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."
Well, if they stole MPlayer's code, they get Ogg support without having to be cool and open-minded. :)
Jason.
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
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?
i dont care about some eulas
then why should Mplayer expect anyone else to ?
they are distributing other peoples work for free illegally and then complain when someone else does the same ? haha gimme a break,
iam sure quite a few companies would like to address their copyright concerns to the Mplayer team
How, exactly?
Really, I'm being serious.
Again, I ask, with all honesty, just how do products like these benefit the OS community; because frankly the way I see it, what's happening here is nothing more than greedy sons-of-bitches who are exploiting the hard works of others.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
This isn't about whether or not the MPlayer guys are socially adept, it's about whether or not KiSS Tech is violating their license.
Even assholes have rights, no matter how much other assholes might dislike them.
No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe. -Frigid Monkey
Because MPlayer never pretends to have written the source for all the dll's they're including. Everyone using them knows where they're from.
KISS, on the other hand, is allegedly using MPlayer source without releasing the sources to their modifications, and in essence are claiming the software as their own. This is a violation of the license MPlayer is released under.
This is quite different from repackaging and redistributing files that were freely available on the net.
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.