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.
well it appears on their website that they offer the source for download here
try looking here.
IANAL, but the GPL is a license, nothing else. You cant lose your copyright just because the license is invalid.
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
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
The problem is that while you can't lose your copyright because of distibution under an invalid license, it's hard to prove damages if you were distributing something essentially for free and someone else comes and packages it and makes money with it. The GPL provides protection because by downloading, using, and modifying GPL software, you are agreeing that you will not redistribute the software without making the source available. That contract between the author and user is what currently "guarantees" that the author's work won't be "stolen" out from under him/her. Again, IANAL, so YMMV...
Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
If I write a piece of software, it is copyrighted by me. If I choose to release my software with a license attached, that gives you the right to use my software under the terms of that license. If for some reason that license is invalid, the software is still copyrighted by me, and you no longer have the rights you once did under that license. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
2. is essentially not an option, by the Berne Convention. If a corrupt (i.e. american) court tried to pull that, there would be serious hell to pay. Like European computer nerds and physicists bombing american embassies and things hell.
This is not that big a problem in the US. The US Copyright Act provides several remedies: (i) injunction (a court order for the infringer to stop), (ii) damages based on the copyright holder's actual damages _and_ the copyright violators profits or (iii) statutory damages (that is, damages specified by the statute without any need to show actual damages).
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
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.
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.
It's the mplayer developers' choice whether they want to enforce their license against KISS. If they don't, after a while they may not be able to.
But their actions have no bearing on whether you or I can legally enforce the GPL against software we have created and released under the GPL. The GPL is just contractual language. Just because you may fail to enforce your contracts doesn't affect my ability to enforce my contracts even if the contracts we use use the same language.
If your line of reasoning applied, most of the real estate contracts people use (which are mostly standardized) would be unenforceable because many people fail to enforce their contractual rights under them.
don't Mplayer distribute hacked unauthorised divX,mpg4 and quicktime and realaudio .dlls for win32 ?
No, they don't. You're probably thinking of the Penguin Liberation Front codec pack, which is not part of mplayer itself.
You can compile mplayer entirely from source with DivX, mpeg4 and Quicktime support. This support comes from GPL'd source code, not from hacked binaries.
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
besides possible GPL violation what i find disturbing is that apparently no credit was given to the mplayer developers.
While I fully agree that anyone stealing GPL software deserves whatever lawsuits they get, the Mplayer team has violated the GPL in the past as well.
Maybe but it is distributed on and by the mplayer site, just click on "downloads".
You can compile mplayer entirely from source with DivX, mpeg4 and Quicktime support.
Yes. But they still distribute those binary codecs in clear violation of the law.
I suppose you may have been trying to be funny but I'm not sure...
The OSI which approves the GPL is the Open Source Initiative.
OSI, as an OSI 7-layer model, stands for Open Systems Interconnect and the standard is set by the International Organization for Standardization (I guess IOS was already a Cisco trademark or something...).
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
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, he's actually correct. He's just been using mplayer longer than you.
Back in the early days of Mplayer the developers used some third party code that wasn't released under the GPL. As a result, they forbid people from distributing binaries of MPlayer, as they felt that this would violate the GPL. Eventually that code was replaced, and you can now get MPlayer binaries legally, but this wasn't always the case.
Not quite the same situation same situation as KISS, but worth noting none the less.
It uses patented technologies (which they certainly have not payed the royalties for). In Hungary, software patents are not (yet?) in existance, so it is legal to distribute from mplayerhq.hu. However, within the United States, the patents that apply to the program run afoul of the GPL (read the addition restrictions section of the GPL).
By distributing it from a country where it violates patents, they are violating the terms of the GPL.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant