Mplayer Charges License Violation

Several people have submitted stories about the author of Mplayer accusing Warpvision of, err, "borrowing" their code for Warpvision's OS/2 player. I have two reactions - one, someone still uses OS/2? And two, something about imitation being the sincerest form of flattery...Update from CD: Hold on there, everyone. I downloaded the WarpVision source and lo and behold the GPL is there in all its free software glory. I think Mplayer spoke too soon, too rashly, or alternatively, WarpVision was just too slow to update thier site. I'd love to hear both sides of this before we all freak out. Further Info: It was pointed out to me (CD) that the MPlayer program itself is not Open Source software (it calls itself Basically GPL, which, BTW, hasn't been approved by the OSI), so in the end this might just be proprietary software piracy. (Yawn)

OS/2

[blkros]

Yes, the commuity radio station [weru.org] that I volunteer at uses it on one computer for their satellite downloads.

Please Mod story down as Flamebait!

[Codeala]

I have suffered way too many "Still using CLI?" for using Linux, haven't you? If someone want to *write* programs for OS/2, all the power to them. "Burrowing" source code is not so good, but that is cleared up now (read above posts!).

"someone still uses OS/2?"

[dan_bethe]

Michael, computing has cultural implications and you're a jerk.

Re:This is almost amusing....

[macinslak]

Companies that do obscure stuff probably pull crap like this all the time and just assume nobody is going to notice. After all, if they did tell anyone, Mplayer could just be suddenly declared 'free for noncommercial use' in future versions. Granted this isn't legal or right or anything, but it is probably a financially safer route to take in a lot of cases.

Someone still uses OS/2?

[Whatthehellever]

Yes, we still do. It's part of the array featuring BSD and Linux boxes up the wazoo.

OS/2 is still better than Winblows.

GPL issues

[peter_gzowski]

The update to this story mentions that everything's ok because the WarpVision code has the GPL, but the Mplayer author contends that Mplayer is not GPL, hence the following quote from the Mplayer homepage:

They also claim to be GPL. They aren't because MPlayer that they modified, also isn't GPL. It has its own license. So that's another lie.

OS/2

[NiN3x]

Micheal, I would suggest you try to learn a few things about OS/2 before you assume that it is dead.

Many banks all around the world use OS/2 for their ATMs and office computers because of one reason, it is even more rocksolid than your precious Linux/Unix.

The last released version of OS/2, Warp Ver 4 (merlin) was amazing. In 1991 it had and impresive list of features such as: Voice recognition software that was 98%+ accurate;
OpenGL 1.0; every network protocol nameable, Partial Win32 API compatibility and full Win16 compatibility.

As Slashdoters, you should support OS/2 and learn about it. It was most likely one of the most powerful and stable operating systems in existence, and probably still is. It had great potential to become THE operating system. If it wasn't for Microsoft boycoting/strong arming IBM out of development of OS/2. I would suggest you read "Hard Drive" which is a biography of Bill Gates and Microsoft. (It is written by an author with the last name Wallace. I can't remeber his first name). It explains the situation very well.

I am quite shocked that you sheepish Slashdotters would not like OS/2. You should just because of the fact that Microsoft took it down. Obviously you are not a knowledgable herd of sheep. (You can run Xfree86 in OS/2!!!! WOWZERS!)

In truth I use Windows XP. I would use 0S/2 if it wasn't so hard to install and if it had a greater list of features. OS/2 does have alot of problems to overcome in the modern day, and probably isn't the best operating system to use on a daily bassis for regular computer usage. (sounds like linux to me.) It could have been, and still could be though.

Is MPlayer even GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

This page [mplayerhq.hu] says that it is illegal to distribute MPlayer because some of the code is non-GPL. But they don't say which code they're referring to. The MPlayer source code doesn't (AFAIK) include a copy of the GPL, and apart from a copy of the above web page under Docs/, doesn't refer to licensing at all. There are no mentions of a license in the .c/.h files, except in the files taken from other projects (try "grep -ir licens *"). For all I know, it's illegal for me to distribute or use the MPlayer source code at all. Maybe MPlayer is the one stealing code from other GPL projects.

Their explanation is extremely vague. I understand why you couldn't include the Windows DLL files, the Divx4 codec, etc. with a binary distribution. But why couldn't you compile it with the FFmpeg GPL codecs only, and distribute that as a binary if you make the source code available? The FFmpeg decoders seem better than the Windows DLL files anyway, and they can run on non-x86 platforms.

Re:MPlayer/GPL love/hate relationship

[beable]

To follow up, there are HEAPS of files in MPlayer which were released under the GPL. I can't see how the MPlayer authors can possibly not release MPlayer under the GPL.

Files which contain a GPL Licence statement in MPlayer:

