PotPlayer Thread gone? [Archive]

View Full Version : PotPlayer Thread gone?

Pages : [1] 2

chris2u

25th August 2012, 13:27

I haven't been able to find the PotPlayer thread today..
I can't find it searching through the forums at all.

If I try through a Google search...
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=148745
It says I do not have permission to access this page.
Bit weird :rolleyes:

Guest

25th August 2012, 14:21

It was moved to Thread Moderation pending correction of licensing violations.

chris2u

25th August 2012, 14:29

:thanks: Thought I was going Potty !

Temeteron

25th August 2012, 14:59

I download today and install Daum PotPlayer 1.5.34023 64bit windows 7 and i want to ask you something.The updates coming separately in English from here http://www.dvbsupport.net/ is for 64 bit too or only for 32 bit?and something else,if i install stable version like Daum PotPlayer 1.5.34023 i need to uninstall and install each new stable version come or i just need to install updates from http://www.dvbsupport.net/ and thats all?Thank you for your time

Wilbert

25th August 2012, 15:15

Temeteron

25th August 2012, 15:22

OK.Im new at forums and dont know how exactly forums work.I wait until broblems fixed

LoRd_MuldeR

25th August 2012, 15:26

OK.Im new at forums and dont know how exactly forums work.I wait until broblems fixed

Then you should have a look at the rules again, especially rule #6:
http://forum.doom9.org/forum-rules.htm

As long as PotPlayer continues to violate the GPL and/or ships with "cracked" software, we cannot allow discussion here...

waltdisneypixar

25th August 2012, 21:31

Keiyakusha

27th August 2012, 17:49

What cracked software does it include?
That's pretty valid question. You maybe closed thread but this action didn't deleted the actual software from people's harddrives. I don't see how I can know what is cracked there so i can remove it, unless you'll tell me... Many dll's that come in package - i can only guess what are they, if they are from some cracked software I want to know about it in more detail.

Guest

27th August 2012, 18:56

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1588895#post1588895

In fact, I misread a post in the PotPlayer thread, and regret my carelessness.

http://roundup.libav.org/issue2112

11mail22

31st August 2012, 15:05

somehow strange.

At first you supposed the usage of cracked software in potplayer, which seems to be not the case.

Than you dig out a GPL issue (2112) which is 2 years old?

Hope it will be clarified soon, so potplayer community get their thread back.

Guest

31st August 2012, 15:34

Than you dig out a GPL issue (2112) which is 2 years old? The issue is still active and Daum is not addressing it. Our policy is to respect the claims of the copyright holders/licensors.

petran79

4th September 2012, 10:03

same reason Kmplayer thread is gone too or was it mainly about the installer issue?

But even VLC player has not settled some things straight, concerning GPL.

I'll settle for MPC then.

Wilbert

4th September 2012, 18:34

As far as i can see, only the Potplayer and the Light Alloy threads are moved.

waltdisneypixar

6th September 2012, 19:14

fred_gaou

13th September 2012, 00:38

What's new?

Is there a way to solve the problem, a file to add or delete in PotPlayer distribution offered in that forum, etc?

Guest

13th September 2012, 00:41

Daum is apparently uninterested in complying with GPL/LGPL. The source code they provide must match the executable.

fred_gaou

13th September 2012, 01:13

If I've got it right, it's about the ffcodec.dll file provided by daum? They compiled their own version and don't provide the source code anywhere since http://potplayer.daum.net/devel/ffmpeg.zip doesn't match the ffcodec.dll? Or the problem would be Potplayer itself can't use gpl software as long as PotPlayer is not a GPL software?

And so, Daum refused to clean that situation?

Guest

13th September 2012, 01:30

All I know is what the copyright holder told me. My understanding is that they use LGPL. They are required to provide source to the DLL that matches the distributed DLL. According to the copyright holder, it does not match and Daum is therefore in violation of the license. It is not up to me or the Doom9 forum to follow up with Daum. But you are free to ask them why the source code does not match what they distribute.

ZoNi

4th October 2012, 12:34

Any news? Is there a problem with official PotPlayer (korean) or translated version or both?

