Slashdot Mirror
Kiss Technology Counters MPlayer GPL Arguments
Snaller writes "Recently, MPlayer claimed that KISS Technology were violating the GPL by using parts of their MPlayer movie playback code in proprietary software. Now The Danish National Radio has interviewed the managing director of Kiss Technology, Peter Wilmar Christensen. He denies all claims of wrongdoing and suggests that if the pieces of code are the same, perhaps they were leaked from Kiss Technology and were then used by the Mplayer group. He also adds that the GPL is a weak license which has never been tested in court. Gabucino from the Mplayer team is furious, and accuses the director of outright lying."
The reason GPL has never been tested in court is that there haven't been any solid violations of the licence and the fact that it is so clear (the GPL that is...). The only grey area is 'derivative work' which most certainly includes blatently ripping off a chunk of code.
Is this the KISS of death for GPL?
Omnis amans amens
The only way we could know for sure would be to see the CVS/[insert source archive system here] logs to see whether they were developed all at once by KISS (implying they stole) or whether it built up over time...
To be or not to be.-Shakespeare
To do is to be.-Nietzsche
To be is to do.-Sartre
Do be do be do.-Sinatra
The bastards.
Is it just me, or is this an attempt at blatantly copping-out by capitalizing on all the anti-GPL hysteria that has been rampant recently?
The GPL certainly hasn't been tested in court (yet), but that doesn't mean it hasn't been tested. A large number of out-of-court settlements (some of them rather expensive) prove that corporations are willing to respect the license, and that its defenders are willing to enforce compliance.
He just got a bunch of easily riled up geeks that love the GPL pissed off at him.
Expect mailbombing, DDOS attacks, and outright criticism. Then expect to start hearing from legal advisors that know what they are talking about.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
if the GPL is strong , there should be no problem seeing him in court right ?
Well, never let it be said that Americans are the only people to behave in shitty corporate self-interested ways.
Such dishonesty is painfully pathological.
So here:
The Danish National Radio (http://dr.dk) has made an interview with me (as MPlayer representative), and Kiss Technology's managing director Peter Wilmar Christensen.
It is going to be broadcasted tonight at 20:35, but it is also downloadable from the Internet right now:
* streaming
* downloadable file
A written article is also available, in Danish.
We have made a rough english translation of the session (thanks to Anders Rune Jensen). Our commentaries can be found at the bottom.
Speaker: The development of MPlayer was started by a little group of Hungarian programmers 3 years ago.
Speaker: We needed a program that could play media files under Linux and were so unsatisfied with the existing choices that we started making a better alternative - said Gabucino, the spokesperson for the MPlayer programmers.
Speaker: MPlayer has reached a wide recognition in the Open Source community. Gabucino emphasizes the program's stability and ability to play many different movie formats as some of the obvious advantages.
Speaker: The trouble with Kiss technology started recently when one of the MPlayer developers was shopping for a new DVD player and went for a product by the Danish company. For fun the programmer started looking at the software in the Danish DVD player, the so called firmware, and compared it with MPlayer's own code. There were enough similarities to take a closer look at the case and make the MPlayer team angry - Gabucino said.
Speaker: The specific part of the code in which the similarities are found is the one controlling the subtitles when playing movies. The reality is that the code doesn't contain anything really brilliant. On the contrary, it's very simple. So Gabucino is puzzled why anyone would even bother using the code instead of writing it themselves. He suggests that it could be laziness on the programmer's side.
Speaker: I think it's actually a very normal thing that programmers borrow Open Source code because they are too lazy to write it themselves. There have been some cases prior to this which have caused quite a lot of trouble. I think there are hundreds of examples like this that we just don't hear about - Gabucino said.
Speaker: The MPlayer team has published the accusation of the code theft on their website and has tried to document it by listing the strings in the code which are identical in the two pieces of software. According to Gabucino, there are so many similarities that it's unthinkable that this might be a coincidence.
Speaker: Normally this type of code is different depending on who implemented it, so, when there are so many identical strings, it's obvious that we're dealing with theft, the Hungarians believe.
Speaker: GPL or General Public License which MPlayer is licensed under is a very widely used Open Source license, which gives the users certain rights and certain duties. Long story short, it is okay to take the code from MPlayer and develop it further, as long as the result is given back to the community. In this specific example Gabucino and the other Hungarians therefore demand that Kiss Technology should release the software used in its DVD players. And makes it clear that it is not a matter of getting some money from the Danish company, but a matter of fulfilling the requirements of the GPL and releasing the software.
Speaker: Kiss Technology at first didn't react to the Hungarians' inquiry, but after the story began to get large publicity in the different net-medias and forums the company began to investigate the case this week. There are two main questions: whether code from MPlayer really is inside the Kiss software and how the licenses of Open Source software should be interpreted and applied. Apart from being accused of taking code from MPlayer, Kiss Technology has also been accused of using other Open Source software, but managing director Peter Wilmar Christensen denies all accusations with small requisitions. The DVD player from K
GPL.. What is it all about.. is it good, or is it whack?
... i'm really eager to see what is going to happen when the GPL goes to court.
To me, it's seems that with wider commercialization of GPLed technology, it becomes more important to have solid foundation to stop once and for all corporate greed and FUD.
...the way to show support for our mplayer friends is to slashdot them into infinity!
I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."
GPL has been tested over and over, and enforced too. Those who don't comply are slashdotted! (And some those who do too!) We slashdotted SCO, now we slashdot KISS.. Fear our wrath!
...then you're back to standard copyright law, which means you *cannot* distribute any derived works. IMO, this is why the GPL is much stronger than a EULA. It doesn't try to restrict usage at all; and it grants you certain distribution rights if you're willing to play ball.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
The arguement of "who stole whose code" shouldn't be too hard to settle. There are archives of old versions, logs of when certain sections/features were added. Compare the allegedly stolen Mplayer code with the Kiss release date, and then tell Kiss to kiss our GNU/Asses.
As for the GPL being were and unverified in court, perhaps they'd like to be our guinea pig? Of course, without GPL they'd still be in violation of copyright and up for large monentary damages.
The GPL has never been tested in court for a reason:
People have respect for it and follow it. In the open source world, large coporations aren't usually involved and matters of GPL violations can be handled in a simple manner outside of the court system. If any of you don't understand what I mean by people having respect for it, let me give you an example. The U.S. dollar bill would be worth absolutely nothing if people didn't have trust and respect for it. U.S. money is not backed by any gold, silver, etc. It is backed by trust and respect and it is the same for the GPL. Well, except for the fact that an entire license isn't written on our money.
didn't the code in question have something about mplayers internal format in? someone who commented on it when it last came up had pointed it out.
know what happened to the computer printer company from the late '80's that also went by the name of "KiSS"? I figured it was the same company that had made my old laser printer (long since taken to the dump), but their website says they opened shop in 1994...
Hard to imagine that two companies would pick the same dumbshit name....
I believe you mean "liar, liar, pants on fire".
Neither scenario paints a pretty picture of Kiss Technology. Are they a publically traded company?
ThisIsAnExampleAccountGL@yahoo.com
2004.01.10, Saturday :: Radio interview: Kiss VS MPlayer
posted by Gabucino
The Danish National Radio (http://dr.dk) has made an interview with me (as MPlayer representative), and Kiss Technology's managing director Peter Wilmar Christensen.
It is going to be broadcasted tonight at 20:35, but it is also downloadable from the Internet right now:
* streaming
* downloadable file
A written article is also available, in Danish.
We have made a rough english translation of the session (thanks to Anders Rune Jensen). Our commentaries can be found at the bottom.
Speaker: The development of MPlayer was started by a little group of Hungarian programmers 3 years ago.
Speaker: We needed a program that could play media files under Linux and were so unsatisfied with the existing choices that we started making a better alternative - said Gabucino, the spokesperson for the MPlayer programmers.
Speaker: MPlayer has reached a wide recognition in the Open Source community. Gabucino emphasizes the program's stability and ability to play many different movie formats as some of the obvious advantages.
Speaker: The trouble with Kiss technology started recently when one of the MPlayer developers was shopping for a new DVD player and went for a product by the Danish company. For fun the programmer started looking at the software in the Danish DVD player, the so called firmware, and compared it with MPlayer's own code. There were enough similarities to take a closer look at the case and make the MPlayer team angry - Gabucino said.
Speaker: The specific part of the code in which the similarities are found is the one controlling the subtitles when playing movies. The reality is that the code doesn't contain anything really brilliant. On the contrary, it's very simple. So Gabucino is puzzled why anyone would even bother using the code instead of writing it themselves. He suggests that it could be laziness on the programmer's side.
Speaker: I think it's actually a very normal thing that programmers borrow Open Source code because they are too lazy to write it themselves. There have been some cases prior to this which have caused quite a lot of trouble. I think there are hundreds of examples like this that we just don't hear about - Gabucino said.
Speaker: The MPlayer team has published the accusation of the code theft on their website and has tried to document it by listing the strings in the code which are identical in the two pieces of software. According to Gabucino, there are so many similarities that it's unthinkable that this might be a coincidence.
Speaker: Normally this type of code is different depending on who implemented it, so, when there are so many identical strings, it's obvious that we're dealing with theft, the Hungarians believe.
Speaker: GPL or General Public License which MPlayer is licensed under is a very widely used Open Source license, which gives the users certain rights and certain duties. Long story short, it is okay to take the code from MPlayer and develop it further, as long as the result is given back to the community. In this specific example Gabucino and the other Hungarians therefore demand that Kiss Technology should release the software used in its DVD players. And makes it clear that it is not a matter of getting some money from the Danish company, but a matter of fulfilling the requirements of the GPL and releasing the software.
Speaker: Kiss Technology at first didn't react to the Hungarians' inquiry, but after the story began to get large publicity in the different net-medias and forums the company began to investigate the case this week. There are two main questions: whether code from MPlayer really is inside the Kiss software and how the licenses of Open Source software should be interpreted and applied. Apart from being accused of taki
Brielle
There are way too much violations to the GPL already. Stallman and Cia. should have a fund for sueing such idiots so that no other lamer shall think the GPL is "weak".
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
I met this guy at Cebit last year - and he certainly seemed VERY pleased with himself. He was going on about how the player used "2 million lines of code". I wonder how many of those 2 million came from the MPlayer CVS server? ]-[
Keep It Stolen, Stupid.
SCO is apparently suing KISS for stealing their business model...
The CB App. What's your 20?
mplayer violating eulas by packaging stuff that's available free == good (except the mplayer guys don't to this themselves, the PLF does). Other companies stealing from mplayer == bad. See the difference? troll.
Wow, either that's a bad translation, or Peter talked himself in circles like 8 times. I guess he wanted to make it clear that they don't use MPlayer directly... as if that really mattered. Instead of answering a question with an answer, he kept saying they were looking into it and investigating. Now that's okay for a one or two line answer, but he kept saying it over and over and over again. It really sounded like he had no idea what to say but decided to say it over and over again.
