KiSS using mplayer source code, violating GPL?

[thing_from_space]

alx wrote:

And if just touching open-source code can convert your entire product, how does Apple manage it? ;-)

Mac OS X is based off of FreeBSD, which is also considered open source and has a much less restrictive license than the GNU GPL. The BSD license only requires that the copyright and limitations of liability statement be kept intact, so anyone can do pretty much anything they please with code, including keeping derivations to themselves.

Apple, however, in the spirit of open source has released the Mac OS X core as Darwin under their Apple Public Source License (which is also OSI approved). This does not include Cocoa, the Mac OS X user interface.

Open Source licensing  is not limited to just the GPL and it's terms. In fact there are a number of licenses that are considered open source by the Open Source Initiative, including BSDL, GPL,  and Mozilla Public License.

[Rodney]

lempkee wrote:
erm , GPL is like.. you have to release the SOURCECODE IF!!!!!!!! the user wants it!! , AND NOT! like ..hey we are using this so here is the sourcecode..

(delivered on demand)

did you ask for the source code?

I think i know what your trying to say, but not too well. If you use GPL code, you must make the source code avaliable. This doesnt mean you have to ship it to the user on a CD or bundle the source and binaries together. You just have to appened the GPL licenece to the binaries and source source code somehow and make sure that the user can get to the source if he/she wishes.

KISS arn't doing this. They dont acknowledge that they are using GPL code and if you are, you have to acknowledge it.

Having said that, i dont even know if they are or not, but the the folks at mplayer have seem pretty sure about it.

[jamesm]

But I see no reason why I should GPL my entire product just because it uses a couple of functions from another GPL program.

If your program uses someone elses code, even if it is only one small function, then you should be seeking permission to use it.

The GPL gives you permission, under the condition that you open all of your code under the same license.

If you dont like that, then the answer is simple. Dont use the GPLd code. Or try and get the code as a library, link to it, and use the LGPL.

[MagicSN]

>Here's the actual GNU General Public License. And this is a >FAQ about the GNU GPL that answers a lot of questions.

Please note though that the FAQ is in no way legally binding, as it is not part of the licence. It is the interpretation of someone (who coincidentally is the author of the GPL) of the GPL. Some of the stuff in the FAQ (like that non-free code would be "morally tainted") is highly subjective and cannot really be read out of the contract-text of the GPL.

I tend to think though that in the case at present these Kiss-people really violated the GPL. It was not the first time in the field of Video-Codecs... the last guys who did so in the end had to give in and release the source-code if I remember right...

It would be interesting to know what sort of code this was, though. Some times in the past there was code under GPL which was not really licencable under GPL, as another licence by a different person (which was done earlier) tied it to an incompatible licence (and the one putting it originally under GPL had no right to do so). I do not say that this is the case here (actually I doubt that it is...), but without knowing the details one cannot know for sure...

Steffen