Keiyakusha

4th October 2012, 13:06

can anyone (from doom9) actually compile latest sources that potplayer provides and check if result matches to the distributed dll? This is if I understand the problem correctly.
Also I hope they at ffmpeg didn't matched provided source code to the beta version of the player, but to release version?
Also I hope they compared it to korean version, and not english version. English version is not supported, its a hack by 3rd parties.

moshmothma

4th October 2012, 16:46

This is really absurd and disappointing....Your rule 6 clearly does not pertain to some dispute between software developers and the use of open source code...you have only conveniently converted it to a really selfish and misguided (perhaps even personnel) attempt to litigate a scenario which falls way outside of what this forum is/should be about...
The developers can hash out whatever they need to on another stage..put those threads on Potplayer and Light Alloy back up for the community for continued discussion, development, and enjoyment.

strumf666

21st October 2012, 17:57

Any news/progress?

HoP

24th October 2012, 19:01

Any news/progress?

bump :D

Fuzzycat

14th November 2012, 13:31

Bermp!

SuLyMaN

16th November 2012, 08:27

Yeah seriously potplayer is by far and by a mile the best player I've used in the past few years. When its going to be up again!?

Superb

16th November 2012, 11:07

@Commenters above me: why don't you guys care when a closed source software (PotPlayer) violates the license of an open source project (ffmpeg/libav)? That's the real question.

Keiyakusha

16th November 2012, 15:43

@Commenters above me: why don't you guys care when a closed source software (PotPlayer) violates the license of an open source project (ffmpeg/libav)? That's the real question.

Why should simple users care about that? Not everyone even know what opensource means. We use what is good. Besides it is not yet proven that it violates something. There is high chance that the ones who came to that conclusion compared apples to bananas, that's why it appeared to be violation. However no one proved that there is no violation either. Not much people seem to be interested in taking time to compile the stuff in question.

Asmodian

16th November 2012, 20:17

I consider myself a simple user (I haven't contributed to any open source projects :( ) and care very much about open source software following the rules. A lot of people put a lot of work into the open source software with the understanding that their work and works based on their work will always be free and open. Any improvements will be available to them and they can see and learn from them.

As soon as people stop respecting open source rules it damages the entire community. We do not want to put any potential developers off "because someone will just steal my work and call it their own".

The entire point of ffmpeg/libav being open source is that any improvements done are available for everyone. If there is a question about it it is usually up to the developer to clear it up. All they need to do is post the source for their version of ffmpeg/libav, and if it is the same as something already available just state where to get it.

Keiyakusha

16th November 2012, 20:43

I consider myself a simple user (I haven't contributed to any open source projects :( ) and care very much about open source software following the rules
I think I made it clear enough what I mean by "simple user". You shouldn't omit the later part of the post. Maybe I should have said "end-user" instead. If you know, if you care - good for you. Feel free to never install software in question. The question, if I understand correctly, was "why someone doesn't cares". And the answer is "it is naive to even expect that everyone will care about it". Actually the ones who care about stuff like this is very small part of the userbase. As an end-user I only care about how good software is, its features etc, not how it was made, by who and using what. So does majority of others. And I want to be able to discuss the topic with other users. How to configure something or whatever. If some devs have problems with other devs - its their problems, I couldn't care less.

As soon as people stop respecting open source rules it damages the entire community. We do not want to put any potential developers off "because someone will just steal my work and call it their own".
Who are "we"? I don't see your point. If "we" = "the doom9 community", "we" have nothing to do with it. If player in question was developed here, then maybe it makes sense, but its not. Its devs don't even read this forum. So far not having ability to discuss player itself only does damage to community. So if devs are put off by something, it will be so regardless of what we discuss here. We can't stop player development from here or something. You shouldn't assume that what you think is right is the same for the whole community.

The entire point of ffmpeg/libav being open source is that any improvements done are available for everyone. If there is a question about it it is usually up to the developer to clear it up. All they need to do is post the source for their version of ffmpeg/libav, and if it is the same as something already available just state where to get it.
Exactly. Source is available and comparison was done. However it is not clear if they compared right things and noone seems to have time to work on resolving this issue. But even if there is violation, there is no reason to ban discussion of it on some totally unrelated website such as doom9.