Over all, a fun read!
Matt Fahrenbacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
Hmmm.... a lair o' pants.... O the possibilities...
Site seems to be on the virge of slashdotting, so here's the mplayer peoples' comments.
:: Radio interview: Kiss VS MPlayer
2004.01.10, Saturday
posted by Gabucino
The Danish National Radio (http://dr.dk) has made an interview with me (as MPlayer representative), and Kiss Technology's managing director Peter Wilmar Christensen.
It is going to be broadcasted tonight at 20:35, but it is also downloadable from the Internet right now:
* streaming
* downloadable file
A written article is also available, in Danish.
We have made a rough english translation of the session (thanks to Anders Rune Jensen). Our commentaries can be found at the bottom.
Speaker: The development of MPlayer was started by a little group of Hungarian programmers 3 years ago.
Speaker: We needed a program that could play media files under Linux and were so unsatisfied with the existing choices that we started making a better alternative - said Gabucino, the spokesperson for the MPlayer programmers.
Speaker: MPlayer has reached a wide recognition in the Open Source community. Gabucino emphasizes the program's stability and ability to play many different movie formats as some of the obvious advantages.
Speaker: The trouble with Kiss technology started recently when one of the MPlayer developers was shopping for a new DVD player and went for a product by the Danish company. For fun the programmer started looking at the software in the Danish DVD player, the so called firmware, and compared it with MPlayer's own code. There were enough similarities to take a closer look at the case and make the MPlayer team angry - Gabucino said.
Speaker: The specific part of the code in which the similarities are found is the one controlling the subtitles when playing movies. The reality is that the code doesn't contain anything really brilliant. On the contrary, it's very simple. So Gabucino is puzzled why anyone would even bother using the code instead of writing it themselves. He suggests that it could be laziness on the programmer's side.
Speaker: I think it's actually a very normal thing that programmers borrow Open Source code because they are too lazy to write it themselves. There have been some cases prior to this which have caused quite a lot of trouble. I think there are hundreds of examples like this that we just don't hear about - Gabucino said.
Speaker: The MPlayer team has published the accusation of the code theft on their website and has tried to document it by listing the strings in the code which are identical in the two pieces of software. According to Gabucino, there are so many similarities that it's unthinkable that this might be a coincidence.
Speaker: Normally this type of code is different depending on who implemented it, so, when there are so many identical strings, it's obvious that we're dealing with theft, the Hungarians believe.
Speaker: GPL or General Public License which MPlayer is licensed under is a very widely used Open Source license, which gives the users certain rights and certain duties. Long story short, it is okay to take the code from MPlayer and develop it further, as long as the result is given back to the community. In this specific example Gabucino and the other Hungarians therefore demand that Kiss Technology should release the software used in its DVD players. And makes it clear that it is not a matter of getting some money from the Danish company, but a matter of fulfilling the requirements of the GPL and releasing the software.
Speaker: Kiss Technology at first didn't react to the Hungarians' inquiry, but after the story began to get large publicity in the different net-medias and forums the company began to investigate the case this week. There are two main questions: whether code from MPlayer really is inside the Kiss software and how the lice
Well I come from Denmark, and this interview makes me angry - what he basicly says is that it is okay not to folllow the GPL because KISS is a company and they need to make money (when asked if the company will put the code online if it contains part of mplayer, he says that it is a natural thing, that a company can not show its code).
I can understand that a company that have coded an aplication that runs on top on a modified linux, will only show the modified linux code, but in the case of KISS this aplication that runs on top of linux, is made of mplayer code - and should be made public.
$3 billion sounds like a good number.
Perhaps all that is needed is a little kiss and tell?
:)
Sorry, I'm a bad person.
Going to court here is pretty cheap.
I think this will be handled in the "sea- and trade court", which can command Kiss to stop distributing the software, until the copyright infringements has been removed.
You can run the case yourself, and if you win it will cost nothing.
Is there any such thing as a GPL defense fund? A lot of open source software is being developed by people who probably don't have the extra money to pay the legal fees needed to pursue action against GPL violators. Hence the GPL remains untested in court (although IBM may help fix that soon).
It'd be nice if any leftovers from the US$10 million that IBM and Intel are putting up would be dumped over into a general GPL defense fund.
By saying "if parts of the code are similar maybe MPlayer stole our code" he is basically admitting that someone stole from someone.
then he says...
The GPL is a weak license and hasn't been tested in court. What is the point of making this comment if he feels that MPlayer stole from them? What he is really saying is "What are you going to do about it?"
Here's a direct link to the article in danish
...it was already mentioned in the previous article, but the KISS player can even play older divx format (the 3.xx one), which are based on illegaly tweaked MS drivers.
I don't know if these divx can be played with legal drivers, but if it's not possible, and KISS accept to provide the source of the player, they ould also accept to provide the evidence that they are using illegal MS drivers in their product, wouldn't they ? In that case, doesn't it cast some light on their possible motivations ?
It's really too bad that this article wasn't out a bit sooner. It seems from on their homepage that they did a public presentation in vegas from the 8th-11th. Anyone know their next presentation date... perhaps we could come and present some poignant questions about the now-dubious legitimacy of their product (nothing quite like: "isn't it true that XXX and YYY have found evidence that your code is stolen from project ZZZ" in a public place).
So wait.. let me get this stright. If Mplayer stole this stuff from KISS, why did KISS invent a new subtitle format which they never told anyone about, which the mplayer people just happened to decide to launch? This has crap written all over it
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
MPlayer is the last open source project that needs to be giving lectures on breaking licences. The only thing that makes their project usefull are the dll's which they redistribute, the legality of which is iffy at best.
While thier claim of GPL violation may be completely legitimate, the first rule when breaking the law is you don't go calling the authorities if you get screwed.
I think I'll vote for the "Cowboy Neal made me do it!" option.
---
Segmentation Fault ( core dumped )
This is an interesting problem that will require a solution. Can the Mplayer people prove that their code existed before it existed in Kiss' source tree? Certainly the contents of version control systems could be compared, and release repositories such as SourceForge could be used as evidence, but a more formal system is probably needed.
I imagine a system similar to copyright registration and escrow services, where a neutral third party would receive code checkins/snapshots that would be time-stamped, "sealed" as evidence (and compared against SCO sources, natch). Then the owner would stand on more solid ground, and even unpaid open-source developers would have a chance to protect their work. Of course, such a service would have to be highly affordable, perhaps even free, SourceForge-style; in fact, this is something SourceForge ought to support and promote.
but I'm curious as to why the mplayer folks were using "strings" on the KISS module(s).
Granted, if what they say is true, it *does* look like something's not right there.
But why they were even looking to see how KISS's stuff worked is a bit curious.
do() || do_not();
Hopefully we can stop this evil before it spreads too far. No, not Velma looking really good in the next "Scooby Doo" movie, but companies stealing GPL code, then arguing "Well, *you* must have stolen it from us", even though they can't prove it.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Put simply
You will see how strong GPL is with the SCO - IBM battle.
Need I say more ?
Mind you that I'm referring to U.S. law which may or may not impact the MPlayer/KISS problem, but didn't a high court recently decide that it is not copyright infringement to copy data from a database built from a compilation of data? That is, you can't just organize a bunch of readily available data and copyright it and prevent anyone else form using the same data.
The reason I ask is that the original Slashdot article stated that a big clue was "the KISS ROM includes the same list, in order, of subtitle formats as MPlayer (including their own format mpsub)". That sounds like it could be construed as a compiled set of data, akin to the case I cited above.
I'm certainly not supporting KISS
Thanks to SCO, it looks like we have a new trend developping. Any time you want to rip off GPLed code, and you get busted, simply deny deny deny, and then turn around and level the charge that YOUR code was put into THEIR project! What better way to get code for free and get away scot free?
I'll be honest, we're throwing science against the wall to see what sticks. -Cave Johnson
Um, yeah.
That's right... By some freak coincidence, KISS had developed a custom subtitle format and gave it the name "MPSub". You might think that the "MP" in that name stood for MPlayer -- you know, as if MPlayer had invented it -- but you would be wrong.
uhh...
Yes, Kiss stole from Mplayer. Calling them on it early and harshly, though, might have been the wrong tactic as it forces Kiss to defend an unethical position or to admit they are thieves.
Now, it's an issue of ego and anger where it could have been a largely uninvolved and low key licence dispute.
Case in point: Anyone remember Marion Barry, former Washington DC mayor? He was caught buying crack cocaine -- and ended up a hero to many people because he fought back from an ethically undefendable position where he had already lost everything. Barry is still involved in DC politics.
Kiss currently can cause Mplayer and other projects trouble, and since Kiss also -- potentially -- has nothing additional to loose there is little reason for them not to be defiant and to basically say "No, you're wrong" to Mplayer.
The only thing that will change this is if the dammage of caving in is less than the dammage of fighting this.
Any ideas?
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
but mod grandparent up
Mudflinging with no proof from both sides? The MPlayer guys have provided some evidence, as well as how they got the evidence and how you can find it yourself. The evidence seems pretty compelling. Not to doubt the MPlayer guys, but it's always a wise idea to hear your opponents arguments. If you don't hear your opponents arguments, you may overlook a large hole in yours.
However, there haven't been any arguments from KISS other than "We didnt' do it, we swear, and by the way, if we did it anyways, GPL sucks"
And if GPL is so weak, why do they distribute the rest of the sources used in their stuff?
The GPL is whack.
> How come companies like Kiss cant'be
> punished by Law?
Because the GPL is a rather weak weapon to make their life miserable. They just have to fix the problem or publish the source to their customers and the case collapses. This approach may be very sensible in a civilised society but not a good tool to annoy your neighbour.
SCO! Is KISS taking lessons from Daryl??
The problem is, this part probably will not happen, and KISS knows it. The "small guy" generally does not have the resources to pursue this kind of legal action. This is why I was happy to see SCO take the GPL to task, if it becomes part of their future legal insanity, we may then get a good test case that clears the unknowns up.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
>The GPL is a weak license which has never been tested in court
== F U D
Copyright infringement on programs otherwise GPL licensed has been tested in court (and, as expected, it is still copyright infringement).
well, at least the link is right :)
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
No I don't see a difference.
The codecs various were made available under various licences. MPlayer is redistributing them in violation of those licences.
MPlayer released it's code under a licence. Kiss is redistributing it in violation of the licence.
What is the difference? The fact that the codecs did not require money in exchange for a licence does not change the fact that you have no right to use them except as specified in the licence. The exact same holds for the mplayer source.
They're claiming that after all this time they haven't taken the 10-20 minutes to download the mplayer source and compare it to theirs, and would like to hurl a few offensive comments towards the mplayer developers and the rest of the open source community before investigating if the claims are valid.
Notice how he states that they're not violating the GPL, then proceeds to bash the GPL as if they were. Unless they found something incriminating and went "Of F**K, we violated the GPL," it makes no sense for them to argue that the GPL is weak.
How come companies like Kiss cant'be punished by Law?
