Slashdot Mirror
MPlayer Alleges KISS Technology Violating GPL
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."
If anyone is wondering where the link with the actual accusation is, it is on the main page of Mplayer's website.
don't Mplayer distribute hacked unauthorised divX,mpg4 and quicktime and realaudio
funny how the tables turn
well it appears on their website that they offer the source for download here
That looks like a sweet player. Go loook at all the features. They include ogg support. Most people the use ogg are pretty cool and open-minded, so hopefully they'll open up what is required.
90% of my stuff wouldn't even work right if I couldn't update the firmware, and there are a number of people that patch ROMs to extend hardware capabilities unofficially. Maybe the companies will get around it by encrypting their updates, but that doesn't sound like a win for anybody else.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Mplayer is one of those apps I just can't live without on my machine. It handles just about anything and everything that I've thrown at it. I use it as my default mp3/movie player. And Quicktime movies are not a problem for Linux anymore.
/home/sgant/music/playlist -shuffle" and I've got hours and hours of back to back music. When I want something a little more structured, I have different playlists.
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.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
try looking here.
Sometime in the near future, the GPL is going to be tested in court. This is a Good Thing, though, because I'm not sure that the Open Source movement can continue its momentum without an absolute guarantee by the courts that the work of developers will not be open to being "stolen" by proprietary software companies.
However, there is the possibility that the GPL is struck down as being untenable. In that case, one of two outcomes exists:
1. All formerly GPL software reverts to merely being copyrighted by the author, who can then do what he wants (close the source, BSD style license, etc.).
2. All formerly GPL software is considered public domain. There is a massive "land grab" as companies snap up the sources out there for use in their closed proprietary products.
IANAL. I want to make that clear. I do believe that the GPL is valid, legal, and will stand up in court. I just hope the court system agrees with me.
Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
Their fax number is busy... Either they took the ringer off, or other people have the same idea.
Bowie J. Poag
I own one of their players (The DP-450). I love it, simply love it. It is very easy to use, upgrade and it also plays all of my divx encoded movies which I burn on DVD-R as isos.
.. the source is according to another post here availale at their website.
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.
I really HAD another userid
afaik there are 192 countries , each of them having a court system, whats illegal or wrong in USA might not be in Botswana or Phillipines
so let me know when this American GPL license becomes applicable in 192 countries legal systems, until then it will only apply to a country signing the Berne convention and upholding the convention, you know USA has a great record of upholding international law *cough israel* so iam sure the other signees are just as willing
From Mplayers homepage: Kiss Technology failed to answer our inquiry for their source files (which they are obligated to provide), so this news entry is posted.
Obviously You didn't read their site.
"Kiss Technology failed to answer our inquiry for their source files (which they are obligated to provide), so this news entry is posted."
Stated on mplayer's site.
Please RTFRD (Read The F*cking Referring documents).
Thank you!
ok the issue is about code that reads subtitles. other comments here already pointed out that (at least some of the) source is available at the KISS website
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. kill the motivation, and you kill the incentive to release for free. it's a gift, right?
"Kiss Technology failed to answer our inquiry for their source files (which they are obligated to provide), so this news entry is posted."
hmm, i just got caught by a troll, didnt i :-/
Yes there is
theefer
Um. Not to be difficult or anything, but the last bit of the news article states...
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.
-- El Sacarino tiene gusto de la chocha
I don't suppose... could Keyser Soze be one of the MPlayer developers?
ask for it.. see what you get for a reply.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
In accordance with the GPL, the source for KISS DP-508 is available upon
request, for a nominal fee to cover media and shipping costs.*
.
.
.
* = The source code will be provided to you as a series of large, neon-lit
marquee letters shipped individually in wooden packing crates. Currently,
the world's supply of neon gas limits our ability to ship large quantities
of source code. The current expected wait time is 32 years, plus or minus
6 months, depending upon the condition of labor relations in countries with
substantial noble gas exports.
For more information, please inject crystal meth directly into your eyeballs,
and light yourself on fire while listening to the following song:
http://www.ibiblio.org/propaganda/pogo/easteregg.
Thats the version of the GPL I prefer, personally.
Bowie J. Poag
Are you smoking crack? Personal use? They're using (maybe) MPlayer's source SO THAT THIER PRODUCT WILL SELL. That's not personal use. That's comercial use.
And not costing MPlayer a penny? No. But you can't copy the source or binaries unless you accept the GPL which says you have to release your modified code. Frankly, if the Mplayer team found strings in there then they didn't do much modifying of the code, eh? So they can just put mplayer.tar.bz2 on their website and everyone will be happy.
I think you know that though. Your post read like you were trying to be `funny' by comparing/parodying slashdotter's views on compying mp3s. Frankly, that IS fair use because 1) there's no license and 2) they're raping you by charging too much money. Mplayer costs exactly $0.00 to use in your product. See the difference?
My other car is first.
Wow, are you really that stupid?
... tell me, HOW do you read any article that is mentioned here. I mean, have you ever read this at all?
I have found mencoder valuable for my own video collection. My digital camera creates quicktime jpeg video, which takes up 100KB per second. Mencoder will shrink a 1.5MB jpeg video down to a 125KB divx movie with minimal loss. That makes downloading home movies easy for family and friends.
It doesn't matter whether their using it. the end user is not selling anything.
Besides, the GPL has a clause that states nobody has to accept it. Hence, if it is rejected, normal copyright law comes into play. Copyright law does not give a 100% ban on any redistribution. This is what fair use is all about. Allowing people to distribute small portions for personal use.
Copying an mp3 is NOT fair use. Firstly because of the nature of the work - i.e. it is made with the intention of making a profit for the distributors, and secondly the portion of the work. Copying 100% of a work is rarely fair use.
Whoops , sorry I missed the last sentence of the article. That'll teach me to read the entire article and then ignore the last sentence. My Humble apologies then , fair dinkum, someone did ask ...Doh !
...
nick
...going to get away with this.
There is no way the KISS Army can withstand the awesome onslaught of the GNU Hurd! RSS will lead the charge against the interlopers, with the battle cry "They're properly called GNU/Linux Systems!" ringing over the Plains...
Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
First off, please note that KISS offers download of the uCLinux kernel and busybox software sources very prominently at the same place where you download firmware for the players.