grep -rn "General Public License" *|cut -f 1 -d :|sort |uniq

ac3-iec958.c
drivers/3dfx.h
libac3/ac3.h
libac3/ac3_internal.h
libac3/bit_allocate.c
libac3/bit_allocate.h
libac3/bitstream.c
libac3/bitstream.h
libac3/coeff.c
libac3/coeff.h
libac3/crc.c
libac3/crc.h
libac3/debug.c
libac3/debug.h
libac3/decode.c
libac3/decode.h
libac3/dither.c
libac3/dither.h
libac3/downmix/downmix_3dnow.S
libac3/downmix/downmix.c
libac3/downmix/downmix_kni.S
libac3/downmix.h
libac3/exponent.c
libac3/exponent.h
libac3/imdct.c
libac3/imdct.h
libac3/mmx/imdct_3dnow.c
libac3/mmx/imdct512_kni.S
libac3/mmx/imdct_kni.c
libac3/mmx/rematrix_3dnow.c
libac3/mmx/srfft_3dnow.c
libac3/mmx/srfft_kni_c.c
libac3/mmx/srfft_kni.S
libac3/mmx/srfftp_3dnow.h
libac3/parse.c
libac3/parse.h
libac3/rematrix.c
libac3/rematrix.h
libac3/sanity_check.c
libac3/sanity_check.h
libac3/srfft.c
libac3/srfft.h
libac3/srfftp.h
libac3/stats.c
libac3/stats.h
libmpeg2/attributes.h
libmpeg2/header.c
libmpeg2/idct.c
libmpeg2/idct_mlib.c
libmpeg2/idct_mmx.c
libmpeg2/mm_accel.h
libmpeg2/mmx.h
libmpeg2/motion_comp.c
libmpeg2/motion_comp_mlib.c
libmpeg2/motion_comp_mmx.c
libmpeg2/mpeg2.h
libmpeg2/mpeg2_internal.h
libmpeg2/slice.c
libmpeg2/sse.h
libmpeg2/stats.c
libmpeg2/vlc.h
libvo/video_out.c
libvo/video_out_internal.h
libvo/vo_3dfx.c
libvo/vo_mga.c
libvo/vo_null.c
libvo/vo_sdl.c
libvo/vo_syncfb.c
libvo/vo_xmga.c
libvo/yuv2rgb.c
libvo/yuv2rgb.h
libvo/yuv2rgb_mlib.c
libvo/yuv2rgb_mmx.c
opendivx/idct_c.c
opendivx/idct_mmx.c
TOOLS/mp.pl
TVout/fbset/modeline2fb

Please explain?

Its quite a convoluted story....

[gagravarr]

Alas the WarpVision mailing list isn't archived anywhere that I know of, but I'll do my best to sumarise:

Someone noticed that WarpVision had changed a lot between two versions, doing some things better but some no longer. Someone else then noticed that the debug output was much like that of MPlayer

At that point, the MPlayer guys were alearted, and decided that it was very likely that WarpVision was an uncredited port of MPlater to OS/2, and also a closed source one. They mailed the WarpVision Developers, and asked what was up.

The WarpVision guys initially played dum, then said they had only used a tiny bit of code and would release the source later.

Tempers flared, and a lot of discussion went on between the WarpVision guys and the MPlayer guys. In the end, the WarpVision developers credited MPlayer, and released the source.

Now, the flame is over who was in the wrong, who needs to apologise, and if the projects should remain seperate, or if the WarpVision changes should go into the offical MPlayer tree. The issue isn't resolved, but the GPL violation is

Re:GPL issues

[Vox]

Actually, they say their code is GPL, but some stuff they include (codecs and other things, I'd guess...haven't checked the whole thing) are not under GPL...that's why they get pissed off whenever somebody posts binaries of MPlayer...according to them, some of the code can't be legally distributed as binaries...that's why they say the code is basically GPL (and not Basically GPL as in a name of a license, but as in "mostly GPL").

./ story needs yet another clarification.

Vox

Re:Let's Clarify

[Anonymous Coward]

They STOLE, by trying to GPL something that doesn't wasnt to be GPL'd (and of course the didn't ask either!).

Heh.

[Anonymous Coward]

You all forgot two things :
1. It is me that is writing the news, not A'rpi,
so blame me :)
2. MPlayer is NOT GPL. And that's one of the
reason why binaries (whether MPlayer or warpvision) are illegal. GPL and non-GPL
can't be mixed in binaries, but can be in the
source.
(btw it's in TFM)

--
Gabucino of MPlayer team

MPlayer Licensing Confusion

[Anonymous Coward]

From the MPlayer home page, it seems the MPlayer authors are mostly concerned about WarpVision stealing credit. They make a good case for that having happened.

Their claims about license violations seems confused at best. They claim MPlayer is released under its own license, but I found no such license in the source code for MPlayer 0.5. The closest I found is the following quote in the documentation:

MPlayer would be distributable under the terms of the
GNU GPL, but distributing binary packages is forbidden

Of course, the GPL forbids imposing such conditions on redistribution, so one must interpret this as saying that MPlayer is not distributable under the GPL, and since there is no other license supplied, must one understand MPlayer is not distributable at all?

Additionally, MPlayer uses code that is under the GPL, notably the MGA video drivers and some of the monitor frequency synchronization drivers. Thus either MPlayer is GPL or MPlayer violates the GPL or copyright laws.

Given MPlayer's licensing confusion, I'm not surprised WarpVision treated it as GPL. IMHO, that's the most reasonable interpretation that can be made of the situation. Regardless of licensing, of course, WarpVision should have more accurately and prominently advertised the debt it owed to MPlayer.

By the way, the vitriolic and childish attitude of the MPlayer author on this issue is yet another reminder of why it's a good idea to only use and contribute to really free software (which MPlayer apparently isn't)... I would hate to subject my use of a piece of software to the whims of such an apparently confused and aggressive person. And of course, I would hate to have such a person use code I wrote to impose their whims on others, which is why I use the GPL :-).

Re:MPlayer/GPL love/hate relationship

[beable]

Even if we ignore all the libraries, there's still ac3-iec958.c which is in the main MPlayer source directory. It's not in one of those library sub-directories. Also, the libraries distributed with MPlayer are GPL, not LGPL.