Well, see, they can. You yourself stated that you thought up the MPSub format and that this other guy, laaz, implemented it. Well, that means that laaz has *copyright* over that implementation and possibly you have copyright over the format itself (that's a bit more iffy though).
In any case, laaz has obviously released his changes to the mplayer codebase under the GPL. If KISS used that part of the code, but didn't release their derivative work, then they have violated the licensing agreement that gave them access to that MPSub source in the first place. And that means laaz can sue them for copyright violation.
If the RIAA can sue people for it, then developers can too. My advice to anyone who finds this sort of attitude when they get their code stolen: call a lawyer. I know it's not nice, and I know you released the software so that anybody could use it. But if a company steals your work and won't play ball with everybody else, then sue them. You have the right. Your work has been *stolen* here. What the hell are you waiting for?
Despite what idiots say, the GPL has never been tested in court because it's rock-fucking-solid. It cannot be defeated, not really. This is the opinion of some very, very smart people who know law in great detail. And you'll have the support of every developer on the planet if the other side tries to attack the GPL directly.
So do it. If they won't abide by the terms of the license, no matter what you try, then sue the holy shit out of the fuckers. At least you'll be able to force them to stop using your code that way.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
And if GPL is so weak, why do they distribute the rest of the sources used in their stuff?
This simply cannot be iterated enough. It's just plain silly to say something like that.
It's called HYPOCRISY.
Gus
I will smash up my KISS DV-500 and remove the chip with the stolen code on.
.the people you are after are the people you depend on. Do not f**k with us."
:)
Then I will send back the broken remains to KISS with a message saying
"We want ALL our code back!
Look. .
Matt.
Disclaimer: The above only applies if their latest patch doesn't fix their buggy zoom feature that switches off half way through the damn movie. Is THIS fixed in mplayer yet?
What exactly happens if KISS is found in violation of the GPL? Does some government agency get to kick down their doors and take all their source code? Is there some sort of monetary damages, and if so, who would get them?
Besides, if the license fails, standard copyright laws prevail. Remember, the GPL gives you additional rights over normal copyright law. If the GPL fails, you lose your rights to use the code, not gain them.
Like tinyurl, but one letter less! http://qurl.co.uk/
Please show what DLL's they distribute without a licence.
Wow, translating from PR-flack to Danish to Hungarian to English really did a number on that statement.
Why not add a line forbidding certain individuals and companies from EVER using GPL code. Have the GPL point to a web page with a list of the theives. Create a virtual 'voting court' to decide the cases.
...they're getting a donation from me.
Just say the word, guys.
But if you loose, you will have to pay "something". Remember, you not only have to pay the court, you also (in that case), have to pay KISS for their troubles, and your own laywer.
This stuff quickly adds up.
I still think its a _lot_ cheaper than the US, but you need "some money" up front.
Mads Bondo Dydensborg
In case KISS in this case did not steal code from the mplayer project, but
..the project leaders of the oss project? ..the person who contributed?
someone copied parts of a commercial product into an open source project,
and the damage to the company behind the commercial product is beyond repair, who is then responsible?
how shall the victim receive retribution..
and what if the person who contributed is untracable?
wrongdoing here can kill a company, and with the company the hard working employees who suddenly no longer can support their families and have to work so many hours at the local macdonalds they have no more time to contribute to open source projects in their spare time.
Its so easy to fuck someone up when noone is responsible, and if they are, it will mean nothing..
I like and love open source software projects, but what stops them from turning evil by will or event?
KISS claims to be able to play some files that mplayer can't play without MS's DLLs.. so is KISS also violating MS's IP by distributing MS's DLLs?
Maybe mplayer doesn't have the resources to smack KISS, but MS does.
Will the creators of the KISS paperdoll and cosplay software jump into the fray because KISS is diluting their trademark?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
"And if GPL is so weak, why do they distribute the rest of the sources used in their stuff?"
Because being right means nothing these days. But being powerful commands respect. If they did not publish their "enhanced" Linux code every major linux vendor would be on their case. And if that did not happen the FSF would barge in. And the FSF has lawyers working pro bono for it. And there is nothing more fierce than a lawyer who does not get paid.
That sounds more to me like they understand the license and don't intend to violate it. They think its bad commercial business but the market will sort out whether their proprietary player is better than open source.
The Linux community have dealt with KISS before, and KISS are providing the linux kernel sources and busybox. People are building NFS support into their players and other fun stuff.
Reactionary readings of stuff, especially translated stuff that has also been through the radio system and journalists (who like a good story so tend to turn things up 8)) is never a good idea.
Linux users owe SCO nothing. The code was NOT stolen. It's a bloody header file! Do you know what a header file is? Basically it's a list of every function and every variable in the programme. Well when you come to implement an interface to conform to a published standard, which says what the functions are to be called, then that's the function declarations taken care of. As for the variable names, some of them will inevitably be called the same things as function parameters, some will have trivial names {i and j for for loop variables} and so a lot of the variable names are taken care of. The programmer has a free reign over the others, but Great Minds Think Alike. And if you arranged them in alphabetical order, which is a convention, then that explains the orders matching.
On the whole it's hardly surprising that two header files written by different people could be so similar. If you lose a 1998 pound coin, you can't just go around assuming that every 1998 pound coin you see has been stolen from you.
So everyone, remember to keep your CVS respository and logs so no one can claim ownership on your code!
Well they still can, but you will have some solid evidence.
Now if there only was a way to timestamp a file in a tamperproof manner, something based on cryptography...
-- Having problems sending big files over the net? Try out Efisto (http://efisto.org)
Not nessecarily.
By violating the terms of the GPL you have no access to the code.
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.
Clear as day it says that they no longer have the rights to the code. In addition, they could probably be made to open the code they distributed if they were found to have acted in bad faith, but that's for the courts to decide.
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
If you try to sue them, they'll simply rewrite the offending code themselves. You can't win. This is the same as Linux's SCO last resort.
If we continue to buy these players while this issue remains unresolved, we are just shooting ourselves in the foot.
On the other hand, this guy sounds like a typical suit, who doesn't really know how his product gets made and whose main job is to pump it. Somebody else posted that he was once heard bragging about the "2 million lines of code" that went into his product. That's exactly the type of dumb, meaningless puffery you can expect from somebody who really doesn't understand what he's selling at a fundamental level.
He has said that KiSS is looking into the problem. If they discover that their firmware contains open source code in violation of its license, then KiSS should immediately issue a firmware update that removes that code, for good or ill as far as product performance goes. (I'm assuming here that they aren't going to relent on their stance that they cannot, under any circumstances, open their code.)
If they find that they really didn't use MPlayer's code, then I guess what they need to do is show their source code to a representative of MPlayer under strict NDA, such that the MPlayer people can be convinced. Would that solve MPlayer's problem, or would they be unwilling to sign an NDA for this purpose?
Still, this whole "we can't open the code" thing is a little silly. KiSS should at least be considering the possibility of opening their source code at this juncture. They're already beginning to face competition in the form of MPEG-4 enabled DVD players from Korea, Taiwan etc. These things are going to beat them on price, guaranteed. Meanwhile, domestic companies like Linksys have announced similar products for the U.S. market, and I can't see how Sony or Panasonic can be too far behind. Any of the established consumer electronics companies is easily going to shut these guys out of the retail channel for good, just on brand recognition alone.
If they open their source, they open up the possibility of "hacked" variants of their player, sure. But what's to lose?
- Nobody says they have to support a hacked version of their firmware, or even support the player at all once the end user flashes a hacked version.
- By opening their source, they gain extra goodwill and patronage from their core market (geeks)
- Closed source isn't going to prevent anyone from emulating their features. We're already seeing it happen. Who cares how 1337 they are when $50 Korean hardware does the same thing?
- It's unlikely that their firmware is going to be binary compatible with another manufacturer's hardware. In other words, you couldn't download a KiSS firmware and run it on a Taiwanese player unless it was hardware compatible, and I assume the hardware design could still be protected by various intellectual property laws. So open KiSS firmware helps to sell closed KiSS hardware.
- What the hell? Open the source, use all the MPlayer code you want, save on R&D!
Right now, I really could not in good conscience buy a KiSS product. If they opened their source tomorrow, I'd probably be jonesing for one even twice as hard as before.Breakfast served all day!
I don't really care. I love my Kiss DP-500 - it ROCKS! So fucking what if they borrowed an early version of some MPSub code (it botches on some subs that MPlayer does fine). Couldn't care less, as long as they keep shelling out good firmware for my player! :P
Actually they could drop their own player and steal ALL of MPlayer - Would be nice if they did that and released the modified code though
daniel parsons has no wang
Well why don't users of Mplayer start a donation to offer anyone who works or recently worked at KISS a reward to blow the whistle on these scum. If anyone is reading this from KISS, you can always do the right thing anonymously. A danish radio interview would put alot of pressure on them.
I want to rock and roll all night
And pirate every day...
SCO has killed it's business by doing what they are doing, but the are banking on the lawsuit or Pump and Dump stock scheme.
Kiss do not have that option, They can Company Name their behind goodbye, that's all.
Help fight continental drift.
The reason GPL hasn't been tested in court is that there haven't been any solid violations of the licence and the fact that it is so clear. Most minor violations have been resolved out of court fairly easily. The only grey area is derivative work which most certainly includes ripping off a chunk of code.
HOW'S MY POSTING? CALL 1-800-POSTING
IANAL. Actually, I don't think that's entirely true. They can still be pursued for any damages the copyright holder may be entitled to, during the perioud of which the defendant was distributing their software without a GPL liscence. This is in addition to being forced to comply with the terms of the liscence. It seems that so far, no copyright holders have had the balls to put a case together against the infringer and bring it to court.
It also becomes very difficult to litigate when the copyright to the entire code is owned by multiple people. This is, in part, why the GNU Foundation requires assignment of copyright for submitted patches.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Seems like this company deserves an explicit revocation all around. IANAL but it seems that the denyal of GPL provisions is grounds for revocation. That revocation has always read "a little strange to me" because it could be construed to revoke the GPL in general and not just for the one product. Yea, that is a tinfoil hat possition, but then again it is demonstrably "bad faith" to say that the license you are using for one product is weak for another.
With no license in force, all of KISS' linux (etc.) products are simply in violation of copyright.
So they should be forced to legally cease and desist.
And again, since civil matters are "preponderance of evidence" then their "our software must have leaked" defense would rest on their ability to proveide provenance for "their code".
Someone needs to be Beaoch Slapped.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
I was thinking of buying one of those things, but I guess I shall be crossing it off my shopping list.
James
They can rip OS code and it's an offence if you do any discovery.
I don't intend to troll, but really, *who cares*? What's the big issue here? Mindshare? Proper credit? Counting ego coup? (Don't spout some "GPL violation" BS, we all *get* that rationale... but there has to be something more to make this news.)