Secondly: The people of KISS have never tried to hide that they were using GPL'ed software. Mabbe we should give them just one more chance to comply before getting all carried away...
Start reading here
groklawThe Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
dvd player companies can come up with a $50 player that supports mp3, vorbis, xvid, divx3/4/5, mpeg1-4, and whatnot..
now i know, taking the code written in some manyears
by open source developers and putting their company sticker on it.
How long until someones acknowledgement is denied and work is stolen by a large company who can hide behind the DMCA? An Open Source project could be "appropriated" by Sony or Microsoft who then releases it as their own project. If the source is unavailable, could you determine the origin deffinatively without reverse engineering?
Could this be true, or am I missinterrupting the DMCA (shudder, I hate that thing)?
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
So, not only they don't comply, they don't even kiss ass. Pretty damning if you ask me!
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...
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
And i'm pretty sure it has to be one of the best investments I've done in my life, great piece of hardware.
Mplayer is also great, before having the KiSS I watched all my media with mplayer, but theris claims are, like nearly always, plain stupid.
How they got access to the C code for the comparisons if the ROM is closed source? It's there for download, only a click away of the firmware page!
Mplayer are famous for two main reasons: first, for programming a killer app for linux, and second, for their constant insults to others developers... Have we forgotten the "Joe Barr can't install mplayer"-affaire? A simple google search gives us pearls as "Joe Barr became infamous by writing a less than favorable MPlayer review." WTF!?!? Complete text here, at the end of page.
In fact, you only have to go down a few post in their main page to read this:
# MPlayerHQ was cracked on November 16 17:50, but noticed 10 minutes later due to some hidden traps. Possibly due to recent lame Linux kernel vulnerability (greetz to kernel devs for not publishing details much earlier).
# Debian sucks - that's the opinion of most of the core developers
That's the way they are, so, please, think twice when you run in their defense!
(Sorry for my bad, bad english)
Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
well, about 5 people all managed to be able to go to the article, find the relevant text... and post it back here to show the grandparent. doesnt sound slashdotted yet to me. now, was it really THAT hard?
They said it, so it must be true, right?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I don't think stupid is technically correct but he should have read the entire article before posting.
Yes, now please do not flash crowd my server
It's a copyright violation.
The GPL is not a contract you agree to before using or obtaining source... it is a license that permits you to do things other than those allowed by copryight law alone.
If they are using MPlayer's code without license, that's copyright violation, and all that entails.
They can either come to an agreement with the copyright holders, or cite the GPL as their permission, if they had followed it.
Why doesn't mplayer sue, if they think their intellectual property rights have been abused? Certainly seems more logical than posting unproven and potentially libelous assertions on their website.
Before someone says that they're just a small band of impoverished but brave open source developers who can't afford to pay lawyers....well, tough.
Civil claims don't get enfoirced as if by magic. If the broader open source community has no means to help individual developers enforce the GPL in court, then it will simply become unenforced and unenforceable.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Well, a bit of a misleading subject in my first headline there, I do believe that mplayer have established that they are voilating the GPL, should have read "unclear if intentionelly violating".
Another point: Kiss is not a large company. And, their headquarters are in Denmark. If you have tried to reach them within the last 2 (two) weeks, chances are, everybody may have been on holiday!.
This may sound absurd to US citizens, but no danish worker have less than 5 weeks of paid vacation, every year. Most have 6 + more if you have kids, move, stuff like that. When I return to the office Monday, it will have been 16 days since I last was there, and that goes for all my colleagues as well.
The FSF tends to stick with GNU projects. They insist that all GNU developers give them a form assigning the FSF their copyrights - so that they have strong standing in a court. One potential argument a GPL-violator could bring up against most other projects would be to argue to the judge that the plaintiff can't prove that all the copyright holders agree with the suit. Then again, all the copyright holders did release their code under the GPL, so the court might nix that argument. The FSF prefers not to risk it, however.
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...
I'm really curious about that one.
Also, does it play other codecs like xvid or lavc, or files with features like b-frames, qpel, and gmc ?
I don't understand why they say it's a GPL Violation. The source is offered as a download on the kiss website.s
http://www.kiss-technology.com/?p=hot_news&v=user
The GPL states that you only have to provide the sources along with the distibution. The distibution is in this case embedded in their player, so the only thing they would have to answer to is a demand from a verified owner of the player.
If you ask me the evidence is a bit thin. They are offering a full rom update (btw what os is it?) and all they find on them is a couple of strings in a binary? You'd expect the whole player to be in there, not just some subtitle stuff.
Oh well, their server recieves a slashdotting and their pr-person(subhuman) gets scalded. Then they release the code and all will be good again...
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Yes, in 2002 MySQL AB sued Nusphere for statically linking to GPL code without including source. The judge didn't rule on the merit of those claims however, so it wasn't a very good test for the GPL. The judge just told Nusphere to stop using the MySQL name with their product.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
I think it would be pretty hard to convince a judge that this didn't classify as "(a) sell or rent out".
compying mp3s. Frankly, that IS fair use because 1) there's no license and 2) they're raping you by charging too much money.
2). Actualy it's not rape, you've consented by buying the CD!
1). There is an implied license involved with CD's, since you've paid for the media, it implies you have a license to listen to it, which is actualy making a copy anyways. All of the details of the implied license are determined by the the lawyers in court and the legislature. just remember if you give a lawer permission to scratch your ass, he'll probably end up picking your teeth; and tell every one you consented.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
You're joking right? "Oh dear god they are doing some thing we don't like; SUE THEM!!!" /me Hits speed dial to lawyers
There is no need at all to sue KiSS, all they need to do is send a nice letter to them asking politely if they will comply with the GPL and if applicable give MPlayer some credit. (Though they aren't bound by anything to give open credit, only the basics.)
If that fails you take it to the next step and the step after that and at some point they will comply as one of the last steps you get too will be courts.
There is no need to jump to possibly expensive court cases for no reason at all.
I ate your fish.
Just curious about this, but has anybody ever been sued for a GPL violation?
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, 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.
Guess what. Putting some proof and such on your web site doesn't mean anything. If they're violating your copyrights, you need to send a certified letter outlining your proof and telling them to stop. Note: emailing them and asking for source doesn't matter. If they ignore it or refuse, then you have to sue them. It's a copyright violation (there are no "GPL violations", it's simply a copyright violation) and the statutory damages top out at $150K per incident. The damages may be enough to put them out of business.
