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."

Comments

Re:sweet player...

[Tack]

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.

Well, if they stole MPlayer's code, they get Ogg support without having to be cool and open-minded. :)

Jason.

The GPL is headed for a showdown...

[Fortunato_NC]

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.

Re:The GPL is headed for a showdown...

[penguin7of9]

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.

I don't see that as a problem. People who use the GPL want compliance, not vast amounts of money. The requirement to comply with the license doesn't go away even if there are no monetary damages.

The GPL already has big hammer: if you violate it, you lose all rights to the software. So, at this point, KISS faces the prospect of having to rip mplayer out of all their players, shipped, shipping, and on the drawing board, and looking for a substitute. That would amount to an enormous penalty and drive them out of business.

If the open source community feels an example needs to be set, that's what the authors of mplayer should demand.

Of course, in the past, GPL authors have often been nice and simply permitted companies like KISS to come into compliance by posting the source code after the fact. But that's a friendly gesture from the open source community; the GPL license carries a bigger stick.

acknowledgement

[koekepeer]

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?

Re:I own one, it rocks.

[gellenburg]

It is products like these that are important to the Open Source community.

How, exactly?

Really, I'm being serious.

• Does KISS donate any revenues or profits received to any OSS projects?
• Does KISS publicly acknowledge and recognize the hard work from all the MPlayer developers?
• • After all, their product wouldn't be what it is today without the hard work of others.
• Does KISS offer to host a mirror of the MPlayer code & binaries to help show their support?
• Does KISS contribute back their code changes to the MPlayer project so the entire project benefits? (changes do not have to be accepted, however.)

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.

Once again, not a GPL violation.

[mindstrm]

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.

only if it is a customer of theirs

[nietsch]

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...

Not the way to do it

[Alan Cox]

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.

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 .. 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.

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.

Re:Not the way to do it

[demi]

So firstly its quite possibly not their fault
Secondly its quite possible they are all still on their christmas holiday

Amen. And thirdly, maybe KISS is just treating the mplayer people like they treat their own users: with hostility and inaccessibility. Considering that KISS release sources for busybox and Linux, I find it difficult to believe that they would somehow refuse to release mplayer source because they're evil. Most likely it's just an oversight that will be cleared up in time--too bad the mplayer people are so quick to pound the drum of aggrievance, but it's totally in character for them.

By the way, I like mplayer very much, the developers do a really excellent technical job; they just lack interpersonal skills--which are very necessary when trying to get a business to do what you want them to do.

Re:A taste of their own medicine

[Da Masta]

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.