So, here's my thinking: If the code in question is really as simple and trivial as claimed by the MPlayer folks, then why bother facing this Danish DVD group? Don't we expect that trivial code would be written in a nearly identical fashion independently? (I haven't seen the code, just going by what the MPlayer folks have stated about subtitling and the complexity.) And why bother? Is this a zealotry issue... trying to uphold the RMS/FSF flag for its own sake? Or is there something more?
What we've got here is a relatively obscure company (perhaps) taking a relatively small section of admittedly trivial code for their application. If this isn't shaping up to be a legal challenge for the GPL, then it's a waste of time! No good can come of this. My momma always said to "pick your battles", and I don't see the upside of this one...
Fighting every fight for its own sake, or even teh sake of the GPL, is plain stupid and inefficient.
Crap. It sounds like I turned into a flamebait at the end here. *sigh* God forbid Slashdot function as something other than a mental echo-chamber once in a while. We shall see how many steps to "-1".
oh how sooon sladotters forget..
http://www.open-mag.com/6378388.htm
GPL has already been tested in court..
Next Lie please..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
1) Convince small-time technology players to violate the GPL.
2) Wait for the copyright owners to sue them, or, if they're a real go-getter (like SCO), have the violator sue the copyright owners!
3) Repeat as frequently as necessary until the copyright owners are out of money and can't even afford to pay their own rent. Try to spend as little of your own money as possible on this nonsense.
4) Send the Church of Scientology a free copy of Windows XP Pro and a thank you note for the great suggestion.
5) Profit!!
I guess it's not as funny when the plan could actually work, but oh well.
Anyone recall the MySQL vs. NuSphere case? A few reminders:
GPL enforcement goes to court for first time in MySQL case
Affidavit of Eben Moglen on Progress Software vs. MySQL AB Preliminary Injunction Hearing
FAQ on MySQL vs. NuSphere Dispute
This was over 2-3 years ago. But again, the GPL itself, will not be "tested" in court, because violations and violators are easy to find, and prove. Once you violate the GPL, everything else above and beyond that, are U.S. Copyright violations (and in some cases, Lanham Act violations).
Most companies settle out of court, because the cost of public embarrassment would be much more damaging to them. I personally know, because I've got 4 active GPL investigations of my own going on three projects I actively contribute to (and one I am the primary maintainer of), and one company backed WAY down, once they realized the huge financial and public penalty for not complying with our license.
No company wants to take the GPL to court, mostly because if it gets that far, the developers/FSF/community have already done their homework, and can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, a violation. Penalties range from $30k/USD to $150k/USD per violation once the GPL itself is violated and rights to continue using it are stripped. For a site that provides "free downloads" of a product that might contain violating code, that can get quite expensive.
The so-called "Twinkie Defense" was horribly distorted by the media (see The Straight Dope for a detailed account). Basically, counsel for the defense argued that the defendant was severely depressed, as evidenced by his over-consumption of junk food (including Twinkies). The media turned around and reported that the defendant's case was that the junk food caused his depression. It's a classic example of how news agencies repeatedly fail to understand the difference between correlation and causation.
Go to http://www1.mplayerhq.hu/MPlayer/releases/codecs/ . Notice how they have a variety of codecs for indeo, realplayer, quicktime, wmv, etc. None of these codecs are legally redistributable without permission which mplayer almost certainly does not have.
"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
Unless you're talking about his misspelling "phear", you're completely wrong. His spelling was perfect. His grammar is atrocious, of course, because English obviously isn't his first language. The fact that you didn't pick up on that means that you should be the one to head back to primary school.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
GPL is a strong license which has never been defeated court.
if asked.
Help fight continental drift.
ftp://ftp1.mplayerhq.hu/MPlayer/releases/codecs/
of course shall we ask Apple,Microsoft,Franhofer,RealNetworks,Indeo etc etc etc if they are an authorised distributer ?
perhaps i should put a disclaimer on my site then i can distribute 50cents, j-lo and Eminem's mp3's
You should be aware that some of these DLLs have licenses that restrict them
to use with certain programs. We only distribute them, the rest is your responsibility.
I'll actually listen to the mplayer developers when they stop violating other people's licenses by not distributing modified dlls for mplayer. The download page at http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/design6/dload.htm l and http://www1.mplayerhq.hu/MPlayer/releases/codecs/ have copies of several codecs that belong and were created by Apple, RealNetworks, MS, etc. It's one thing to go after developers that steal your code when you are clean, it's another to do that when you are stealing other peoples code.
The ugly truth is without those codecs, mplayer wouldn't be nearly as useful as it is now and people wouldn't use it as much. Which is why the mplayer developers probably distribute even though it is illegal.
"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
Yes, women love the cervical cancer and genital warts they get from uncircumcised men.
Well you're a clueless fuck and the OP got modded down as troll for telling the truth - that's what not going with sheep groupthink will get you around here. See the difference?
Yeah, that whole spitting blood and breathing fire onstage thing was totally MPlayer's idea.
Plus, who can forget the early 70's classic, MPlayer Vs. the Phantom of the Park?
I saw the "proof" on mplayer's site, but all I see are similarities in the compiled code.
Yes, they probably are violating the GPL, however I think it would be very hard to prove it in court, and even harder to find a judge that can comprehend the "proof".
[please dont copy this and send it to kiss yourself - it will do more harm than good.]
Dear KiSS,
Let me start by saying that I am a big fan of KiSS technology products (in
particular your DivX compatible DVD players are great!) and I am also a
big fan of open source and free software.
However, I am rather worried by reports I have been reading about
allegations made by the mplayer team regarding unlicensed use of their
intellectual property by KiSS Technologies.
Having read the English translation of a recent radio interview involving
Peter Wilmar Christensen of KiSS I am a bit nervous.
Firstly, I am disappointed that Mr Christensen doesn't seem to respect the
GNU GPL License, but that is not a major concern.
My major worry is that the allegations by the mplayer team don't seem to
be taken seriously. There doesn't seem to be any attempt to show that
KiSS have not mis-appropriated the code from mplayer. Of course the burden
is not with you to prove anything, but as a professional software
developer myself, I know how easy it should be to show your development
history and you can clear the whole thing up in no time. (I also know as a
professional software developer that you _can_ release your source
sometimes, and it often pays off well as a PR exercise)
Until now I have considered KiSS to be a trustworthy company whose
products I have often recommended to others. Unfortunately however, until
this matter is resolved I will no longer do so.
I hope enough people share my view and together we can help you work with
the open source community instead of appearing to ignore them. You
probably already realise that a large number of your customers (at least
all the ones I know!) are open source advocates and would take a dim view
of any who appeared to be working against their community.
Yours,
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
Sure it is. On the money the licence is stated in quite simple terms, This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private. Because the licence is simple, it can be printed on such a small peice of paper.
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
... that in this particular case, I don't think KISS has been given enough time to investigate and so actually suing them is probably premature. They likely will comply if the code is found in there.
However, I was trying to point out that there are legal remedies if some company flat out refused to comply with the terms of the license. The original article seemed to not understand that.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Or press charges, or do whatever is done under the copyright laws of a jurisdiction in which the copyright infringement occurred.
Talk is only good when both parties might come to an agreement.
Transfer copyright rights to someone who cares and can afford the legal bills if you can't afford them...
Danish National Radio (DR) are usually pretty strict about their IP. Still the whole production is available for download at the mplayer-newssite.
If mplayer haven't got permission, this is a clear violation of DR's IP rights.
I would be surprised if Gabucino has recieved rights to put the interview online at his own site (even though it's available from DR's own site). Can anyone clarify that this is the case? Or is Gabucino violating IP as well?
(don't mod this up - mod a clarifying answer from a trusted source up)
However, if you would have RTFA, you would have seen that:
No, fuck that. Corporations are not individuals and are not to be extended the same level of slack as an individual who made a mistake might be. The livlihood of a corporation is much harder to destroy than that of an individual. Kiss also has a responsibility to their stockholders (whoever they may be) to behave lawfully. Ego cannot enter into it. If it does, the shareholders had better come down on it pretty quickly.
They just have to fix the problem or publish the source to their customers and the case collapses.
False.
It's true that cases thus have been voluntarily settled of court on those terms, but the copyright holder (GPL copyright holder) could easily choose to persue the case in court. Even if the infringer releases all of their code it does not change the fact that their previous actions were a violation of copyright law and they remain liable for those past violations. Releasing the source code merely means they stop commiting more violations and stop increasing their liability.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Peter: I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
If KISS _have_ taken GPL'd code could it be because they believe SCO when they say that the GPL is invalid? And if the GPL _is_ tested in court (SCO vs IBM) and holds up do you think KISS will rethink their position? Hmm...
What exactly is unethical about buying crack? I would argue the opposite, it's unethical to making buying crack illegal, and therefore it is unethical to think that buying crack is unethical.
How much moral outrage can a project which has stolen other people's codecs in the past really muster? Ah, hypocrisy.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Oh, so all these proprietary commercial licenses are null and void until they've been tried in court? I can ignore any EULAs because they haven't been tried in court? Great!
FLR
Here's one thing I don't understand,as IANAL. Say the courts struck down the GPL as invalid, why is it SCO and KISS believe that, it instantly makes the source code public domain? Having the GPL invalidated pretty much invalidates thier right to use the code at all doesn't it?
Making something out of nothing : MD5 ("") = d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e
Since when has Gene Simmons been involved with technology?
If those projects are all GPL'd or similarly open sourced, why does anyone care if they use the code for their product? I hate to say it, but this is another instance of where the BSD license is far superior to the GPL since it allows commercial redistribution.
Well, he didn't even say that completely. From his [translated] interview:
I would say that the is no truth to the accusations.
Denial - IOW - MPlayer developers are lying. Then later on in the interview:
We are currently investigating exactly that specific part, how that can be and if it's really true what they say. Currently we have not investigated it enough to be sure whether or not they are right or wrong in their accusations.
Eh? Didn't you just say that their claim had "no truth" to it? If you haven't "investigated" and come up with your conclusions don't call the other guys liars just yet.
Then about GPL:
We have confirmed what we already knew, that when using code licensed under the GPL then we have to publish any derivative work. This means that the legal foundation is very thin and there is no place in the world that I know of where the GPL has been tested in court. So from a business perspective I would say that the license is relatively weak.
Strictly as a suggestion to KISS, if that's exactly what you believe, then don't use software that's licensed under "weak" and "untested" licenses, like your product's OS (Linux). From "business perspective" does it make sense to subject your business to that much risk? Because if GPL is so "weak" and is ruled illegal or unenforceable by a court, then you'd have no way to distribute software with your product - all that software would be covered by authors' copyrights, and you'd have no rights to distribute the system at all. Maybe, it would make more business sense for you to use "tested" and "stronger" licenses that MS Windows XP Embedded or CE come with. Just an idea.
The point was that the mplayer dudes did not steal code ... wether the Kiss dudes did is a seperate question.
Dude, Im saying dude too much!
Perhaps, though Microsoft might have licensed the IP to them. There's another IP issue, though.