On the other hand, if you're going to bitch and moan about it on your web site and do nothing else, then I don't see why they'd change their course of action. Obviously, they're not struck by moral or ethical arguments or they wouldn't have gone this far. That leaves legal arguments as the only possibility, but I'm not sure if they need to worry...
Do you have ESP?
Thats not the way to do it. The KISS folks have been one of the people who seem to have got the Linux DVD player thing right with regard to the source modules. Secondly the mplayer people need to find out who that code came from - the kiss player if I remember rightly is based on a kit from Sigma designs.
.. ranting and raving isn't how you solve problems because you make it hard for an accidental offender to correct a problem without losing face, which sometimes means they'll try and tough it out rather than sort it out.
So firstly its quite possibly not their fault
Secondly its quite possible they are all still on their christmas holiday
Someone at mplayer might want to look at the other sigma based players firmware files.
And finally
There are lots of GPL infringements that get sorted out politely. Mostly involving large companies who regardless of what people like Microsoft may claim about Open v Closed most definitely DO NOT do any checking on what their contractors shipped them. They get sorted because the company can add a footnote to the manuals or put the tar source files up on the support page without embarrasment.
"Gene Simmons unavailable for comment."
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
Making something with the intent of making profit doesn't justify guaranteed profit. that's the core of what's wrong with IP law today - people think they're "entitled" to make money off their work. That is totally anticapitalist, really. IP is socialism.
A bit of googling turned this up, which seems to help explain Hungarian copyright law.
And do they give a timeframe? No. The MPlayer people have shown in the past that they overreact, and usually don't give enough time for responses from people. I wouldn't be surprised if they waited all of 8 hours before posting the news article.
Even ignoring the fact that KISS is not a person, the fair use law says nothing about personal use. In fact, the law says:
I really don't think that what KISS is doing qualifies under any of the categories above. Admittedly, the phrase "such as" is not exclusive, but if the purported fair use does not even remotely resemble any of the listed examples, then it is very hard to justify.Copying an mp3 is NOT fair use. Firstly because of the nature of the work - i.e. it is made with the intention of making a profit for the distributors
You seem to think that the intention of the author matters for fair use. In fact, the intention of the author is not mentioned at all in the text of the law. What is relevant is "the purpose and character of the use ", i.e. whether or not the use is profit oriented. Copying mp3s for personal use in your car is not profit oriented, but what KISS is doing is very much profit oriented. So KISS actually has much less of a leg to stand on than a home user copying mp3s for personal use.
There is something else that you are leaving out as well: the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 permits consumers to make limited noncommercial copies of recorded audio for personal use. This permission is above and beyond the normal permissions granted under fair use. There is absolutely no analogue of the AHRA that applies to software. Even if the personal copying of mp3 were somehow found to be outside of fair use, the AHRA would still apply in the mp3 situation. However in the KISS situation there is no other law that would permit what KISS is doing.
heh, I wouldn't count on IBM to swoop in for the rescue. Their interest in GPL is limited to the extent that it can help them sell hardware (and perhaps services). Why would they spend money on a GPL lawsuit? After all, they're still in the same position to sell that same hardware (and perhaps services) regarless of whether some other organization is violating a GPL stipulation...
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
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?
Companies do get in trouble for violating the GPL all the time. They seem to realize so quickly that their legal position is untenable that cases have never had to go to court. That's a good thing: it shows you how strong the GPL actually is.
... the program Mplayer is great. I have used it to play just about everything I have. And never has it cribbed. I even used Mencoder to rip a few of my DVDs and was impressed.
.. :(
:)
I am a major movie freak and spend lot of time on the comp watching movies. I have become so used to mplayer playing just about all files, these days I sometimes make the mistake of typing the command "mplayer filename.pdf"
But it is such colorful characters that gives Mplayer its reputation....
doing this for years and people say I'm nuts!
IANAL and I have not read the DMCA myself, but I have heard before that the DMCA explicitly allows reverse engineering for the purpose of discovering copyright infringement among other things.
So, you are saying we should tolerate GPL copyright violations so that you can get updates to your ROMs from sleazy companies? I don't think so. As long as software copyrights are the law of the land, GNU has the same rights to enforce them as everybody else.
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.
As I understand your comment, the FSF hasn't litigated such a case, but in any case -- how many coders really want to sign over their copyrights to the FSF? They're already giving away their source -- now they're expected to give away their copyright too?
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
When will these idiots untie their silk nooses and let the air return to their "business educated" minds? Without a GPL style license, there would be no KISS player, or for that matter, no legal Divx codec, at all.
OK - note to all businesses using open source code in their products: Good Job! You've just brought a superior product to market, harnassing the collaboration of hundreds if not thousands of developers! You did it cheaper, better and faster than with closed source, in house programming! The only condition is, YOU PUBLISH YOUR SOURCE CODE. That's it.
You want to try make an inhouse developed Divx/xvid/MPEG-4 player? GOOD FREAKING LUCK! You'll never get it done, because its nearly impossible.
So, just in case any assholes from Forbes are reading, when open source developers give of themselves to create open source products, they are not completely free, nor are they in the public domain. You may use it, provided you give back to the community any changes you make. You can sell it, but you have to provide the source code. Again, if you want to do it alone, no one is forcing you to accept the source code. But when the FSF blows down your doors, don't call them communists. They are merely the enforcers, much like the BSA is for Microsoft. You break the license, you meet the man. Simple as that. Just because you didn't have to pay for the license, doesn't mean its not in effect.
The DMCA prohibits reverse engineering for the purpose of circumventing copy protection devices. Analyzing binaries for detecting copyright infringement is not something prohibited by the DMCA.
they're still in the same position to sell that same hardware (and perhaps services) regarless of whether some other organization is violating a GPL stipulation
If the GPL is questioned in a serious lawsuit, it'll be more than just "some other organization violating the GPL". You'd essentially be proving (or disproving) the legal validity of the GPL.
I suppose it depends on what happens to previously-GPL'd code if the GPL is ruled unenforceable. I really know nothing about it, but I've heard speculation that all GPL'd code could revert back to being "just plain copyrighted" by the author if the GPL was stricken down. I understand that to mean that unless the author chose to re-release it under a different, valid, free license, you'd have no legal right to continue using it at all.