Asmodian

16th November 2012, 23:32

If you really want to discuss it and think there are no problems just do the comparison.

All I see is people saying "I don't care about open source licences so reopen the Pot Player thread".

I understand Doom9 to be quite strict about such things, which I admire.

But even if there is violation, there is no reason to ban discussion of it on some totally unrelated website such as doom9.

I don't understand this, if there really is a violation shouldn't the player be black listed? What else could "we", as a community, do?

Doom9, as a community, really has no way to enforce the open source licences except things like this. I wouldn't want the developers sued or anything but I strongly believe there has to be something to encourage people to follow the open source licences. The developers on Doom9 are very careful about this and non-compliance has always been a big deal here.

strumf666

16th November 2012, 23:39

Banning discussion without the accusations having been proved seems a bit harsh.

Keiyakusha

17th November 2012, 00:34

If you really want to discuss it and think there are no problems just do the comparison.
It should be done by some known programmer who knows what he is doing. Even if i'll succeed in correct compiling of the needed stuff to compare it, noone will believe me. I won't believe myself actually.
Personally I don't really want to discuss it btw, don't take it too literally. At this point I know enough about this player. I just look at this from perspective of the user who does not know enough. And since player is korean with no official English version, that thread was handy for these users. I don't think that there is no problems, I don't know. I just asked someone to verify making sure that he is comparing it to official Korean release version and not some 3rd party hacked beta-version.

I don't understand this, if there really is a violation shouldn't the player be black listed?
I don't understand your question too. Blacklisted by who? What this will achieve? As long as the software is good, I will use it regardless of where it is blacklisted, and will recommend it to others.

hello_hello

17th November 2012, 02:50

Until it's deemed legal to discuss it here again, there's several Potplayer threads over at the videohelp.com forum.

Asmodian

17th November 2012, 02:54

As long as the software is good, I will use it regardless of where it is blacklisted, and will recommend it to others.

This makes me sad. :(

mzso

29th November 2012, 22:41

This makes me sad. :(

What makes me sad is that a handy forum is gone for a really good media player.

I also value the the actual properties of the player to whatever lame ideologies it MIGHT breach.

Asmodian

30th November 2012, 02:05

lame ideologies

lol, very convincing, lots of sympathy for you. :rolleyes:

Open Source Software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software)

ZoNi

30th November 2012, 12:40

As long as the software is good, I will use it regardless of where it is blacklisted, and will recommend it to others.
Same here.

To be honest, I don't understand what is the problem here, since doom9 is not some court or anything similar to ban discussions about any program.

mzso

30th November 2012, 13:22

lol, very convincing, lots of sympathy for you. :rolleyes:

Open Source Software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software)

Of course I know what open source software is. It's often advertised as free, but it just bounds devs. Real free would be public domain. With the variance and restrictions of these licences a lot of development is just plain strangled and the free software "market" is hopelessly fragmented.

ZoNi

30th November 2012, 13:32

Your rule 6 clearly does not pertain to some dispute between software developers and the use of open source code
It seems you are right. I think admins/mods should make poll here, about this "problem" to see what members think.

Asmodian

30th November 2012, 22:24

6) No warez, cracks, serials or illegally obtained copyrighted content! Links to content of a questionable nature (e.g. anything you don't own and/or have downloaded), asking for, offering, or asking for help/helping to process such content in any way or form is not tolerated.

Seems pretty clear to me, just because they would be happy to give it to you if you follow their rules doesn't mean it isn't illegally obtained if you do not.

Edit: I do agree the open source community has its issues and it isn't a perfect system. I also believe this, even more so, about other types of media's copyrights. I also respect the developers, if you don't like their licences do not use their code. If you don't think it is worth the cost do not buy it.

How different licences benefit the community or not isn't really the issue here.

strumf666

2nd December 2012, 14:32

Is/was there some proof or are we are talking about alleged licensing violations?

clsid

2nd December 2012, 17:43

Yes, there was proof. The FFmpeg DLLs contain the settings that are used during build. You can see that with a hex editor. It showed that GPL was used. That means that the full source of PotPlayer must be published. Not doing so is a violation of the GPL.