I there is code in MPlayer that, while legal, violates the agreement that the DVD Consortium forces vendors to sign into (like bypassing region codes and whatnot). KISS Technology is supposed to be a DVD system vendor, and may have signed this document. If they are, in fact, in violation of their DVD Consortium license, the DVD Consortium may revoke their license.
May we never see th
That's a common misconception. You need no license to *use* GPL'ed software. I quote the GNU General Public License:
So you see, there is no need to accept the terms of the GPL to simply use GPL'd software; you only accept the license by redistributing the software.
All's true that is mistrusted
They probably couldn't come to any kind of agreeable terms because the MPlayer authors are complete assholes to EVERYONE they come in contact with. I actually have considered not using the software simply because the entire team reminds me of the Goatse.cx guy.
Maybe they are using un-modified versions of MAD, mpg123, libjpeg, etc... ? then they wouldn't HAVE to release their own source code. Upon request, they could simply point the asker to the official archive.
You don't have to host an ftp server or web server that has all GPL code on it, all you need to do is make it AVAILABLE to those who REQUEST.
Unless th GPL has changed in the 10 years or so since I last read it cover-to-cover
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
If you lose the court case and the GPL is upheld then you have to either withdraw the product and/or release all of the source code.
If you win the courte case and the GPL is found to be unenforcable then standard copyright takes over. In which case you've distributed copyrighted code without a valid licence and you'll get sued for damages. This outcome is the less likely of the two and would be challanged by every software company in the world (as it would probably make pretty much all software licences uneforcable).
So if you challenge the GPL in court you have the possible outcomes of loosing or loosing worse. Not a really appealing set of options that.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
is getting their butts handed to them.
It couldn't happen to a more deserving nest of hornets.
*dances for joy*
Now, it's an issue of ego and anger where it could have been a largely uninvolved and low key licence dispute.
I can't agree. MPlayer contains code from a *lot* of people (including me, and I hadn't even heard of all this until the Slashdot story). This code was GPL-licensed. The MPlayer core team does not have the legal ability to provide a non-GPLed license to MPlayer, unfortunately, as they have integrated many patches and code from other folks.
There are only two options. First, the copyright holders (probably most of whom are mplayer core members) may simply let things slide if the company removes the code. Now, that doesn't mean that KISS is legally clear (doing that would be extremely difficult, requiring all involved copyright holders to agree not to sue KISS for their old code). However, it might just be a minor imperfection if KISS yanked things. The MPlayer team already tried this, KISS ignored them.
The other option is that KISS opens and GPLs their code. Since they probably cannot do this due to licensing agreements with another company, they're in an uncomfortable situation, and are likely to do whatever they can to squeeze out of it.
Keep in mind that MPlayer is a popular project to steal code from. This has happened before, more egregiously, by media code vendors. Most of the MPlayer developers have an extremely short tolerance for this. They were already pissed off after last time.
The good news is that KISS is probably fucked to some extent. The company may not die, but you have a huge piece of PR all over the place about how you are violating code licenses. Anyone reading this when researching the company when considering doing business with them is going to be awfully leery of getting involved. I wouldn't touch 'em with a ten foot pole -- there are better choices.
KISS trying to play off the fact that they use Linux is ridiculous. Lots of people use Linux in their systems -- it's a hella fast way to get up and running, and it doesn't make any difference in this case whether they were running CE or Linux.
May we never see th
from the interview transcription by Peter Wilmar Christensen. (Kiss).
"Microsoft Media Player is the application used to display movies."
Hmmm... I never knew there was a Linux implementation of Microsoft media player.
Having read many of the comments by Peter Wilmar Christensen it is quite clear that he has no idea what he is talking about, and obviously no idea what is going on behind the scenes as development at Kiss.
This is really quite a shame, I was previously considering getting one of the Kiss machines. After this news I will be having second thoughts about doing it. At the end of the day they are making their money on the hardware they are selling. It really makes no difference whether the source code is open or closed for something like this (I know this is open to debate!)
At the end of the day, regardless of license GPL or not, it is plain unfair to steal someone elses code and pass it off as your own.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
This is copyright infringement, plain and simple. It doesn't matter what the license it is managed under as long as it does not allow this, which is doesn't. Why do infringers like to pick on the GPL?
Because the GPL is a rather weak weapon to make their life miserable. They just have to fix the problem or publish the source to their customers and the case collapses. This approach may be very sensible in a civilised society but not a good tool to annoy your neighbour.
Bullshit. If you were a megacorp doing this, and knowing you have a watertight case, you'd have a) an injunction stopping them from distributing the code (literally freezing their business), b) you'd sue for both damages based on the profits *they've* made plus c) tort and possibly even more for d) fraud since they now represent themselves as authors of the code.
There is nothing in the GPL, or in copyright law that say everything is fine if they begin following the licence. In fact, they can still be sued, convicted and lose the right to use any of that software (not to mention any derivative work, ouch) for any reason.
The reason it doesn't happen is because it takes a lot of time and money to pursue it in court, money most Linux developers don't have up front, and the awarded damages are unknown. Not to mention many companies didn't know, and so the FSF usually cuts them a deal - they start following the GPL, and the FSF will leave them alone.
But I sure wish someone would actually do it, and bitchslap some company real good with felony copyright violation. Just to show that there are teeth, even if they don't go sinking into anyone that steps too close.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
if we all do this:p vr.exe
wget http://kiss-technology.com/files/firmware/satdem_
or even better, use prozilla! (proz)
then it will bring the site to its knees in no time.
I'm sure there are more :)
But what about Hungary? I'm not saying it's certainly legal, I just don't know if it is. Also, are those codecs from the companies you mentioned or are the reimplementations of the same codecs -- or, are they just wrappers for the Windows DLLs that implement those codecs?
> It also becomes very difficult to litigate when
> the copyright to the entire code is owned by
> multiple people.
It is quite easy. Any one owner can litigate on his own without permission of any of the others.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Is what i think hes really saying. Why would anyone admit to wrong doing?
Of course: ' we didnt steal any code, so get lost '.
Just normal CYA. Nothing special. Though, he could have told them to go to hell a bit more nicely and helped the PR department.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
They are the actual Windows DLLs. The wrapper code is in mplayer.
Theoretically, Microsoft could bite 'em if their EULA prohibits allowing people to download the codecs, and I'm sure MS maintains a nice long list of OSS projects that they can attack if they need to. However, this is also a pretty minor thing. These are all DLLs that you can download and install on a Windows system freely. It's merely a convenience to people who don't want to find a Windows box, install the codecs, and then copy the codecs over. If they couldn't provide a download any more, it would hardly be a huge deal for the product.
May we never see th
Until we get a 5 STAR Case then this will all be mute.
I'll hazard a guess here:
The Manageing Director has no clue about this, and is going on what his developers told him.
Developers saw MPlayer as an easy solution to their problem and figured they wouldn't get caught, but were wrong, and are now desparately covering their arses.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
The GNU / FSF organization has an organization exactly for this purpose. How successful are they?
1) Apart from the SCO mess, little is seen in courts regarding this kinda cr@p, and
2) They pretty much self-fund off the results of these clashes...
A'rpi / Gabucino / whomever needs to contact Eben Moglen et al on this sort of stuff : license-violation@gnu.org.
I'd been wondering how I can, when developing (in-house) solutions in a company that doesn't care less how i do it, ensure that my code can be GPL'd and released - cos i recall advice to have the management sign themselves out of claiming undue ownership over the code. think i've just found my solution.
In the end of the article and the interview Kiss tells the Open Source community to be happy that Kiss is using Linux, and from that we should thank them.
I think it is the other way around. Kiss should thank Linux for the kernel, as Kiss wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Linux!
The least Kiss could do, is not to abuse the community that made what Kiss is today.
Remember Linux came first, so it is Linux that made Kiss.
Has anybody considered the possibility that KISS honestly doesn't know that it is infringing? They probably hired a lazy contractor that thought to themself "Why should I write this from scratch, when there is free code out there I can steal?" Hence, KISS may beleive they really own the code, while the contractor that did the infringing is long gone...
I expect to see a lot more of this happening, especially as more and more software development is shipped overseas to countries that don't have a long tradition of IP protection.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
"The GPL is mostly banged on the motherfucking copyright as defined by the entering Bern "Sniff-my-Ass" Convention.
It will be pretty solid in fucks that recognize it, and as far as I know Denmark titty fucks."
hahahahah hilarious, run this comment section through the URL
Trolls dont like to be Flamebait, because they burn so well. Protect our Troll heritage!
Which is why you should put at least one obscure easter egg in the source, which is hard to find on casual inspection, but easy to trigger if you know how.
Imagine the blushing faces of KISS when Gabucino triggers an easter egg in the KISS player's subtitle code. Now who stole what from who again?
My memory is a little vague, but I do remember some incident where a case was one by a company because one of the programmers triggered an easter egg in the defendant's code, which blatantly showed that the defendant _had_ been stealing code. Can someone who has better recollection than me refresh my memory?
Good point.
It is very unpleasant for the defendant, because the defendant cannot settle, though. And, as it happens, lots of cases are resolved through settlements. This would mean that the defendant *has* to go through the court system.
May we never see th
Ignore libjpeg, the IJG doesn't use the GNU GPL.
The GPL'd libraries don't permit you to bolt them inside your program and pretend that the resulting work isn't derived. Any more than you can put paragraphs from the latest Douglas Adams in your novel and then pretend it's all your own work. The FSF are willing to take this to court (but sadly none of the affected code, so far, is owned by the FSF).
It's also not allowed for a _commercial_ distributor to merely point at some supposedly official archive. If he distributes binaries HE is responsible for providing the source, not just a URL and a "when I looked you could get a tarball here, I think it's the one we used"
You can get away with offering to mail people a CD or something (a proper written offer valid for IIRC 5 years, not some oblique reference), but then you have to keep a pile of CDs marked with each version of the firmware and... it's tiresome. Choosing that option basically means cutting off your nose in the hope that it will annoy people who have to look at you. Not smart.
KISS was perhaps the first (that I know of at least) company that made a DVD console player which plays DivX. As a company that impressed me with their "cutting edge and geek" technology, it's unfortunate that it is exactly people like us, the geeks, who they are pissing off.
They can "kiss" their mindshare goodbye =b
VIVA1023.com | Political Fashion.
Please. DDoS, mailbombs? Only if your primitive mind can't come up with anything better. Me, I've still got some Anthrax leftover from my recent SCO fan mail mission.
True story.
Didn't sigma rip off a load of GPL licenced stuff too?
This interesting kiss press release says this:
28-08-02 KiSS Technology selects Sigma
The Linux community have dealt with KISS before, and KISS are providing the linux kernel sources and busybox. People are building NFS support into their players and other fun stuff.
:-(
KISS supports Vorbis and DivX. I will give them that -- these are folks that seem to tend more towards the OSS side of things.
