I'd say it's very good to avoid implementing the same functionaly again and again. That's certainly not productive, but if it's fun, go ahead.
What we need now, is a language independent component system to increase reuse over language barriers. Perhaps things like
Regards, Tommy
The mplayer developers have HUGE social problems.
They are probably the most arrogant people I have ever had the displeasure of encountering. Not even the infamous djb (qmail) or tdr (openbsd) is anywhere as arrogant and insulting as this group of developers. I was really suprised, I didnt think anyone could top djb.
Just read their mailing list -- they attach headers to all mails relayed through the list telling everyone to "RTFM", and take great pleasure in treating everyone as idiots, even more pleasure in insulting them.
And the mplayer config script has a huge wild-eyed rant about redhat, if you dare to compile it with gcc 2.96 (even one known and proven to work perfectly fine, eg 2.96-85)
Oddly enough, I have experienced almost identical attitude from other hungarians. What IS it about that freaking country that makes everyone a flaming asshole?
Who the h**** uses os/2 nowadays?
it's ancient. it's crappy.
--larsw
It seems the "basically GPL" points to the facts that they will NOT distribute binaries of the program for the following reasons:
But on the webpage they say they are developing towards GPl. So they seem to try to make a decent & GPLed program.
But then, some quotes from http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/, their homepage. That give a slightly different view of the developers:
And in the FAQYes, go to mplayer and take a look around. After that, you possibly get an impression about the developer/s. What's that impression? Mine is that that 'childish' guy (it doesn't deserves to be called developer) has no respect for anyone. I only see insults to other companies/people, violations on the GPL (dunno about WarpVision, but in first place someone should ask gnu or whoever about the legality of their 'license'). ./configure to force compiling with gcc-2.96 (the guy seems to be an 'expert' in compilers, and not only gives you this warning, also bash redhat and everyone that uses their compilers). I said 'Ok, fine to me, he hates redhat/gcc2.96, but anyway i want to compile with this compiler.
;)
Have you tried to download and compile mplayer ? It forces you to pass a flag to
And guess what's the funny part after asking you for a flag to configure? I got in my console a line asking me to enter a key, so i just pressed 'Enter' and a message appeared telling me: 'Gcc 2.96 is broken, so next time type 'gcc2.96 is broken' as a key if you want to compile with it.
Yep, you're right, this guy is a fucking asshole, so instead typing the key, i typed 'rm -rf Mplayer*'. What a beautiful command!
And if you need a good mpeg/avi player, downloand xine or vlc. They're very good players, use the GPL license and are programmed by grown up, 'not childish', respectful and fine people.
They release some code under the GPL.
However some codecs are not GPL, they can not release them both together in a binary.
However if they distribute the codecs, and the GPL code separately, they are not violating the GPL.
When you compile & link GPl and nonGPL code you are not violating the GPL either, only if you distribute that merged monstrosity
Your premise that "to truly be theft, it must take away from a party. This is not the same as just taking without the "away" part" is incorrect. Loss of scarcity is a form of theft, if an object has value because of it's scarcity. Stealing identities is theft because an identity has value because it belongs to one person.
You are correct in stating that the Mplayer folks stole from the open source community in that they removed the right for downstream innovation by not releasing source code. However, the form of that theft is both in removing the rights of the community to develop AND in removing the scarcity rights preserved by the author to force downstream innovation (that is, the authors reserved right to force openness, which the prime author held alone over all downstream authors).
Semantic point? Yes, but an important one in that your posts, while arguably correct in result, get there through murky premises that detract from your argument, saving throw or not.
TA
Technology Marketing is what happens when people turn their hard work over to people paid to manipulate others.
I was in brazil and I needed to get some cash, so I went to an ATM machine but all I could see on the screen was the NT4 workstation login screen. It'd be neat to find out what percentages of os's run on ATMs...
-Bucky
Copyright generally forbids you to make other than "fair use" copies of another's artistic work. The GPL provides far more than fair use rights upon acceptance of the license, but those rights exist only when one complies with the license.
If copyright did not exist, you could ignore the GPL, and do what you would with code that came into your hands. While the result might be a world consistent with more of an LGPL or BSD style license, permitting secret (if not proprietary) extentions to free code, it would mean that distributed modifications to GPL code would not have to have accompanying source.
I don't think that would please RMS.
You could've hired me.
Ok. I see you still don't understand what happened and why were we so upset.
So, let me explain:
The FACTS:
A russian "coder" has "ported" mplayer (actually removed/disabled half of the
code and added audio/video support using someone else's code, so actually
hacked together 3 opensource projects at most ugliest way) to OS/2.
It is not problem, it is even somehow good, but we would like more if he
send patches for mplayer instead of fork'ing development.
The PROBLEM:
He provided this stuff for download at os2.ru page. He provided no sources
at all. He provided it as _HIS_OWN_PRODUCT_UNDER_HIS_NAME_ and he even not
mentioned the mplayer or ffmpeg or os/2 ao/vo lib authors nor any of
these project names. We can call it only 'code stealing'.
Tell me if you disagree, and please explain why.
Our REACTION:
As soon as we got informed about this, we sent some mails to their mailing list
The mails didn't arrived in few hours. We thought the list is moderated and
they ignored them or the maillist simply does not exists/work.
We sent mail to the website admins, asking them to provide us direct email
contact of the "author", and remove the download link until he fixes credits.
They didn't replied.
Next day we were more upset and Gabucino put out that well-known NEWS entry.
I've seen it and said "it's ok", I didn't think of such reaction.
(yes, it was a bit(?) rude, but is code stealing a good thing???)
Their REACTION:
They immediately came out from the darkness, and started to flame us at every
forums because of that news entry. Nothing about the code stealing. Just
flamed us. Later they started to say: it is not mplayer port, just 2 libs of
mplayer were used and it's a totally different project contributed by
russian coders. They also mentioned that A-V sync code is not from mplayer,
it's their own new code.
My REACTION:
I told them that:
- our primary problem is the missing credits. the missing source is just
secondary, and legal problem.
- i asked them _AGAIN_ to fix their page and show info about mplayer
relations and other stuff used in that.
Their REACTION:
flame again about NEWS. Nothing about our "wishes".
they started to send russian language mails for us and to their list.
they started to flame on mplayer-users list and slashdot too.
Their REACTION Next day (friday afternoon):
they finally released the sources, and afaik (i couldn't check as it was
OS/2 installer EXE) they fixed documentation of the project.
there is a simple _link_ to mplayer site now, not mentioning how wvision
based on mplayer or related to it. bad, but it's ok for _me_, i doubt they
will ever do more. also note that distributing mplayer code in binary form
is still prohibited...
Our REACTION:
as soon as we downloaded the source, we started to check what did he
really do. he did what we thought before. ported mplayer by
removing/disabling half of code and hacking in os/2 audio/video out.
he even keept my own A-V sync code from mplayer (compare wvision.cpp to
mplayer.c) while stating everywhere that it's their code. he used the core
of mplayer, so it's much more than "just 2 libs from mplayer".
OS2.ru guys:
- clean up credits/copyright stuff on the homepage, add which code is
"borrowed" from which project. (ASAP)
- send patches for mplayer... (only if you want to cooperate)
A'rpi / Astral & ESP-team
Quite frankly, I find nothing wrong with Slashdot. What I think is wrong with Slashdot is a userbase that not only doesn't understand how Slashdot works, but can't be bothered to understand it before they run around screaming about how "bad" Slashdot is. Pity, really.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.