KiSS using mplayer source code, violating GPL?

[thing_from_space]

ruben wrote:

The GPL scheme (i.e., scam) is a ridiculous licensing procedure created with the sole purpose of making everything open source via snowball effect.

It's a Nazi-esque effort that programmers should avoid at all cost.

Looks like Microsoft and SCO have done a little brain washing on you. How about you actually try to read the facts instead of repeating uninformed FUD?

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

FYI, I did a search on both documents and found no instance of "nazi" whatsoever.

I'd be happy to discuss this further with you when you have a better idea of what you're arguing.

[thing_from_space]

ruben wrote:

I know the FAQ, and here's something from it:

"Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them."

This is why I'm against GPL. I can live with beeing forced to release the source code if I modify a GPL program. But I see no reason why I should GPL my entire product just because it uses a couple of functions from another GPL program.

Obviously those "couple of functions" must have some value if you'd rather not code it yourself. If you don't want to code it yourself, you're going to have to agree to somebody's licensing. It's either pay for propriatary code, agree to the GPL or hope that it shows up under a BSD license or public domain.

I apologize for the use of that word. I meant that GPL acts like a virus: if you touch a GPL program, your product becomes GPL as well.

Ah, "The Virus". A sound bite made press-worthy by Microsoft. Here's a nice little page that explains why the GPL is not viral.

[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.