The developer of PotPlayer was already stealing from several other open source projects long before PotPlayer even existed. He used to be developer of KMPlayer. He stole code from ffdshow and MPC. This was very obvious because of the similarities in the functionality offered, and was also proven by the presence of some very specific bugs in KMPlayer that also existed in MPC. Details can be found somewhere on this forum several years ago. Don't ask me for a link, I can't be bothered to search for it.

I hereby formally request the moderators to ban any discussion of PotPlayer and KMPlayer until the full source code of those programs is released. Users that engage in any further discussion should be punished with a rule 6 strike. Mwhohahahahahahahaha.

ZoNi

3rd December 2012, 14:43

Hehe, too bad "open source" is not realy "open" :(

Anyway, I still prefer PotPlayer over MPC-BE.

fred_gaou

5th December 2012, 10:05

Is the potplayer skins thread (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=164222) closed for the same reason?

I love doom9 but if potplayer users want to keep chatting and posting stuffs about potplayer on the web (in english language), they'll have to find another place I guess. Just PM me if you have an idea about the best place to keep talking about it. -_-'

manolito

5th December 2012, 20:17

Even if it does not affect me personally since I do not use PotPlayer, I cannot resist to jump in here, because this discussion seems quite ridiculous to me.

Chip.de (German computer magazine)
Heise.de (c't computer magazine)
softonic.com
CNet.com
Brothersoft.com
Softpedia.com
Videohelp.com
majorgeeks.com
digital-digest.com

You know what all these sites have in common? They are all established and well respected in the community, and they all offer PotPlayer for download.

So according to Asmodian and clsid all these sites also distribute, promote and support illegal software, right? C'mon guys, get serious, please.

Most of us live in countries where someone is regarded being innocent unless he is proven guilty by a court of law. There are many examples which show that the GPL can be enforced by taking offenders to court. So why is nobody doing this in the case of PotPlayer?

Why should I believe some few people who alledge that PotPlayer violates the GPL? Even more so as it sometimes seems that these folks have some personal issues with the author of this software? Prove it in court!

I have been a member here for a couple of years, so I am familiar with this "Holier than thou" attitude at doom9. But for a forum which has its own section just for "Decrypting" (which is illegal in almost every country I know) to ban discussion about a software like PotPlayer is just plain ridiculous.

Cheers
manolito

nevcairiel

6th December 2012, 08:10

So you rather see it allowed and possibly alienating the actual developers (like myself) from whom they stole (parts of) their code?

And why i don't sue them? Mostly because an international lawsuit over the GPL is a nightmare, and lawyers are expensive. The whole thing can get very messy, which is why so many people just "steal" open source projects and use them in their software. Actually delivering court-ready prove of it is hard, at least if you don't have the resources of a whole company backing you, which many open source projects do not have.

Oh, and "alledge", we can easily prove that they include GPL components from ffmpeg, because they are stupid enough to also include the version strings when building ffmpeg, which includes the license it was built under.
Personal issues? Damn right, if they steal my code, it is personal.

If they asked and offered to properly credit me, i would probably even be willing to re-license code for them to use in closed source, but they did not even bother.

PS:
Many of those "well respected" sites you list there are pages that collect downloads from all over the web, not caring about licenses, just trying to get more people to their pages.
And the ones that are actually respectable would probably even take it down if approached through the correct channels.

QBhd

6th December 2012, 13:11

I agree... as much as I love PotPlayer if they did not go through proper channels to include Open Source material and then try and sell a finished product with it, I am not happy and agree that steps should be taken to rectify the situation.

QB

Keiyakusha

6th December 2012, 13:33

and then try and sell a finished product with it
They are not sell it, they give it for free.
As for devs, they are just jealous that using their code someone made way better software. And the whole gpl is not about freedom but to prevent this jealousy.
This quote from the post above is the only appropriate here: Mwhohahahahahahahaha.

strumf666

6th December 2012, 14:12