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)

This isn't exactly imitation

[bconway]

Michael, please click the link to Mplayer's site. They took the entirety of the mplayer source, changed the output plugin for OS/2, and released it as binary-only. It appears that source has now been released and the issue has been resolved, but at least read the article before letting them off light. They tried to pull a fast one on Mplayer using very little or no code of their own. I don't know if you call that imitation, I call it stealing.

This is almost amusing....

[pwagland]

This from the russians website:

Linux-community dumbfound us by their answer to our "technical" release of WarpVision 0.0.12. WarpVision is a GPL software and we're not hide that WarpVision contains now some of other GPL projects. Okay, wait for official press-release for this situation.

Who knows the truth? I don't, but if they did "borrow" the code, at least they 'fessed up pretty quick. Perhaps we should of asked first what was happening?

MPlayer/GPL love/hate relationship

[beable]

Check out the MPlayer homepage [mplayerhq.hu]. The 2001.11.06 entry says:

On a press conference, A'rpi said the big truth: he hates GPL! Well this sounds very rude from him, but let everyone know what happened! The poor fella tried to compile a flash disk driver into the kernel to boot from it and... it wouldn't! The little geezer is non-GPL so he can't be compiled into the kernel, which is in fact GPL! Let me quote him: rts NOW! GPL SUX - Utalom!!! - kibaszott szemet! - which I now don't want to trto english. Now he has rm -rf /*GPL* in crontab.

Order MPlayer - Boycott GPL! T-shirts NOW!

Now I'm confused. Do these MPlayer likes like the GPL? Or do they hate it?

WarpVision...hrm.

[jimmyphysics]

so yeah, it looks like they *did* steal some source code from mplayer. "but now they've released source, its ok," you say. no it isn't. apparently, they now claim that warpvision is/was GPL software. well, mplayer is released under a couple of licenses... its not all GPL, so that does not allow redistribution completely under GPL for derived works. (does that make sense to antybody else?) hmmm...

i do have to say, however, that i'm a bit disappointed in Arpad's rather immature reaction.
Arpad! you listening? rabit, knee-jerk reactions like this make us look bad. i have a lot of respect for you as a programmer, but your reaction is way out of line.
"They will die a dog's death for sure I swear!" its SOFTWARE, for god's sake. lighten up.

Article moderation....

[Anonymous Coward]

>> I have two reactions - one, someone still uses OS/2? ...

Score: -1, Flamebait

Come on, Michael. You know better than that.

Would you rather us use Windows? Or is Linux the only *real* choice, and thus OS/2 is shunned as just another competitor to Linux?

In truth, it's a stable, fast OS with a real object-oriented interface, and there are many people who still use, depend on, support, and develop for it.

You might ask me what I think about the current state of the Linux desktop, but we don't need to discuss that here.

Don't be inflammatory to others for their choices of software, even if you don't agree with it. It doesn't help anyone. If you have valid reasons, that's one thing, but FUD and mockery is quite another.

Re:MPlayer/GPL love/hate relationship

[Anonymous Coward]

That whole story is confusing. Nothing prevents non-GPL code from being compiled into the kernel. It's also a vague problem description. Did the kernel not compile, not boot, or did the "poor fella" just refuse to compile non-GPL code?

Not Resolved Yet

[Anonymous Coward]

Check the Mplayer web site. (they have an update in response to the source release) This is not resolved yet.

One of the big issues appears to be that Warpvision is GPL, but Mplayer is NOT GPL. It has its own, different license. Just taking the code and changing the license to one you like better (even if it is the GPL) is not acceptable, no matter how much credit you give people.

Re:MPlayer/GPL love/hate relationship

[Anonymous Coward]

Mplayer is NOT released under the GPL!

So, how can the OS/2 team we're talking about release their project under the GPL? It makes no sense! You cannot take someone's project, modify it and just because you had access to the source you can decide for yourself what you'll do of that code.

[e-mail]

Let's Clarify

[oGMo]

They took the entirety of the mplayer source, changed the output plugin for OS/2, and released it as binary-only. [...] They tried to pull a fast one on Mplayer using very little or no code of their own. I don't know if you call that imitation, I call it stealing.

They stole, but this is not what they stole. Using someone else's code is not stealing, since the party whose code is used does not lose their code. Under the GPL, this sort of using is encouraged. After all, this is one of the things Free Software is truly about. So they did not "take" Mplayer's code, or "steal" Mplayer's code, they used it, and that's fine.

But then, they stole. (If indeed this is what happened... that's what is claimed, and seems to be resolved, and we will for discussion assume it is the case.) They stole from the community the right and ability to reuse and modify the code. This is what the GPL is designed to protect. And this is where we must be careful.

Code cannot be stolen. No form of "intellectual property" can be stolen by being copied and used. This is not stealing, there is no loss. The loss and theft occurs when the right and ability to modify and use or reuse is taken away. This right is the only thing that can truly be taken away by theft. Let us all beware of such things.

Re:MPlayer/GPL love/hate relationship

[beable]

"Anonymous Coward" wrote:

Mplayer is NOT released under the GPL!

If MPlayer is not released under the GPL, then that's probably a GPL violation. In my MPlayer build directory, there is a file called ac3-iec958.c which was released under the GPL by Juha Yrjölä. Because ac3-iec958 is built into MPlayer, by the "viral nature" of the GPL, surely the whole of MPlayer must be released under the GPL.

Well then

[maxxon]

Maybe you should get both sides of the story before posting it to Slashdot in the first place?