Their interest in GPL is limited to the extent that it can help them sell hardware
IBM was just an example, but I'd imagine it'd be pretty hard to sell hardware if you're not legally entitled to use the code.
But the binaries will only match if they were compiled with the same compiler and the same options...and possibly a few other restrictions.
OTOH, I guess that most of the code would be similar enough that you would know just where to look closely...so maybe binaries *would* suffice.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
to which kiss responds also note that there are other copyrights/licenses involved from apple, macromedia and probably others that I didn't stumble across while taking a quick scan of there website. Of course I didn't actualy download the source to verify that it was there with the GPL text included, but it does make the mPlare crew sound a bit whiney don't it.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
The GPL is a LICENSE not a contract.
Statutory damages can be tremendous, I believe $150,000 per violation if wilful.
The other penalty is that KISS will have to stop distribution altogether if they lose in court. That basically puts them out of business.
GPL protection has nothing to do with using or modifying, only with distribution.
You barely have anything right. You need to read more groklaw.
Infuriate left and right
It doesn't matter whether their using it.
No, but it matters whether they are copying mplayer, and they clearly are: onto every machine that they ship and into every ROM update that they ship. That's what violates copyright law and that's what they need to stop doing; they also need to destroy the illegally made copies--i.e., copies on machines they already have shipped.
Furthermore, there have no way of coming into compliance: once you violate the GPL, you lose all your rights under it. You can't turn around later and say "oh, sorry, here is the source after all".
And end users probably don't even have the right to keep the binaries because they never received those binaries under the GPL. Which, again, means that KISS needs to erase mplayer from those already shipped products and compensate their customers.
Cool, looks like somebody beat me to suing KISS for crapping up the last Aerosmith tour.
No, but it matters whether they are copying mplayer, and they clearly are:
They may be copying portions of MPlayer. This is different.
they also need to destroy the illegally made copies--i.e., copies on machines they already have shipped.
No they don't. Neither the GPL or copyright law makes this rquirement. A court may choose to insist that they do this.
Furthermore, there have no way of coming into compliance: once you violate the GPL, you lose all your rights under it. You can't turn around later and say "oh, sorry, here is the source after all".
Once again, neither copyright law or the GPL states this. As long as they make a good faith attempt to fulfil obligations, then they can do so after the fact. Strange as it may seem, there is a certain amount of common sense in the law.
And end users probably don't even have the right to keep the binaries because they never received those binaries under the GPL. Which, again, means that KISS needs to erase mplayer from those already shipped products and compensate their customers.
No, they simply need to make the source code available to these people.
...investor
Nobody should be surprised
According to their site they will be at the CES in Las Vegas from the 8th until the 11th of January. Just take this evidence, go to their booth and have a chat.
Wow, these devices are realy cool. Before someone shouts rape, just look on their website:
;-).
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
Kiss are using a lot of sigma stuff in their products. Not sure if they are in this case but maybe it is Sigma who did yet another cut n paste?
Considering the Open Source movement had nothing to do with writing the GNU GPL or the philosophy behind it (the GPL clearly lists the FSF as author and the GPL predates the Open Source movement by years), it hardly gives proper credit to talk about the "Open Source movement" in this context. The Free Software community is what we're talking about, and I mean that with all the freedom language that usage states. That the Open Source Initiative defined their terms broadly enough to include the GPL as an approved license hardly compares with writing the license and does not justify giving "Open Source" credit for the FSF's work.
Two things that will not happen. Copyright is not rescinded by the government so easily and if by some bizarre twist GPL-covered works forcibly entered the PD, there are enough copies of source code already out there that everyone can easily find copies of what they want so everyone could simultaneously incorporate these works into their programs and place whatever license they wish on the derivative work.
Digital Citizen
Is that it only takes one lazy programmer for their to be a GPL violation. I don't see this is being some high-up manager instructing their programmers to use mplayer to save time, I see this as someone realising they needed subtitles code and mplayer had it already, so they did a quick cut&paste.
It seemes as if one can download the source:
http://www.kiss-technology.com/?p=gnu&v=compan y
??
as an Ipod?
Does it play MPEG-4 files? I've been unable to find a definitive answer. It says in the spec it does, but has anyone actually tested giving it a .MP4 file and seeing if it plays?
I'm not interested in AVI files, I want real MPEG-4 support.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
the Mplayer team has violated the GPL in the past as well
This is irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right (but 3 lefts do.) Others breaking the rules never gives you permission to break them.
Soo if anybody is going i'm sure you'll be able to inquire about this issue. BTW it's January 8 through the 11th.
This shows that MPlayer is of a quality worth stealing. Way to go!
The FSF opposes on principle most licensing schemes other than the GPL (and legally equivalent variations). They don't wan't dual-licensed products (a la MySQL), etc. You are correct that as a result many developers don't like working on GNU projects. But quite a few do - the FSF is largely about a revolution in how software is licensed in general. In the FSF's vision of the world, there is no such thing as closed-source software. The way they propose to create this new world is by making GPL-based software which is better than anything offered in closed-source.
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...
xvid : yes
lavc : yes
files with b-frames : yes
files with gmc : yes
files with qpel : no (seems to be a hardware limitation)
If it wasn't for the legal problems, I'd be quite impressed if my software was being used like this :)
You cant make anything foolproof, they'll only invent better fools.
Well hell, you sound like the authority on the issue with all your credentials; I guess we should listen to you!
You're assuming that monetary payout is the motivation for taking a GPL violator to court. Even in the absence of payout whatsover, the violator has to come into compliance. The judge has any number of penalties for failing to do this. The judge can certainly stop the violator from making further profit from the GPL violation.
Speaking of payouts, punitive damages would still be possible even if there were no compensatory damages. Those punitive damages could even be set ridiculously high because of the willfull "kiss off". There is also the possibility of paying the copyright holders' legal bills because the the violator had to be a dick and get himself taken to court.
In the case of companies like MySQL or Trolltech, compensatory damages aren't as unlikely as you believe. Viable businesses that employ GPL software can prove economic harm. Not all (or even most) GPL software is put out by some hobbyist working out of his parents' basement.