On the other hand, the mplayer folks have been burned before by folks ripping off their code (and subsequent attempts to cover up said infringement through obfuscation), and are probably extremely ready to blow up over this. I suspect that, in their shoes, I'd be in about the same state of mind.
I kind of wish that someone like ESR or Perens, someone respected by the folks involved, could step in and lend a cooling touch, maybe mediate a bit. The FSF only seems to get involved when it's software that they own the copyright on.
May we never see th
Keep faith. This might, after all, ultimately lead to a revolution. =)
Software should be free as in speech, but if we also get some free beer, all the better.
Some of the licenses probably prohibit redistribution, though potentially not all.
The reason why the the MPlayer folks being upset is more understandable is that Apple or Intel or whoever could ask the MPlayer people to stop at any time, and they would. Those codecs aren't core to mplayer functionality -- the wrapper code is, which lets folks use their own Windows DLLs. The DLL zip file is just a convenience. For a long time, people *did* just run the codec installers in Windows and then use the DLLs.
KISS, however, was asked to stop, and ignored the MPlayer people, and are now claiming that MPlayer might have misappropriated KISS code, which is pretty clearly ridiculous.
That doesn't mean that MPlayer is legally in the right, but I have a lot less of an ethical problem with them.
If Apple told MPlayer's folks to stop allowing folks to download some DLL, and MPlayer told them to go jump in a tree, or the MPlayer folks tried to claim that they made the DLL, then things might be a bit different.
May we never see th
...there is some junior software engineer at KISS sweating like a pregnant lesbian nun in a fish shop right now.
"It would be nice to live in a world where the hard work of [artists] was respected via the [copyright] they choose to [put] their work under, wouldnt it?"
:o("
Yes it would. Now why we don't is a more enlightening question?
"Sure, where there is a clear violation, the offender should be dealt with in court and made to pay whatever penalty is decided, it finding the offenders that is the trick.
Do the P2P dance.
They just have to fix the problem or publish the source to their customers and the case collapses.
No. The harmed party at that point usually drops it, but they don't have to. It's like giving away copies of Windows. When Microsoft catch you, you don't say "oh, it's okay, I'll 'fix things' by not infringing on your copyright any more." The crime's already been committed.
That's excatly the point. The GPL is not a software licence, but rather a copywrite agreement.
You can use it, linking to it in it's unmodfied format and making the source available, you can make a call to another program that uses it, or if you use it in a modified format you have to open the source to that program because the copywrite agreement stipulates this condition.
The reason that challenges fail is that in it's simple statment of limitations, the GPL is rigid, legally speaking.
The fact that Christensen belittles, let alone mentions, the GPL smacks of guilt to the core. What he is saying is:
One of the worst things that could come out of SCO vs. IBM is the case settled out of court.The GPL needs to be properly tested in order to set precedence for cases like this one.
Company decisions are based on economic forcasts. Threaten the court room and answers will follow.
What is Sigma Designs relationship with Kiss?
.
...
I found reference's to Sigma Designs alleged GPL infringment on the web sigma infringement
That article is relating to a file called "khwl.o" not sure what it does, but after looking at an ascii dump of the KiSS kernel I found references to it
khwl.o
Sigma
I started looking through the Ascii dumps of these files. Someone more qualified than me ought to take a closer look because Im seeing stuff that looks like code from a bunch of different sources in their, Maybe some of it is on different licenses but I am seeing possible stuff from things like NXClient, Microwindows and a bunch of other interesting looking stuff.
The initial thought was that Sigma designs (they seem to make Multimedia Chips & Hardware etc) maybe supplied KiSS with drivers for their chips and this got merged into the code without them knowing. That might mean that Sigma are mainly at fault here.
nick
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
How would this pan out if SCO sued KiSS for Linux Infringement ? heh ...
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
IANAL, but the danish law is one of the most extreme in the world. Read for yourself. (I'm ashamed)
:-/
I'm not sure if the MPlayer team will be able to force KissTech to open their code (should they be convicted), but some monetary damages would probably be awarded.
Anyway, if they're serious about pursuing this in danish courts this organization might provide "seed money". If KissTech really is guilty of this, please accept my apologies on behalf of Denmark
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
ANAL COX!!!
I think I speak for the entire Slashdot community when I say: OMFG!
on the mplayer site, they also complain that KISS is using libjpeg. LIBJPEG is NOT GPL. It is under the BSD license, so their usage is perfectly reasonable, legal, and what the developers intended (assuming that they document the copyright line according to the license from IJG)
--buddy
Let me tell you why- it's simple:
There is *no* clear definition *anywhere* of what exactly a "derivative work" is.
Really- there's not- it's similar to the definition of "life".
Depending on your POV, you can see *all* works as somehow derivative, or *no* works derivative.
Until there are concrete things like (just examples) "a function that replicates at least 70% of the mathematical operations in the same order will be considered derivative" or "rewriting code using different variable names while looking at original source code is not derivative" or "if more than 50% of an entire application'f functionality is identical to the original work, then the new work is considered derived"- the GPL will remain unenforcable except in repackage-and-distribute cases.
(I know those above definitions have lots of holes in them, but they're off the top of my head- and that's probably a good thing- it underscores the vastness of the problem)
"what is an appliaction exactly?"
"what exactly is source code?"
These are all very loose definitions...
Specifically in this case- lets say KISS used Mplayer's subtitle code but wrote everything else themselves.
(merely a hypothetical)
Is their player now a "derivative work"?
I surely don't know- common sense would suggest "no"- since the subtitle stuff is just a very very small part of the entire "player application" functionality.
But who knows?!?!?!?
Surely not me!!!!!!!
Nor anyone else!
Suppose KISS took the Mplayer subtitle code and "modified" it in to its own neat little file that represented the "modified mplayer code".
Then they simply #include (or compile as a dll- its just semantics) that functionality.
Then they release their "modified mplayer" (just the subtitle code) freely, as required by the GPL.
That stance seems decent to me- "we modified mplayer to provide subtitles to our proprietary movie player, here's the source to our modified mplayer"
It is just these kinds of things that, until ironed out, I'm afraid will be the death of the GPL...
I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
From the mplayer website: "Pressing Microsoft (or Bush)-style PR, like repeating their own lies"
I hope he enjoys writing mplayer, 'cause it looks as though that's only original thinking he's doing.
.. before Gabucino accepts multi-thousand-dollar (i.e. a few dvd player sales worth :) sponsorship for MPlayer from KISS, as a shut-up compromise.
:)
The GPL does not stop copyright owners selling their code, or making exceptions.
I doubt anyone involved is that pig-ignorant that they'll sit around until the end of days fighting it on a moral issue, when they can advance both projects in such positive, green, president-emblazoned* ways.
*(or whatever your native bank notes look like
They are funded by investors, to get this money they have made many great promises. The first one will be that they actually made their own technology. (It is damn hard to get capital in this world unless you are sole licenser of IP.) Now it is coming out that they cheated to make the software and worst yet, they used GPL in their core app. It is too late because it has already been distributed and co-mingled. They really do understand this whether they act stupidly about the situation in public or not. This means they WILL lose all their IP to GPL unless they can lie cheat or buy their way out of this mess.
Well, I guess so, Kiss Technology's MD may be dishonest, but if so then we can do nothing about that here (although the courts probably can).
... is there Mplayer code in Kiss product, or Kiss code in Mplayer? One or more of you knows the truth, and so do one or more of the Mplayer developers, and in time we'll all know it. Speak up. :-)
In contrast, Kiss Technology's teccies are subject to "Tech Law", in the sense that if found to be dishonest then they will have to live with the indelible online consequences of that for all time among us.
So, Kiss teccies, tell us
Silence means that your MD is lying and that you know that this is so but that you are safeguarding your job. Most people will probably sympathize with that, but not with an outright lie.
You just know that's hitting a homeland defense computer search right about....
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Actually, the offenders who have been caught haven't had the balls to defend themselves. The copyright holders haven't had to drag their butts to court at all, excepting in a very few well-publicized cases - see MySQL vs. NuSphere.
.. both of these can flat kill a company like KISS. Imagine if M$ were caught copying Linux's network stack. To kill a company's flagship product by catching them stealing GPLd code can be equal to killing that company.
The thing is, if the offender is caught red-handed, there are two punishments OTHER than money the copyright holder can go for:
1. stop distributing
2. release code
Kinda make you respect the GPL a little more, eh?
IANAL, but that's what I'd do.
You are all fartheads.
The managing director may not be lying. It's possible he doesn't even know. He could have went around and asked his programmers if the claims were true, and for fear of their jobs, they lied.
All it takes is one lazy programmer, especially if he thinks he's in over his head.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
Why is that everyone is willing to jump on the bandwagon of other litigious bastards these days over silly infringement issues. People seriously need to chill out.
What? I didn't say I was going to DO anything with the anthrax. I mean, if I went down to the post office, they'd say that I can't mail a letter with white powder in it, so I'd add a piece of counterfeit money and say I'm mailing money so then they'd say they're going to take the money out just to be sure and then I tell them "no," but they open it anyway and they spill all the anthrax all over Joe Swanson and now he's going to die of anthrax! I didn't mean to do it... and now I've wasted my one phone call with a modem posting to Slashdot... SOMEBODY HELP ME!!!!
True story.
The GPL happens to outline what conditions must be fulfilled in order to obtain permission from the copyright holder(s) to copy and redistribute the code, and if they aren't complying with those conditions then they don't have permission and continued distribution constitutes outright copyright infringement.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
In all of the projects I've come across in the decades I've been around computing, I have NEVER seen a group of developers who are as whiny, delusional, narcissistic, and shitheaded as the MPlayer group. None. Never.
At this point, I'm personally more inclined to believe someone who is actually smart enough to start a company, than a bag of fucktards who produce nothing but buggy code and bile.
I believe Lite-On has a very similar product you can find for sale at NewEgg (hint-hint).
I wonder if because all this SCO stuff is being largely unchallenged by the open source community and most companies aren't taking much a stand (not as much as they should) that it is sending the wrong message, the message that "we can trample all over GPL and get away with it."
I'm not an OSS zealot, not in the least. But I'm starting to notice something here. Hopefully, I'm not the only one noticing and hopefully it gets stopped before its too late.
Thanks,
Leabre
Gee... wash your cock every now and then, and we don't have to worry about that, now do we?
And if you're not washing your cock every now and then, you shouldn't be allowed to have sex anyways. "You! Out of the gene pool!"
He also adds that the GPL is a weak license which has never been tested in court.
And I take it their software licenses have been tested in court?
The GPL doesn't cover software use. That right is usually granted by copy ownership. This is why most proprietary software has contracts, either shrink-wrap or click-through. The GPL is a license (not contract) which grants the right to distribute / copy / create derivative works, etc.
The GPL doesn't protect the copyright of the original owners. Copyright law protects that. The GPL only grants additional rights to people who recieve the software.
Of course, IANAL.
parent is a TROLL mod it down
am I right?
Go a head a tell that to the FBI and the Cyber-justice league of America.
And here's the link to the resolution.
