Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mplayer Charges License Violation

Posted by michael on from the showing-feelings-of-an-almost-human-nature dept.

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)

8 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. This isn't exactly imitation by bconway · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
  2. GPL issues by peter_gzowski · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  3. Let's Clarify by oGMo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    They took the entirety of the mplayer source, changed the output plugin for OS/2, and released it as binary-only. [...] 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.

    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

    1. Re:Let's Clarify by oGMo · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I guess there's no such thing as identity theft, since the party whose identity I've used to gain goods and services is still in their possession...

      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.

      Please don't generalize using your ideological beliefs. Theft is a legal matter, and there are many forms of it, not all of which involve the tangible...

      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.

      The GPL (the license mplayer is under) provides consent by the author for modification and redistribution provided they follow the GPL. If they do not, they are not acting under the provision of consent, and are STEALING the code...

      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

    2. Re:Let's Clarify by unformed · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.)

  4. Re:MPlayer/GPL love/hate relationship by beable · · Score: 5, Informative

    To follow up, there are HEAPS of files in MPlayer which were released under the GPL. I can't see how the MPlayer authors can possibly not release MPlayer under the GPL.

    Files which contain a GPL Licence statement in MPlayer:

    grep -rn "General Public License" *|cut -f 1 -d :|sort |uniq

    ac3-iec958.c
    drivers/3dfx.h
    libac3/ac3.h
    libac3/ac3_internal.h
    libac3/bit_allocate.c
    libac3/bit_allocate.h
    libac3/bitstream.c
    libac3/bitstream.h
    libac3/coeff.c
    libac3/coeff.h
    libac3/crc.c
    libac3/crc.h
    libac3/debug.c
    libac3/debug.h
    libac3/decode.c
    libac3/decode.h
    libac3/dither.c
    libac3/dither.h
    libac3/downmix/downmix_3dnow.S
    libac3/downmix/downmix.c
    libac3/downmix/downmix_kni.S
    libac3/downmix.h
    libac3/exponent.c
    libac3/exponent.h
    libac3/imdct.c
    libac3/imdct.h
    libac3/mmx/imdct_3dnow.c
    libac3/mmx/imdct512_kni.S
    libac3/mmx/imdct_kni.c
    libac3/mmx/rematrix_3dnow.c
    libac3/mmx/srfft_3dnow.c
    libac3/mmx/srfft_kni_c.c
    libac3/mmx/srfft_kni.S
    libac3/mmx/srfftp_3dnow.h
    libac3/parse.c
    libac3/parse.h
    libac3/rematrix.c
    libac3/rematrix.h
    libac3/sanity_check.c
    libac3/sanity_check.h
    libac3/srfft.c
    libac3/srfft.h
    libac3/srfftp.h
    libac3/stats.c
    libac3/stats.h
    libmpeg2/attributes.h
    libmpeg2/header.c
    libmpeg2/idct.c
    libmpeg2/idct_mlib.c
    libmpeg2/idct_mmx.c
    libmpeg2/mm_accel.h
    libmpeg2/mmx.h
    libmpeg2/motion_comp.c
    libmpeg2/motion_comp_mlib.c
    libmpeg2/motion_comp_mmx.c
    libmpeg2/mpeg2.h
    libmpeg2/mpeg2_internal.h
    libmpeg2/slice.c
    libmpeg2/sse.h
    libmpeg2/stats.c
    libmpeg2/vlc.h
    libvo/video_out.c
    libvo/video_out_internal.h
    libvo/vo_3dfx.c
    libvo/vo_mga.c
    libvo/vo_null.c
    libvo/vo_sdl.c
    libvo/vo_syncfb.c
    libvo/vo_xmga.c
    libvo/yuv2rgb.c
    libvo/yuv2rgb.h
    libvo/yuv2rgb_mlib.c
    libvo/yuv2rgb_mmx.c
    opendivx/idct_c.c
    opendivx/idct_mmx.c
    TOOLS/mp.pl
    TVout/fbset/modeline2fb

    Please explain?

    --
    ...
  5. Its quite a convoluted story.... by gagravarr · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  6. In summary. by Jason+Pollock · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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