Strings and static data tables usually come out the same on the other side of a compiler. That's usually what they look for. They could rearrange everything in the source, but they'd have to understand the source pretty thoroughly to do that. At that point they might as well write it themselves and avoid the headache.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Remember DMCA is only an American law. And although I don't believe it prohibits reverse engineering for detecting copyright enfringement, even if it did, the community could do it outside the US.
Mplayer folks are hungarian aren't they?
They WILL be at CES. Have at 'em. Don't rant and rave at them, just point out their errors in a kind and gentle but stern tone.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
My original story post included a short second paragraph with the above quote and my own opinion that perhaps a slashdotting for KISS might convince them that this is something they should respond to. I guess CowboyNeal thought it was unneccessary, but I though it was a vital part of the story (the failure of KISS to reply and hence the public name and shame by Mplayer).
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
They had to reverse engineer the KISS software to see the "stolen code". So why were they reverse engineering competitions code? Makes me wonder if THEY were planning on stealing code.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
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.
Is it possible to watermark code?
Is it possible to change strings values and integer variables to contain cryptographic values?
Is it possible to add bytes or set bits in the code that can be scanned for? what about all the wasted bits in enums?
What about slight changes to all the enum values, all the contant values that are not really important. insertion of md5 checksums into the unused data of the program?
That could be done to the source code at a given time. You could setup rules that would use parts of the codes values in the compiler to produce the checksum. The gcc could be extended to allow for a crytpgraphic digest function. That would allow for the code to be signed. Basically the checksum would be stored in the wasted space. When you have the checksum of the entire program (after scanning all the executabl code), you also know where are the free space is. Then you pass through that and insert the checksum into the free space. That is then a fingerprint of the program. Then you can check yourself if the code has been copied.
Now to apply that to only parts of the code, given only the binaries? Well you could make it very hard to guess at all the changes made to the code.
I think there is a big chance in watermarking code that could be recogised in the binaries.
mike
. What about hidden values in variable? Hidden constants? What about using cryptographic enums? If the enum values were generated by a cryptographic function, then you could look for them. The enum is generally 16-32 bit
Introspection is the key to understanding
Reminds me of the Simpsons epsisode Flaming Moes
"He may have come up with the Recipe, but I came up with the idea of charging $6.95 for it."
Once you think you've got a possible GPL violator, how you can get a company to show you their source code? Is going to court the only way to defend your copyright? That would put the burden of proof on the original author who released their code under GPL. Does the FSF automatically jump in to defend GPL code?
I ask because I was considering releasing a project under a GPL/dual license for businesses, but I don't have the resources to pursue any violators when/if they occur.
Oh, look, MPlayer is yet again accusing someone of violating the GPL. I seem to recall them being accused of violating the GPL themselves not too long ago.
.dll files that make their player work. And they keep making accusations, even threats based on copyright law...
Look, beside the rampant hypocrisy, the abusive attitude toward their own users, and the constant accusations of other people ripping them off, these guys also distribute the unauthorized Windows
These guys are almost as bad as the RIAA. I would hate to see them with any financial or legal power, suing the rest of us into submission...
"The FSF opposes on principle most licensing schemes other than the GPL (and legally equivalent variations)"
And what exactly is that principle? Our way or the highway?
I'm not sure that the Open Source movement can continue its momentum without an absolute guarantee by the courts
Then you may never be sure. Courts have historically been very wary of laying a far and wide decree on technology. They are aware of their inability to understand the subtle implications of IP, media, encryption, algorithms, bits and bytes, etc. So if you've watched IP cases at all, you'll know that the courts prefer to decide the case in front of them with little to no comment on similar cases to come.
Also remember that if a 'precedent' seems to be set, all it means is that future cases may cite the precedent, but it's nothing more than that. It helps, sure. But a precedent has never been a guarantee. A guarantee is a law. (Even then...) Precedents are given attention but will be ignored if the surrounding details are deemed differnt enough.
That being said, my own suspicions are that either
- It was Sigma who nicked the code and KISS wasn't aware until recently and is "checking it out" before responding to MPlayer
- One of their programmers took a shortcut and swiped the MPlayer code (for whatever reason) and they are looking into that before responding
The fact that they publicly state that they use GPL'd code right on their site and release SOME of the source, tells me that they have no problem with GPL. Of course, I could be wrong, and in that case, shame on them in the worst way.I think it is important for the public to show solidarity in defending GPL'd software - but we have to keep a level head too. Something is not adding up here. I predict KISS will - after a short delay - anounce that they were unaware that GPL'd code was used, apologize, and release the source.
If they did this I think the added publicity could acctually be GOOD for business. I, for one, wasn't even aware of their product until I read about it here. Now, I will either never buy it (if it turns out to be they are screwing the OSS community) or I will most definitely buy one (If they show that they really are a stand-up company.)
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
I'm just saying it's not a "gpl violation".. there is no such thing. IT's copyright violation, plain and simple.
The GPL has specific terms. When people talk about "GPL violations", they mean non-compliance with those terms. Would you now like to go on to define the meaning of "is"?
Even if the GPL were unenforceable, you could still be violating its terms. I mean, you can violate the ten commandments even though many of them aren't laws.
"""
The FSF tends to stick with GNU projects. They insist that all GNU developers give them a form assigning the FSF their copyrights - so that they have strong standing in a court.
"""
Those who've studied a little history may recognise the above way of working. I'm in particular thinking of the wonderful cooperative organisations in Italy that eventaully became the Mafia, and of the wonderful cooperative organisations in Ireland that eventually became the IRA (though the evolution was a longer one in that case).
So, what will the FSF be like in 150 years?
YAW.
Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
Your "Finland" link would seem to actually be to Hungary... Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions here, but after all it is .hu doman, and there's a Hungarian version of the page ;-)
Instead of the folks at MPlayer saying that they are guilty of violating the GPL, which whether or not they are, is irrellevant, since the GPL itself is only a license and not actually law, why can't they just say that they are guilty of copyright infringement? This is a more likely statement to get some degree of respect from commercial developers, even those who might otherwise dislike the GPL, and may help soften the hearts of anti-GPLists. The statement that they are violating copyright is more accurate, since copyright actually *IS* law. Also, wording it in that way has the upshot of not helping to foster the misconception that the GPL is bad for commercial software development.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
No, it's not. Any significant portion of mplayer put into a commercial product would fall under copyright law.