Wrap Up of the Case
There's also the possibility that a court would rule that the damages for this copyright violation are zero, since GPL'd software is declared as being distributable for free (in economic terms). So the voilators would have to stop, but if they didn't, maybe the damages they'd have to pay would be found to be zero.
Maybe the GPL would be stronger if it required every user to send a penny to every contributor (or their favorite charaty) as legal consideration and exchange.
Where in copyright law does it say that violators have to reveal trade secrets? It looks more like any damages assesed would be in terms of dollars instead.
But how was there any violation, since the GPL doesn't specify exactly how many days one can take to ship a copy of source code to the person requesting it? One ping round trip, one decade, what's the diff??
... that on virtually every set of article comments on this site there is at least ONE person who does not know the difference between "lose" and "loose"? It drops the author's credibility by a large margin.
Maybe this board should have the option of ignoring comments where the author does not know the difference. The sad thing would be that the AI would have a better clue than those authors...
SCO creating a trend here? Well they're asking for a lawsuit from the FSF. Does the FSF sue people in Denmark as well?
Tell SCO! Tell SCO!
It should be easy to convince SCO that their code is in mplayer, too. Imagine, what a wonderful world, offenders suing offenders!
Denmark hasn't yet succeeded from the EU. Hungary is joining this year. KISS are being *very* stupid.
The last three are provably wrong and the attacl on the GPL is really asking for trouble. What surprises me is that if they turned round and said, whoops, we made a mistake and then offerred an ex-gratia payment of a thousand dollars or so for the use of the subtitling code, I'm sure they would be able to dig themselves out at less than the lawyer time or the ding on sales.
If they distributed the derived code, they were already required to under the GPL. They MAY just be forced to follow through with the agreement THEY made when THEY distributed GPL'd code.
In addition, how could damages of 'free' software be assesed in terms of dollars?
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
Where in copyright law does it say you have to agree to some sort of license just because you might be violating the copyright?
In addition, how could damages of 'free' software be assesed in terms of dollars?
Exactly. If there are no damages in dollars, then perhaps you can distribute GPL'd code without any monetary penalty (beyond the big bucks you might have to pay your lawyers). That will be an interesting issue for a court to decide.
Perhaps you don't get that the copyright law is based on contract law. By distributing the derived code, they are agreeing to follow the rules of the contract, IE the GPL. If the court finds them in breach of contract, they can enforce the contract.
Just like anyone else found in breach of contract, the court can then come in and enforce said contract.
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
It makes me really sad to wake up in the morning and read about another defiant CEO in the face of a GPL violation. It shows ignorance to your own product when you fail to reconise quite blatent similaraties in your own firmware. I don't think I'll be buying KISS anytime soon...
What I would like to know is if there is _any_ connection -- perhaps through donatations, or investment between SCO or Microsoft and KISS. That wouldn't surprise me.
If they fancy challenging this in court, then I'll donate to MPlayer and I hope you all do the same too.
As the GPL grows in popularity, this will happen, it's invertable. It's the same _capitalist_ exploitation that the western world has shown towards our eastern and developing counterparts. That is; "if we can get it cheaper, do it, and we'll sort out the moral stuff later.".
A little more behind the scenes negotiations before making this an even bigger issue might have been prudent.
NO. It HAS to hurt.
If it doesn't hurt, companies will have no reason not to use GPL code in their proprietary products. The price to pay for the violation of the GPL, the risk HAS GOT to be high. They have to see that this will burn their greedy fingers, so the MPlayer people did the only right thing. Such behaviour simply cannot be tolerated.
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
Get a grip, please. A harsh reaction like slapping companies around in court if they're not complying 100% with the GPL would just mean less willingness of companies to experiment and implement GPL in their business model. This would have an adverse effect on the GPL licensing model.
The standard is basically if it is reasonably likely to cause confusion in consumers. So that means it depends on lots of things:
1) How similar the allegedly infringing product/ad/logo/etc is. The more similar it is, the more likely it is that someone could reasonably be confused, hence the more likely it is infringing.
2) How unique the orignal name is. If your bussiness is "Joe's Truck Lot", you'll find a hard time enforcing that as there is no uniqueness. Likewise if you name is indicitive of what you do, like "The Fresh Fish Mart", you'll again find it more difficult to defend. Windows, believe it or not, IS a fairly unique since in the minds of most people, Windows don't have anything to do with computers.
3) How strong your trademark or brand name is. IF it's two no-names suing eachother, they'll have a lot more trouble proving anything since it's reasonable that most people have never heard of either company, hence the'll be no confusion.
4) How similar the markets are. If you run a Chinese restraunt called "The Imperial Dynasty" and I open an auto shop called "Imperial Car Repair", you don't have much of a case. It's pretty clear people are not going to confuse spark plugs for lo mein. This is also why GM doesn't care about a browser called Firebird. Noone is going to confuse it for their like names Pontiac. Lindows was in real trouble here since the two prodcuts were for the EXACT same purpose.
Lindows really was screwed, from a legal standpoint. You have two products designed for identicle purposes (both PC OSes) that differ in name by only one letter, and are pronounced nearly the same. Also, one of those products (Windows) is an incredibly strong brand, and a novel one (by legal reasoning) at that. But what really made it bad is it was quite clear from comments made by the Lindows founder that he INTENDED to make his product look and sound like a Windows replacement.
So where's the line you ask? Well, that's what the courts are for. Since you are dealing with an issue that must take social and behavioural issues into account, there is no hard answer. It really does depend on the situation, so the law is deliberatly vague and just lays out conditions to be met. I have a feeling ha it been called Lindox, this would have never gone to court. The name is different enough that I think it's reasonable to say most people would not be confused. However Lindows and Windows are very close, they vary only by the first phoneme in pronouncation. It would be easy to mistake a person saying one for a person saying the other with just a bit of noise around. Hence, the court's ruling.
I was playing with the idea of buying a Kiss-dvdplayer but this really turns all arguments for a such a device over.. ain't touching that with a 10 feet pole!
- I choked on the red pill and now I'm stuck in limbo
1. The code in question is almost certainly stolen from code released under the GPL, because the data structures used for the subtitles are identical - several arbitrary decisions that independent developers would have made in different ways.
2. Gabucino, however, is blowing smoke. If he's not going to take Kiss Technology to court he should shut up and stop wasting our time.
Better check all the software you've downloaded to make sure there are no fine print clauses requiring you to give up your first born child to Bill Gates...
also read up on specific performance and how often courts order it, even for violation of a signed contract.
Unless the GPL is proved quickly in the courts, many other companies will tend to steal GPLed code claiming "GPL is a weak license which has never been tested in court".
My KISS player rocks. Who cares a few lines of code are copied, code is built upon code, web site templates copied etc. The only people who will win are the lawyers and that is depressing. Save the courts time for real issues.
I have to disagree. For companies to be able to use the GPL they have to be sure that their basis for profits can't be stolen. This in it self is no contradiction to GPL. However they will need to know that they can enforce the GPL to it's fullest extent before they can invest in developing GPL'ed software. So I would say that the ability to enforce GPL, and if necessary 'bitchslap' companies breaking it, is essential for the survival of GPL..
Has anyone here actually owned a Kiss DVD player? .... Mine went up in flames! (yes, fire, burning)... Haha, what a piece of crap.
... ;D //fatal
All 4 that we bought died within 3 months.. Mine lasted the longest, but otoh if my house would have burnt down I wouldn't be laughing...
Any btw... we all know that those danish people are retarded, they can't even speak..
Greetings from sweden!
Attempting a buffer overflow or other exploit was impractical? It's a much surer sign of copying than strings...
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
To: sale@kiss-technology.com bo.lustrup@kiss-technology.com sales@mtsbs.com dcewebmaster@samsungusa.com
Kiss-Tech,
You have stolen the property of the Open Source Software Community! Your actions will not be forgotten. I am one of millions of people that have recently become upset with your actions. Do you really think that irritating the OSS community is the best thing to do when your company relies on their support? You will loose your license rights under the GPL to distribute any and all OSS code, including the GNU/Linux OS that is at the core of your product. The GPL is not merely a guidline - it is the way that we live. As for its legal teeth: I hope that you are the first company that gets to test it out in court. The reason that it has never been challenged in court is because it is extremely clear cut. Do you treat the DVD-CSS' and the movie studios' copyrights as you do the FSF/OSS/GPL copyrights? The community will not stand for this!
If your products ever make it to the shores of America, since I work selling consumer electronics, I will work my very best to talk everybody out of purchasing your pirated products. I take the Open Source community that I am a part of very seriously and I consider you to be an enemy of it. You should move back to Microsoft and quit getting a free ride from us.
The only way that you can relieve this situation is a complete release of your source code. Since your president stated that the release of code is never going to happen I can state that I will never purchase one of your products and will bad mouth your company, using the same kind of lies that your president used in his interview with the Danish National Radio, to persuade every customer in the store that I work that your product is almost always returned by very angry customers because it is considered JUNK!
Your behavior is despicable! It's more like Kiss-my-ass-technology!
Tres
PS The reference site: http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/design6/news.html
Slashdotters: Also note that SCOX stock was off $1.00 or 5.85% probably due to the Novell indemnification.
Restore America: Dr. Ron Paul for President!
But how was there any violation, since the GPL doesn't specify exactly how many days one can take to ship a copy of source code to the person requesting it?
Incorrect, they commited copyright infringment before any request was ever made.
One ping round trip, one decade, what's the diff??
They could have agreed to give the source, and delivered it in a single millisecond, and they would still be guilty of copyright infringment.
Why? To quote the GPL they cannot redistribute at all unless they do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Option (A) requires inclusion of the source code in the first place. Option (B) requires in the first place an inclusion of a written offer to mail anyone a physical copy of the source code, at cost. Option (C) is not available to commercial distributions, but it also requires inclusion of someone else's written offer for the source in the first place.
Redistributing GPL code without ALREADY including the source or a valid offer for the source is immediately a violation of copyright law. You cannot retroactively utilize the GPL to fix an infringing distribution. It leaves you liable for up to $150,000 per infringment. You can also immediately get slapped with a restraining order. Any commercial case will automaticaly qualify as a felony with up to five years in prision.
These penalties infringment were passed by congress at-the-request-of and for-the-benefit-of the RIAA and MPAA and the rest of the copyright lobby, but it none the less gives the GPL the exact same protections and infringment penalties. Thanks to the copyright lobby GPL one hell of a nasty set of teeth.
Thus far all GPL copyright holders have been amazingly generous and agreed to settle out of court for nothing more than belated compliance with the GPL.
Those who have infringed GPL code have gotten off quite easy thus far. If a GPL copyright holder pushes for a court case then the infringer is going to be in deep doo-doo.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
* Payoff. You get to see what they did to the code - perhaps they made 90%+ efficiency improvements or robustness/compatibility improvements. Tit for tat.
(BTW, I think for "value of the code itself" you really meant "Price".)
