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
While KISS Technologies offers some source code, that does not include the GPL'ed code the MPlayer site claims was taken from their code: A case-insensitive grep of the KISS-supplied source code for the string "MPSub" finds no matches.
IANAL, but the GPL is a license, nothing else. You cant lose your copyright just because the license is invalid.
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.
> I own one of their players (The DP-450). I love it, simply love it.
I had the same player, and returned it. Hate to spoil, but
- it mutes the audio on AVIs with WMA audio encoding (DIVX AUDIO)
- it freezes on most SVCD discs I tried, usually after fast-forwarding
- it freezes on some older DIVX AVIs, usually within the first 20 seconds
- it turns into a slideshow on DIVX3 with lots of stuff moving, like eg in
Matrix when the world turns into green hex numbers, or explosions with
particles flying around
- it doesn't play MP3 discs headless (to replace CD player in stereo)
Other than that, it's a great product. I'd love to check their products again in a year or so.
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.
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.
Not entirely true. Read the GPL FAQ:
Q. I want to distribute binaries without accompanying sources. Can I provide source code by FTP instead of by mail order?
A. You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the mail-order option, but FTP access to the source is not sufficient to satisfy section 3 of the GPL.
When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get the source from you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the job. But not every user can do such a download. The rest of the users are just as entitled to get the source code from you, which means you must be prepared to send it to them by post.
If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship one. But you cannot assume that.
Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the binary in the first place.
So as long as no one requests a physical copy of the source, you're right, sticking it on your site for them is good enough. The 24MB source zip file would be a little tough on dialup users, so there could be a case where they're required to provide the source on CD or whatever.
In any event, I just downloaded said file and here's what it contains (edited for lameness):
Archive: GPL.zip
Length Name
751701 busybox.tar.gz
24236327 uClinux-2.4.17.tar.gz
24988028 2 files
So unless they're offering the mplayer source separately, they're probably in violation of the GPL anyway.
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.
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.