No they don't. Neither the GPL or copyright law makes this rquirement. A court may choose to insist that they do this.
The law doesn't need to "require" that--it's not a penalty. The copies are unauthorized and illegal and remain so no matter what the court does.
Once again, neither copyright law or the GPL states this. As long as they make a good faith attempt to fulfil obligations, then they can do so after the fact. Strange as it may seem, there is a certain amount of common sense in the law.
From the GPL 2:What I can't figure out about people like you is whether you just make things up as you go along or whether you really just can't read.
No, they simply need to make the source code available to these people.
KISS can't make the source code available to those people because KISS doesn't have a license to distribute the code anymore; they lost that license when they violated the terms of the GPL. Furthermore, KISS customers are not covered under the "However..." clause above because they never received their mplayer binaries under the GPL (this may or may not be the intent of the GPL, but it is pretty clearly a logical consequence). KISS customers can, however, obtain and use the original mplayer code under the GPL.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
I've worked in the consumer electronics industry, and I can attest to the fact that mplayer is a sweet, sweet, sweet piece of code to these companies, and is great to use in products. One particular large corporation I've done consumer electronics work for leverages GPL code extensively, but goes to extreme painstaking measures to comply 100% with the GPL.
I expect KISS to quickly do whatever it takes to comply with the GPL. No company pragmatic enough to have a released product should be willing to put their necks on the line in a GPL validation trial.
(Argh, this "posting right after waking up" business has already led me to posting a blank message on this thread.)
Maybe you should RTFA and look at some of the other posts. They are not distributing the source of MPlayer. The only thing they are distributing on their site is Linux kernel and busybox. No Mplayer code. So maybe *YOU* should check before you open your mouth.
75% of all statistics are made up!
Here's my problem with MPlayer (as well as other GPL'd projects like LAME)...
While they say they have a GPL'd project, the GPL explicitly forbids the distribution of GPL'd code if it falls under any enforcable patents.
If you go to mplayer's site, you'll see that there are direct download links from the USA. So, at the very least, the MPlayer developers are implicit in the violation of the GPL license which they chose themselves. At worst, they are actively violating the license, and their entire project is illegial.
I'm a big user of MPlayer myself, but I've always been disturbed by GPL hypocracy. Can anyone explain this issue away? If not, then how can they be so critical of companies that are just voilating the same license that they are currently violating?
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Its not a GPL violation. Ask them for the source and if they don't give it you and then you might have claims of violation of the GPL. Theres nothing in GPL that says the source must be published in some form - only that it is available upon request.
And if you had checked the contents of that available code you would find that it does not contain the code for mplayer. Only the code for busybox and uCLinux. See earlier posts before being such a smart ass or check the facts yourself.
Violating the GPL can cause 'real' monetary damages.
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.
The copies are unauthorized and illegal and remain so no matter what the court does.
If the court realises that there is a valid case that the copies are legal, then the copies are legal. The courts are the ones who interpret the laww. Not Slashdot readers or open source programmers.
It still takes a court order to declare that KISS have violated the agreement. There are often clauses in licences that are considered too extreme. This could be considered one of them. People make mistakes. The legal system realises this. Like I said "There is a certain amount of common sense in the law". If it is a genuine oversight by KISS, then the court may well rule that the terms have been upheld, even though a pedantic interpretation of the licence would suggest otherwise. There is a certain amount of flexibility in the law, which extends to legal agreements.
KISS can't make the source code available to those people because KISS doesn't have a license to distribute the code anymore; they lost that license when they violated the terms of the GPL.
KISS still has a licence to distribute the code. They simply need to acquire another copy of media player, and agree to the terms. It doesn't matter whjether the old licence was violated. This would become an entirely new licence. The fact that the terms are identical is irrelevent. The GPL grants rights to anyone who accepts the terms, regardless of whether they chose to accept them in the past.
Some background information:
. This chip has a development kit that runs linux. The code for the development kit is available at:/ EM850 0/
I haven't looked into myself but the player is based on Sigma Designs EM8500 chip (http://www.sigmadesigns.com/products/em8500.htm)
http://www.uclinux.org/pub/uClinux/ports/arm
On a somewhat related note:
I only stumbled across this because I recently purchased a lite-on LVD-2001 which also uses this chip (and runs linux), yet they do not have the source code posted anywhere. I have tried contacting the manufacturer numerous times and the best response that I have receive so far is that "Because we didn't modify the kernel of the linux source code , so we have no responsibility to share any source code to you." That didn't sound right to me. Could anyone more familiar with the GPL comment on this?
Sorry for going off topic.
If the court realises that there is a valid case that the copies are legal, then the copies are legal.
If the company violates the terms of the GPL, then they don't have a license to distribute the code, hence the copies were illegally made. End users, who haven't violated KISS's terms, can acquire a copy of the original mplayer code, that's all.
KISS still has a licence to distribute the code. They simply need to acquire another copy of media player, and agree to the terms.
"Media player"? Get out of your Microsoft mindset. We are talking about "mplayer", and, no, they can't "just acquire another copy". The GPL isn't a per copy license, it's a contract between authors and distributors. And that contract explicitly says that it becomes void if you violate its terms.
The GPL grants rights to anyone who accepts the terms, regardless of whether they chose to accept them in the past.
If you have lost your rights granted to you by the author of a GPL'ed piece of software, you can't just fix that by getting another copy. The GPL is not a shrink-wrap, per-copy license, it's an agreement between authors and distributors.
ummm, surely the GPL states that any MODIFICATIONS to the code have to be available
if KISS player binary did not need to be modified, then they dont have to do anything.
gcc is successful because the GPL has no applicability to using gcc. Very few people need to distribute gcc. If simply using it imposed the GPL on compiled programs it would be a lot less used.
If the company violates the terms of the GPL, then they don't have a license to distribute the code, hence the copies were illegally made.
Not if a court disagrees. You see, those are the bodies that interpret the law. You seem to be of the belief that the law in this situation is totally inflexible. This is not the case. KISS had no ability to negotiate for more lenient terms, and in this sort of situation, the court is more likely to interpret the licence in favour of KISS. Clauses that allow unilateral termination are generally not enforced unless the other party makes no effort to rectify its mistakes. If a clause is considered excessively harsh, then it will be rejected in a court of law.
"Media player"? Get out of your Microsoft mindset. We are talking about "mplayer"
My mistake. What does the 'M' stand for?
and, no, they can't "just acquire another copy". The GPL isn't a per copy license, it's a contract between authors and distributors.
It's not a contract. Licences are different. Not that that matters. The fact that a contract or licence agreement has been terminated does not prevent the two parties from agreeing to another, even if the new licence has identical wording.
And that contract explicitly says that it becomes void if you violate its terms.
Indeed it has. This has no bearing on any new contract. The only licence that has become void is the one that was violated. If KISS agrees to a new licence then they can still distribute the software according to its terms.
. The GPL is not a shrink-wrap, per-copy license, it's an agreement between authors and distributors.
Actually, it's closer to a shrink-wrap, per-copy licence agreement. It is offered unilaterally to all people, including those who have violated it in the past. It is certainly not an agreement since there is no ability to negotiate terms on the part of the recipient. It is simply a list of terms and limitations on how one may share the software.
Isn't RMS's stated goal to destroy copyright altogether? Logically, at that point anyone will be able to use or "steal" code in any way they want because there will be no way to enforce the author's wishes. Maybe KISS Technologies is just ahead of the game. ;)
(I'm half serious here; what is supposed to happen after copyright no longer exists?)
From their website they have a page (about 3 clicks away from the product link) that seems pretty compliant, the label of the button that brings up that page says GPL on it. It was right under the support pages (from their top menu, second link from the left).
I didn't RTFA though, so maybe there's something wrong/broken with this page? Or maybe MPlayer want's more credit on the packaging? (like a "Powered by MPlayer" sticker?)
Maybe they just put that page up in the last day or two?
Anywho, I'm off to read the actual MPlayer accusation page now...
DONT PANIC
Well, if you want the FSF to defend GPL violations of your software then, essentially, yes - you've got to play by their rules. If you don't like their vision, you're welcome to keep the copyright and defend it yourself, but why would you expect *any* third party with claim of copyright on the infringing code to do it for you?
oops, make that "without claim"
SCO's antics demonstrate that pattern matches don't neccessarily prove theft. They're entitled to ask for GPLed source. If it turns out the source is not GPLed then KISS can just ignore the request with or without explanation.
Its still most likely an unintentional problem and mplayer have picked the most inconvenient time of year to raise the issue if they want a quick resolution.
Remember what we've all learned from previous cases. One doesn't take someone to court for violating the GPL, you take them to court for violating your copyright. If they choose to claim the GPL allows redistribution then they've 1) admitted doing what you claim, and 2) validated their acceptance of GPL. Then they need to show they've complied with their end of the GPL, which is where the problem will be.
Sort of. I'll say "yes" but qualify. You can't sue somebody for violating the GPL. It's not a contract. It's a license. If they don't agree to the license then it has no legal weight.
The impressive part about the GPL is that if they don't agree to the GPL then copyright law springs into effect. Copyright law can kick them in the teeth a lot harder than the GPL ever could.
So you don't really sue for a GPL violation. You sue for copyright infringement. You offer the GPL as an escape mechanism. If the guilty party accepts the GPL then they avoid the lawsuit. If they don't accept the GPL then... well... simply put, they lose in court.
There have been several examples of companies being sued for copyright infringement of GPLed software. I think they've all ended in settlement so far. So effectively the courts have been used to enforce the GPL. A recent example was MySQL vs NuSphere as reported on Slashdot.
"If you go to mplayer's site, you'll see that there are direct download links from the USA."
So what? How does offering the product for download violate the GPL?
Tuck
Tuck's Journal.
Statutory damages can be tremendous, I believe $150,000 per violation if wilful.
I believe this is the same $150,000/song RIAA is using to come up with $97 billion dollar lawsuits. So if you multiply that figure with the number of individual artists, that is, authors of the mplayer software, we're talking many many millions of dollars.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
To the mplayer development team and anyone else concerned about this or any other hypothetical violation of an as-yet untested license, I say this:
Put your money where your mouth is. If you can't negotiate with KISS, then take them to court. Prove or disprove the validity of your claims for once and for all.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
...that I suspect the MPAA of having stolen my video decoding codec. How exactly to you suppose to find that when the
...all are part of a "secure system", trying to ensure that nothing but a macrovisioned, analog signal leaves the box? Because if you could obtain either of the three, you can make a perfect digital copy, circumventing the copy protection mechanism.
a) compressed stream
b) any temporary data
c) decompressed stream
It is possible that it can be done through some metadata, but it's certainly stepping on eggshells. How can you possibly guarantee that you do *not* find a way to circumvent the copy protection in the process? The research leading up to it is equally illegal under the DMCA.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I always knew Gene and Paul were evil and looking to grab whatever they could to make some more money (That's why Ace and Peter left) but this is simply unbelievable. KISS has done a lot of things in their time but this one takes the cake!
That's the last time I pay to see their "Farewell" tour.
RTFA? Oh wait, just a second.....nevermind about all that.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
the one thing that the FSF said made the original BSD license non-free was...
They have never said that the original BSD license was non-free. If you look here, you'll see that it is listed in the section titled, "The following licenses are free software licenses, but are not compatible with the GNU GPL."
The advertising clause of the original BSD license was just a bad idea. I think ultimately the Regents were persuaded to drop it, not because of pressure from the FSF and its supporters, but because of pressure from businesses (especially small businesses and consultants) who found the advertising clause unduly onerous. Giving credit where credit is due is one thing. Being required to list 50 names in a small classified ad is another.
Finally, the GPL does require that credit be given. Just not in advertising material. "You may copy and distribute...provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice..."
GPL theft is GPL theft, but my eyes roll when these self serving police start to claim that libjpeg strings are in there too, as they are now claiming on their site. libjpeg is LGPL, it instantly calls into question their objectivity.
This is absolutely correct, and whining doesn't help. If the Mplayer group doesn't get it's ass in gear and start quickly banging out some letters, things are going to just get worse.
Mplayer should be asking the EFF, etc. for assistance if they don't have sufficient legal representation to take on violations in a foreign nation.
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
A lot of people in this discussion are analyzing the consequences for KISS following a potential court defeat. However, are any of the people contributing to that discussion taking into consideration that KISS is a Danish company, not American, and that Danish law applies? Furthermore, MPlayer is also not American.
