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."

12 of 634 comments (clear)

  1. Untested? Bah. by __aavhli5779 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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. This doesn't change the fundamental spirit in the Open Source community which I think - all in all - is positive. But it is clear that as a commercial company living off selling its product, can not and will not release its proprietary code. It is naturally so that one should not use GPL code in proprietary systems.


    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.
    1. Re:Untested? Bah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    2. Re:Untested? Bah. by anno1a · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm a native dane, and heard the interview. I don't have time to listen through it to get to the point where he says it, but the translation is AFAIR correct! What he's basically saying is that, no, they did not steal the mplayer source code.

      And it isn't the translation's fault that he sounds like a complete idiot not knowing what's going on around him either. Many of his claims are just plain stupid, but that he begins to claim that perhaps mplayer has stolen from them is ludicrus! First of all mplayer came first (two years), have a cvs archive proving it and so on, but is it at all possible for the mplayer folks to have copied it without hacking Kiss' machines? Please shut this man up, I'm ashamed!

      --
      ------- I fumbled my registration and I now must suffer
    3. Re:Untested? Bah. by kasperd · · Score: 5, Informative
      The quoted translation is more or less correct. I listened very carefully to his words in the published .rm file starting at 6:41 and ending at 7:02. (Ironically I couldn't make mplayer play the file, so I used Real Player instead). Here is my translation (with help from Gyldendals Rode Ordboger):
      We don't use mplayer, we have our own player. Simply a player like we know Real Player - Microsoft Player, the application that does that video is presented. And that is of course a completely fundamental thing for our player because that is what made us known, that we are able to replay a number of formats.
      And I think what he is trying to tell us is, that they have a program similar in function to Real Player and Windows Media Player.
      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    4. Re:Untested? Bah. by Raffaello · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is a widespread misconception about the legal status and enforceability of the GPL. The *fact* of the matter is, that the GPL has been enforced *many* times, and the FSF has *always* won. The reason is quite simple.

      In any copyright infringement case, the infringing party must either:
      a. Have a license, or,
      b. Not have a license, or,
      c. Not be infringing (i.e., the defendant's code is *not* copied from GPLed code, nor a derivative of GPLed code).

      In the FSF's cases, the only possible license is the GPL. The defendant must either:
      a. Admit they were using GPL code without a license or,
      b. Admit that the license they used the code under is the GPL, or,
      c. Claim that their code is not copied from, nor derivative of, GPLed code.

      The result of this enforcement strategy has been that the defendant *always* complies with the GPL. The alternative is to come into court and admit that you have been redistributing copyrighted material without a license! Courts frown on that mightily. So, *all* defendants have chosen compliance with the GPL.

      Note that if the defendant claims c., that they are not infringing (i.e, they claim that their code does *not* contain any code licensed under the GPL, nor any derivative of code so licensed) then the GPL is *not* tested. This becomes a separate issue of fact (i.e., *is* the code in question actually copied from code licensed under the GPL, or is it not?), *not* a test of the GPL itself.

      If KISS's code is copied from, or derivative of GPLed code, they are screwed, because they must either admit to redistributing someone else's copyrighted material without a license, or they must admit that the license they distributed the code under is the GPL. Ether way, they lose.

      See Eben Moglen's keynote address to the University of Maine Law School's Fourth Annual Technology and Law Conference for the FSF's counsel's description of how he's done this enforcement, all by his lonesome, while teaching full time at Columbia Law School, for years.

  2. Looks like the server is melting already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  3. If You Don't Accept the Terms of the GPL... by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...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.

  4. Mplayer.hu site article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Site seems to be on the virge of slashdotting, so here's the mplayer peoples' comments.

    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 lice

  5. Re:GPL == strong by richardalan · · Score: 5, Informative

    There have been violations of the GPL, but they've been dealt with quietly and have not gone to court. See Eben Moglen's Article about GPL enforcement.

  6. Re:GPL == strong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think Eben Moglen Professor of Law & Legal History @ Columbia Law school who works pro bono for the FSF says it best for his licence (GPL):

    -----quote
    I hear quite often that my license has not been tested in court. This puzzles me. It is, because of the structure of my license, the defendant's obligation affirmatively to plead it, if she wants to. After all, if she is distributing, it is either without license, in which case my license doesn't get tested--there's an unlicensed distribution going on and it's enjoinable--or the license is pled by the other side .... how interesting. There, if I may put it to you briefly, is the trick. That's how it was done. That's how an enormous commons came into existence throughout the world, not just with zero cost of goods and movement and sales, but with near zero cost of enforcement.

    For ten years, I did all of the GPL enforcement work around the world by myself, while teaching full time at a law school. It wasn't hard, really; the defendant in court would have had no license, or had to choose affirmatively to plead my license: they didn't choose that route. Indeed, they didn't choose to go to court; they cooperated, that was the better way. My client didn't want damages, my client wanted compliance. My client didn't want publicity, my client wanted compliance. We settled for compliance all the time. We got compliance all the time.

    ------end quote

    The URL is http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/maine -speech.html

    Done in the spirit of Free software, anonymously and with no karma whoring intentions. The licence was written by Eben Moglen but someone else brought forward the idea. GNU project founder Richard M. Stallman.

  7. Re:GPL == strong by dasunt · · Score: 5, Informative

    In the current KISS situation, the strings that are matched between the DVD firmware and mplayer are (1) in the same order and (2) include a subtitle format that mplayer was using in 2001 while the KISS firmware seems to be from 2003.

    While the former could be a coincidence, how does KISS explain the later? They suggest that code leaked from KISS into mplayer!

    You are right. mplayer has no right to break into the house of KISS and examine their ``tv''. But mplayer does have the legal right to bring their case before a judge, show the evidence that suggests that KISS has their ``tv'' and the judge can order KISS to show the ``tv''.

    I hope that mplayer can gather the legal resources to persue this case -- why not have a European GPL precident?

  8. Re:Easter eggs (was Re:GPL == strong ) by andyr · · Score: 5, Informative
    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?
    I also remember that one. Bit o' googling comes up with This article - the meat of which is (spelling left intact) :-
    Now, in fact (and I've verified this) if you type BOOT/SYS.WHO (notice that password WHO...) at a TRS-DOS 2.3 prompt, hold down the right combination of keys (2,4,6?) and press return, it'll clear the screen, go into 32 column mode, and display a copyright notice. This copyright notice is not obviously stored in the remaining blocks of BOOT/SYS - from memory the bytes are XORed with the position in the message and with the keyboard data lines before being displayed.

    The above is all fact, and I've verifyied it myself.

    Now for the rumour, which I can't veryify. Note to lawyers - I'm passing this on as I heard it, and I'm not saying if it is true or not.

    One version of TRS-DOS wasn't written by Tandy, but by a 3rd party and licensed to Tandy. Tandy got fed up with paying the license fee and came out with a new version which they claimed was entirely re-written. Said 3rd party claimed that parts of it were taken from his code.

    Said 3rd party asked for a TRS-80 Model 1 and a new TRS-DOS disk to prove his case (I don't know if it ever went to court). He went through the above routine, and it displayed _his_ copyright notice. Tandy had copyied the boot granule and hadn't realised there was an easter egg in it.

    Later versions kept the easter egg, but with a Tandy message.

    Cheers, Andy!
    --
    Andy Rabagliati