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
I just realized I filled in US infringment penalties, but this is not a US case. My bad.
The point still remains that they are going to be guilty under their local copyright law unless they already include the source or a valid offer for the source.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
If you really believe in the spirit of GPL and FSF and all that hippy crap, assign the rights (hard copy signature, remember?) to the FSF, and have Eben Moglen, The Man Who Never Loses, kick KISS's ass.
What's that? You wish someone would do something about KISS, but not at the expense of giving up ownership of mplayer? Yeah, I thought so.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
This is a real pending disaster for the whole free software community, and we'd better attend to it now.
It may not be very relevant to the case at hand. If there is MPlayer code in KISS' products, then they should have obtained some kind of license, if they didn't, they're infringing. But the GPL really doesn't do it right.
The reason is that GPL is a hack on the top of US legal traditions, a very cool hack, but it builds on the US concept of a public domain, where no rights are reserved.
But under the legal traditions we have around here, there is no such thing as the public domain, at least not as it is understood in the US. There are certain rights that the author cannot sign away, and doesn't really expire, such as the right to be associated with his work, and influence over what is a legitimate derivative work. That exists mainly to protect authors from exploitation by very powerful corporations.
That's rights you sign away when you GPL something, at least to an extent greater than I think (IANAL again) is allowed by law in the Nordic countries.
Now, you might think that it doesn't mean anything, but imagine what would happen if M$ or SCO-type corporations bring out FUD that rumours have it that for example Trolltech or MySQL AB will revoke the GPL because they were under undue pressure when they GPLed their software. It is not that I think they will ever do it, it is not in their interest, but the FUD would have basis in real legal traditions, so the FUD would be devastating.
I know that Glenn Otis-Brown of Creative Commons have been thinking about this a lot, he makes the analogy that the legal tradition is an operating system, which determines what a license can do. The Bern convention is simply not enough here. What we need are platform-independent licenses, and we may need to change the operating system to do it.
Around here, we have other traditions that may serve as the basis of copyleft and similar ideas. For example, we have what we in Norway call "allemannsretten", that the un-developed land is a common, everyone can walk wherever they like without asking the permission of the land owner.
For that reason, I think the Nordic countries should get together and make laws that can give free software appropriate legislation, and I think the Nordic Council would be the appropriate venue to do it. I have written them a brief e-mail, received no response, but I would encourage others to do it as well.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
...
Thus far all GPL copyright holders have been amazingly generous and agreed to settle out of court for nothing more than belated compliance with the GPL.
And why would they settle if they could easily stock the FSF fund with N * $150k and set legal precedent?
Listen Buddy i agree, but for you and other who seem to have fairly adequate literary skills, why the hell can't people TELL THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOSE AND LOOSE.
Someone needs to bring Lose not Loose guy back.
Since when is "I'll give you mine, if you give me yours" considered "distributable for free"?
No, it's spelled "loosening"!
Most GCC development is funded by companies who redistribute their own derived versions. I think it is rather unjust to both these people, and the volunteers who also work on GCC, to say that all this work contributed by the companies would have been done anyway by volunteers, and therefore doesn't matter. GCC is today the de-facto reference implementation of C and C++, and perhaps Ada (the Hava, Objective-C and Fortran front-ends haven't reached that status yet). It only got that status because of contributions from private companies. The C++ and Ada front-ends were written by private companies in the first place.
The GPL provides a powerful reason to work with original authors for the common benefit, namely that derived versions will have to be made public anyway. This resaon only holds if we actually care about violations, and does not treat it just like a lengthy version of the BSDL.
I hope MPlayer will be in the same position as GCC is, known as the reference media player. But this requires that companies like KISS work with the original authors, rather than keeping their derived versions private.
Philips 737 is half as expensive as anything KISS makes and plays DIVX 3.11 and up and XVID. Other manufacturers are coming out with similar products. KISS is probably using more expensive PC components and will loose its niche.
Rubbish. The same companies have to comply 100% with commercial software licenses or face massive fines, the same companies probably rely on people to comply 100% with their licenses to make money. So why the hell should they be let off complying with the GPL? If they want to use GPL software, they abide by the GPL, simple as that. There is no middle ground here.
When we talk about commercial companies (like KISS), the product needs to come with a written offer to make the code available, or with code included.
Since they have done neither, there is no chance of fixing the mistake after the fact.
i'm sory, but that was teh funney. i git teh pwnt n mbye it wus intentnshunal, kthx bye~
SIGERR: laziness exceeds quota
Wel, well, well. It is vaguely amusing to hear mplayer now is soooo eager to defend their GPL'ed software. Others here will no doubt remember their truly flexible views on GPL on Debian lists ( http://www.debian.org ) a number of months ago when they defended their fast and easy approach to copyright by calling it "freedom of speech". Really.
And guess what, it was indeed mplayer that was the cause of problem; after all Debian is always eager to stay in the clean when it comes to the GPL in particular and freedom in general, as opposed to when they just feel like it.
I am not impressed. I am however bemused watching the sky turn black with chickens coming home to roost.
actualy, there had been some violations. I can't recall the name now, but a company that make embeded linux solutions had a custom kernel for their own products, and the source release was always a version late than the "professional version" (binary, paid). The linux crowd just keep flooding them with mail, and without any legal warnings from the linux kernel people they now release the source along with the binary, as the gpl states.
If the GPL fails in courts, then you don't get to copy the code anymore. Is this man illiterate, or what?
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Their pants might become loose if the company goes under and they can't feed themselves.
But if they did copy GPLed code, they don't have much to lose.
I sure wish people would stop using the term bitchslap. It's fucking offensive.
Clever chap, but what does it sound like?
GPL is a distribution license, not a EULA. It is therefore using copyright law instead of contract law. There is no case history to suggest that EULAs are binding contracts, just as there is nothing to suggest that the GPL is an invalid copyright license. They are orthogonal.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
It looks like SCO does indeed have a fan!
Of course, with a stupid name like KISS Technologies, they're destined to fail one way or another (unless they jump into cosmetics or pr0n pretty quick!)
The people responsible for the subtitles have been sacked.
(thanks Monty Python!)
Even without reviewing the specific alleged violations, one can be fairly sure that the allegations have merit when the alleged violator's major response is to attack the license under which the original software is distributed.
There are already so many responses. I hope someone will notice my question.
What if a commercial entity uses GPLed code in their closed-source product, but they haven't modified the open code? What does the GPL prescribe? Does the company need to distribute the unmodified source, simply provide a notice that they've used the source, or something else?
While I'm posting, I'd like to comment on this line in the translated interview:
But we think that the community should respect the companies who use Linux and not hunt them because I don't think that's beneficial for anyone.
That's ridiculous! I'm sick of these companies pretending that they're doing the open source community a favor by using our code. We are doing them a HUGE favor, and we don't ask for much in return. I couldn't care less if no one used my code. I release it with the hope that it saves a fellow programmer some headaches - if it does, I'd love to hear "thanks" and see the favor returned via improvements to my code.
If the violators didn't stop distributing their product after the judge ordered them to, damages will not be their problem; the problem will be a citation for contempt of court. IIRC around here if they persisted in their defiance after that, the judge could have them jailed until they change their attitude.
I don't know what judges can do in Denmark but there's probably something analogous for the KISS people to worry about.
Just wondering....
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
Gabucino from the Mplayer team is furious,
Dude, that guy's like, ALWAYS furious about everything. heh.
Because, apparently, the FSF doesn't have any particular ambition to become known as a hard-ass, vindictive copyright violation enforcer. Let's face it -- in all but the most egregious of cases (think SCO), it'd be very much past the overkill marker to go for the jugular and sue for piles and piles of damages (most of which the plaintiff wouldn't even see -- how many companies do you know of that can afford to cough up, say, $150k times 5000?), destroying a potentially worthwhile company in the process.
A much better resolution, in my view, is to settle out of court and not press formal charges in exchange for full source code release or a behind-the-scenes agreement that the offender Won't Do That Again, and a public apology. That way, the FSF gets nice-guy points, the offender is given a chance to save face and the press releases that may follow show for everyone that when you mess with the FSF and/or the GNU GPL, you're likely to end up capitulating in the end.
Far as I've understood, the FSF isn't exactly hurting for money, considering all the donations and free lawyering they're getting.
I can ignore any EULAs because they haven't been tried in court? Great!
Sure, ignore away... At Your Own Risk. But be prepared to face the consequences if those EULAs ARE upheld in court.
Here's a snippet of strings from the WindowsXP ftp client:
Compare this to ftp client on my box...
Notice that the feel of the strings are different. The copyright notices are intact. A programmer can gather some information about what language the code was written in, how they may have handled certain problems in a generic way, but little can be reverse engineered. Also interesting to note is that both are based on BSD code as evident from the University of California copyrights.
-Hope
Perhaps we shall kiss "KISS" goodbye. No matter GPL itself is strong or not, violating it is stealing code from the developers. Hope that KISS is not the next 5C0
Really, what I was saying, is that you don't get the choice of money or stop distributing or releasing code. You get the option for money (since they have broken your copyright without permission or fair use) AND they must still comply with the terms of the liscence, which either means stopping distribution or releasing the code. If they continue to do it, well, that will be substantially more money in your pocket, no? I don't think you can ask the court to force the code open, its not an available remedy specified by the law.
As usually, consult with your local legal Bar assiociation for people who can give you sound legal advice. Never trust idiots on the internet to provide you with trustworthy legal advice.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
I've wished that from time to time. Muwhaaha, embrace and extend GNU, become the next Bill Gates!
Better check all the software you've downloaded to make sure there are no fine print clauses requiring you to give up your first born child to Bill Gates...
Actually running a FreeBSD system, most of my software has good well known open source licenses. Not an issue for me.
also read up on specific performance and how often courts order it, even for violation of a signed contract.
Just because it is not a common thing to happen does NOT mean that it couldn't happen. I was mentioning a possible recourse. Not saying this is what the court will order if you derive from GPL and not release source code.
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
This is a common misconception. Just because you don't charge for something, doesn't mean it doesn't have any value.
There is always a minimum boundary for copyright violations, and it's not zero.
The offending company earned big bucks by violating your right, obviously the violations had a value. Most likely (which is standard practice for free-of-charge stuff) the judge will reward damages based on earnings the violators obtained by using illegal code.
EULAs (not presented before purchase, not negotiated, not agreed upon) aren't enforceable.
The next time you get an EULA that you don't like, do the following exercise: Add and subract stuff from the EULA, get it verified by a notary and then send the revised EULA to the software company, so they can see under what terms you are using their software. If they are smart, they'll shut up and take it. If they are dumb, they might take it to court. The judge will find the EULA unenforceable, thus rendering the software to "only" be protected by copyright laws.
EULAs, every real contract lawyer always has a little giggle when you mention them.
bitchslapbitchslapbitchslapbitchslap
EULAs have gotten shot down in court (adobe vs. Softman). But if you live in a state in the US that have entered UCITA into law, then you're basically screwed.