That's an exaggeration of the common set of attitudes on Slashdot; there tends to be no explicit endorsement of music piracy here. But I would agree that:
Someone finds way to circumvent DRM and publishes it, effectively allowing other people to copy 10,000 songs == Slashdot hero.
Though similarly
Apple finds way to sell music cheaply, using a business model that works -- iTunes == Slashdot hero.
Seriously, sometimes I think you would actually DIE for the GPL. GET A LIFE!
For many developers, the GPL is the assurance they hang on to that their hard coding efforts don't go down the drain, or go towards helping some other n00b yuppie get a new bungalow, because he ripped off someone else's open source. Though the usual copyright laws still apply, the GPL is an added layer of assurance, and is thus defended as such.
Fake blood, smoking guitars, cheesy lyrics, great shows.
Not if a court disagrees. You see, those are the bodies that interpret the law.
We are discussing the case in which the terms of the GPL are violated.
My mistake. What does the 'M' stand for?
The "M" stands for "Media". But "mplayer" is an open source software product, while "Media Player" is a Microsoft product. Get it?
It's not a contract. Licences are different.
Licenses are not different from contracts, licenses is a term used for a class of contracts.
Indeed it has. This has no bearing on any new contract.
Yes, and if the moon slams into the earth, then all of this doesn't matter either. However, those are not the cases we are discussing.
Actually, it's closer to a shrink-wrap, per-copy licence agreement. It is offered unilaterally to all people, including those who have violated it in the past.
Binky may forget to switch on his brain sometime, but I seriously doubt you even have one.
We are discussing the case in which the terms of the GPL are violated.
Okay, so I take some GPL source code, and distribute as a proprietry piece of software? what are you going to do? Magically invoke the magic GPL, and watch as I find myself unable to distribute it. How does that work then? What mechanism does the GPL use to prevent me from distributing it? Is there some code embedded in the GPL that prevents the cp command from working? Without legal backing, the GPL is a text file.
Hence the GPL is only valid as far as it is supported by law.
If I mistakenly breach the terms of an agreement, and then rectify this, then I am still legally adhering to the agreement, even if according to a strict interpretation I am not. One cannot unilaterally revoke a licence even if the terms allow you to do so.
The "M" stands for "Media". But "mplayer" is an open source software product, while "Media Player" is a Microsoft product. Get it?
Now you're splitting hairs. MPlayer is a media player, and it is even called Media Player, just as the GPL can also be called "The GNU Public License"
Licenses are not different from contracts, licenses is a term used for a class of contracts.
A contract is enforced under contract law. A Licence is enforced under copyright law. A licence is permission to do something you would not normally be allowed to do. The GPL give unilateral permission to copy within certain limitations. There is no reciprical obligation. You are not even required to give your modifications to the original creator.
Binky may forget to switch on his brain sometime, but I seriously doubt you even have one.
I suggest you read up on copyright law, contract law, and how the legal system actually works to resolve disputes.
(This is a hair you are splitting.)
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
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
The EUCD (european union copyright directive) is even more restrictive than the DMCA, so there are less places to hack freely. good article and another. Makes me long for the days I did my hacking in deepest darkest Peru (ok, Lima wasn't deep and only dark in the wintertime)
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
If it's flamebait, why has noone flamed me?
Mods on crack (again...)
YAW.
Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
Principal disagreement on Open source
Even if a piece of software has been developed as opensource and it therefore can be used for free (gratis), this does not mean that you can do anyhting you want with it. But sometimes it can be difficult see exactly where the limit is. This is seen from a case between a young hungarian software team, and a danish developer of electronics.
Mplayer (which is the program of the hungarian programmers) is used to play media files on linux, and the hungarians are accusing the danish dcd-producer for having stolen their code and used in their own dvd players (which also used linux)
Even though the hungarian software is free (gratis) this will still be a revelationb** of the license by which most of the opensource software is licensced. Therefore the hungarians demand that Kiss technology must reveal [the sourcecode of] all it's software, but director Peter Wilmar Christensen clearly rejects to do so
Nerd Project
The development of mplayer was started three years ago by a small group. They needed a program to play media files under linux, and they were unsatisfied by the avaliable options, so they decided to produce a better alternative.
That is how Gabor Berzi tells it. He is the official representitive of the mplayer programmers and uses the nickname Gabucino
Mplayer is widely used in the opensource community, and Gabucino stresses that the program is very stable and that it is able to play many formats.
The trouble with Kiss started when one of the hungarian software developers started looking for a dvd-player, and examined a product from Kiss.
For the fun of it the programmer started looking at the code of the dvd-player, the socalled firmware, and he compared this code with the code of mplayer.
There were so many similarities that the mplayer5 programmers got angry
Banal code
The similarities are found in the part of thye code that controls the subtitles, when the cd is being played. This code does not require a genious to write. Actually Gabucino is confused why anyone would borrow this code at all, instead of making it himself. He guesses that the progrtammers have been lazy
GPL- rights and duties
GPL - under which GPL is licensed - grant the users some rigths, but also requires some duties of them.
It is legal to take the code of mplayer and extent it. However this requires your to make the result publicly avaible. Therefore Gabucino requires KiSS to reveal the code behind their dvd-players and make it publicly avaible.
At first KiSS did not respond to the acussations of the hungarians, but once the cases started drawing public attention in netmedia and fora, they started investiganing the case.
There are two main questions in the case. Did the software of mplayer end up in the software of KiSS, and how should the GPL be administered
KiSS has also been accused of violation the GPL with respect to other open source code than mplayer, but director Peter Wilmar Christensen rejects the accusations (except for a few details)
The DVD-players of KiSS- uses a variant of the Linux OS, and this part of KiSS software has been licenced according to the rules (I think they mean GPL here). But KiSS stresses that the programs which runon top of the OS, and enable the machines to play video and music files, belong to the company, "and they must not be given to everyone", says the director
Basically we don't use mplayer software in our dvd-players. we have our own player which propraritrary, and we are not required to make the code public
Principles - not money
the hungarian programmers are happy that their accusations have become public. They don't have the economy to take the case to the courts, but they hope that pressure from the opensource community can force the danish dvd-producer to follow the licence and reveal it's source code.
Gabuci