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."

31 of 634 comments (clear)

  1. GPL == strong by BlurredWeasel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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?

  2. 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 Curtman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And once again someone (KISS, not parent poster) needs to understand that if the GPL isn't valid, they have absolutely no rights to use code copyrighted by the various authors of the Mplayer code.

      Could someone who understands the language take a look at the pre-translated version of:

      We doesn't use MPlayer, we use our own player, a player like we know from Real Player, Microsoft Media Player is the application used to display movies. It is a fundamental thing for our player, because it's what we are known for, being able to play a wide range of different formats.

      And tell us weather thats actually what this guy said, or if he actually knows what any of this is about? What the hell is he saying? Is he claiming they are using Windows Media player on Linux? Or just that they have a program that functions similar to Real or WMP?

    2. Re:Untested? Bah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    3. 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
    4. 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?
    5. 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.

  3. Never let it be said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. 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

    1. Re:Looks like the server is melting already... by Alan+Cox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One of the first things I'd say reading this is that his reaction looks a lot like several other vendors I dealt with whose CEO simply could not believe that either their employees or their subcontractors would steal code.

      Some of the confusion also comes from the speaker. If the translation is accurate the speaker asks

      "As he said, there are no big economical options for dragging the case to court. Instead they hope that the Open Source community will put so much pressure on Kiss Techonology that they will be forced to release all its software."

      The speaker doesn't say anything about software stolen by employees or contractors, or software in dispute, just about "all software". So the reply is that KISS won't release their player app - which the company guy clearly doesn't think contains mplayer code so he doesn't have to release.

      At that point he's already denied stealing any code, but confirmed he is having the matter checked.

      Now it may be that code was stolen and he doesn't know about it. It may be it was stolen and he systematically was involved. I find the latter hard to believe - if it had been done by someone smart and with foreplanning they would a) have an instant cover story b) done the hiding job a lot better.

      So the way I read this it says
      "We havent copied anything but we will check"
      "We wont be releasing all our code, including our proprietary stuff containing only our code"
      "We do release all the open source stuff"
      "We have fixed minor errors in the past"
      "You are picking on the wrong people"

      Put that way it's not quite the same as the mplayer view. Lets just see how the evidence pans out. If the KISS guys find someone stole code then we will see how they handle it. If the mplayer guys are right it won't be too long before the KISS folks will be apologising.

      Alan

      BTW: Larg e scale commercial copyright violation in parts of the EU (Denmark I believe included) is a violation of criminal not just civil law.

  5. GPL@Court by SignificantBit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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.

  6. And As Always... by bfg9000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...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..."

  7. 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.

  8. Christensen doesn't make Kiss look much better by ThisIsAnExampleAccou · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So, if Gabucino is correct, Kiss Technology stole code from MPlayer. And if Peter Wilmar Christensen is correct, someone working for Kiss Technology leaked the information to the competition, possibly for money.

    Neither scenario paints a pretty picture of Kiss Technology. Are they a publically traded company?

  9. Cebit 2003 by -unta · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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? ]-[

  10. The True Meaning of KISS... by deminisma · · Score: 5, Funny

    Keep It Stolen, Stupid.

  11. Breaking news... by bennomatic · · Score: 5, Funny

    SCO is apparently suing KISS for stealing their business model...

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  12. 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

  13. what he's really saying by jtilak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?"

  14. Re:Interesting by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You mean, whether Kiss implimented MPlayer's unique, never seen in the outside world, never used in a video file, subtitle format called MPsub, all at once, or over time?

  15. The Newest Defense by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 5, Funny
    What may happen in the future....

    GPL Group: Excuse me.

    Evil Proprietary Company (EPC): Yes?

    GPL Group: That's our code.

    EPC: No, it's not.

    GPL Group: Yes, it is. Look - you didn't even remove our "GPL License" warnings inside.

    EPC: Oh, that. No, it looks like you stole our code.

    GPL Group; What? Why would you put those warnings -

    EPC: So we could prove when people steal our code! Now, leave us alone, you thieves!

    GPL Group: Wait a second -

    Scooby-Doo: Shaggy, look!

    Fred: Why, it's Darl McBride! He's been making other perfectly honest proprietary companies look bad by giving code thieves an argument they can make to the press!

    Darl McBride: And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids! By the way, I invented that talking dog, and his royalties are mine! Mine, I tell you!

    Velma: We knew the truth when we asked you to show us your code history through the CVS archives which clearly showed when the Open Source code was developed.

    (Everyone else looks at her.)

    Velma: What? Didn't I look hot in the movie?


    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.
  16. Ah, yes, that makes perfect sense. by Temporal · · Score: 5, Funny

    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...

  17. Re:Not To Play Devil's Advocate by bruns · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But why they were even looking to see how KISS's stuff worked is a bit curious.

    Because, when you develop open source software, and suddenly some closed source company suddenly 'develops' software for their set top boxes that has very similar features to your open source software, you should check using simple tools (like strings) to see if anything matches. Its not hard to look for certain strings, and you certainly not violating any laws by doing it.

    You aren't reverse engineering the software.

    Open Source developers have every right to protect their projects.

    What, you don't think Microsoft, and every other closed source software developer does this to products which are very similar to theirs?

    How else are you supposed to discover when someone steals your work?

    --
    Brielle
  18. Well this blows it for Kiss players, for me by PCM2 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Hmm. Well, this is all starting to sound very unfortunate. I was really, seriously thinking of buying one of these KiSS DVD players. But ...

    ... and here is the important thing ...

    ...KiSS needs to know that I will not be supporting (buying) they products if they are violating the GPL. It seems to me that a large part of their market is going to be geeks like us. A DVD player that plays MPEG-4 is still rather a niche market, in the U.S. and Europe at least. If they want to corner the market that's going to be interested in these products -- us -- then they need to respect our ethics and our community.

    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!
  19. The reason the GPL has never been tested in court by hayden · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It being hard to show that GPL code was used is only a reason up until it is found. Then companies, like KISS, that get busted start banging on about how the GPL has never been tested in court. This lasts until they get actual legal advice and then it goes something like this.

    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.
  20. Easter eggs (was Re:GPL == strong ) by CoolVibe · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I think the main reason that the GPL has never been tested in courst is because violations are very difficult to prove.

    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?

    1. 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
  21. Re:GNU's NOT EFF?? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Funny
    GNU's NOT EFF!

    Actually, GNE's not EFF.