KiSS using mplayer source code, violating GPL?

[hagar]

Kiss Technology A/S (http://www.kiss-technology.com/) is a company making DVD players which can play a lot of  formats (DivX, mp3, ogg, whatever).

According to the Mplayer homepage ( http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/design6/news.html#kiss01
) they have included code from MPlayer (which is licensed under GPL) into their products without releasing the complete source code.

I thought that a danish company would have known better...

--------
update: corrected urls

[KennyR]

This kind of crap happens all the time. Then when the offenders get taken to court over it, they have the cheek to call the GPL communist.

[ruben]

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.

[Seehund]

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.

Submit that to http://nero-online.org. They have a troll repository for improved Slashdot trolling.

[lempkee]

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?

[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.

[Kronos]

@ruben
The GPL is just like an other licence ...
(except those licence terms that are outlawed for violating costumer-rights,
but that a whole other matter).

If you don't agree with it you can:
a) write your own code
b) negotiate with the author(s) about a different deal
c) become a criminal

a) Lot of people think that the fact that the sources are available means that they
are free to use it for whatever they want, completly ignoring the fact that they DON'T
own the source, but just a licence to use it under special terms.

b) yes that can be quite hard (if not impossible) with bigger projects where a dozen
or even more coders contributed to it, often not even knowing who did what ....
still doesn't change the fact that you can't use it beyond GPL-terms.
Try persuading M$ to hand out the MS-DOS-6.22 sources to you. Those are just
as "valueless" as GPL-SW, but still you won't get them.

c) "Noone was damaged" is not an excuse, these people own their work, just
as much as M$ owns Windows, and the fact they are giving it away for free doesn't
mean they have less rights.

[ruben]

thing_from_space

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

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.

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

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.

[ruben]

Kronos,

The GPL is just like an other licence ...

Sure, no problem there. It's just that I don't agree with it and fail to see how it can protect freedom and innovation as they like to shout...

[Kronos]

@Ruben

Wanna use some off their work, gonna have to bow down to their rules.

[bhoggett]

ruben wrote:
Kronos,

The GPL is just like an other licence ...

Sure, no problem there. It's just that I don't agree with it and fail to see how it can protect freedom and innovation as they like to shout...

It protects it by stopping lazy w*****s from using the code in their own proprietary programs and claiming it as their own, and by stopping large unscrupulous developers from using 99.9% of the free code and adding a few lines to modify it just to break free standards and impose proprietary ones.

The rule is simple: if you don't like the GPL license, don't use GPL code at all and get off your fat ar*e and write your own code from scratch. It's not like someone is trying to sneak any conditions past you while you're not looking.

I can't help feeling that those people who whine about the existence of the GPL are the leeches and parasites of the development community. I don't think much of the BSD license, and would never release anything under it, but I don't condemn its existence. If you want to use someone else's code, you abide by whatever license gives you permission to do so. If you don't like the license, don't use the code. Anything else is like justifying piracy because you don't believe in having to pay for your software.

I know that's a strong line to take, but I'm sick to death of this subject.

[Cymric]

ruben wrote:
[snip] 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.

Simple. Define 'a couple of functions' in practice. And believe me, there will be lawsuits over exactly what is meant by something this vague. Another thought: what constitutes a 'function' or 'program' in lawyerspeak? What happens if a program is just a big library (a DLL, if you will) with a tiny shell around it?

No.

While you are perfectly free to disagree with the admittedly stringent requirements of the GPL, it was indeed best to word the license exactly as it is today: use something GPL'ed---something designed and programmed and maintained to be open, accessible, modifyable, and so forth---and you have to pay the price of that openness by opening up yourself. If not, people can and will abuse that openness sooner or later. Meaning: they will make money from your hard work without paying you a penny. There are less stringent licenses out there, of course. Off the top of my head, there's the LGPL, or the BSD one. But you accept the consequences of using such a license too. Your choice, and your choice alone.

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.

So don't use a GPL program if you have an issue with that. Noone is forcing you to use those, right?

(Note: I am not a GPL-advocate. Every license has Good and Bad things associated with it.)

[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.

[alx]

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.

The alternative, without the GPL, would simply be to write you're own code.  If programmers are letting you use their code for free, it's only fair that you go by their rules.  You're not somehow forced to use GPL code - it just gives you another choice.

Besides, there's also the LGPL license for libraries and IIRC this is a bit more lax.

---edit----

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

[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.