2 media players violate Guliverkli GPL

[niamh]

Take a look at this link http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?thread_id=1272272&forum_id=462894

KMplayer and vx30 are the culprits, using code off Guliverkli project :mad:

[unskinnyboy]

Commercial products stealing open source code? How low can they get than this? :mad:

[Mug Funky]

bastards!

guliverkli is one of the more valuable opensource projects. sucks to see gabest's good work ripped like this.

guess what we can do is tell everybody about these buggers.

[Neo Neko]

I will not post what I think of Maui X-stream. Not family friendly words ya know. Needless to say there are indeed other software companies as bad or worse than Microsoft. :p Seeing as they are gratuitous and consistant code thiefs. About the best thing I can think to do is contact the pear PC devs and see if they would be interested to tag team the bastards.

[unskinnyboy]

So apart from 'spreading the word' about the theft, there is nothing much we can do to stop this plagiarism? Doesn't this leave a big open hole in that any shady company can do this and get away as long as they are thick-skinned? No law suits to worry about atleast? :mad:

[dragongodz]

Wilbert added these here aswell
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=646182#post646182

unskinnyboy - try reading all of that thread. its seems to have been trimmed down so only 6 pages now.

[celtic_druid]

Well I guess if you had the money you could have their website(s) shut down, assets frozen and their offices searched and computers, etc. siezed.

[int 21h]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
I will not post what I think of Maui X-stream. Not family friendly words ya know. Needless to say there are indeed other software companies as bad or worse than Microsoft. :p Seeing as they are gratuitous and consistant code thiefs. About the best thing I can think to do is contact the pear PC devs and see if they would be interested to tag team the bastards.

While I'm sure everyone has heard of the BSD license rumors involved with the older IP stack of Windows, I'm not sure where you come up with the code theft accusations.

Is there evidence Microsoft has ever even used GPL code in a project?

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by int 21h
While I'm sure everyone has heard of the BSD license rumors involved with the older IP stack of Windows, I'm not sure where you come up with the code theft accusations.

Is there evidence Microsoft has ever even used GPL code in a project?

I was not accusing Microsoft of code theft. I just meant that maui X-stream has just as deplorable code of ethics if any ethics really. And although there is no doubt Microsoft are IP theifs they have tried to keep their source so closed that no one has been able to really point out any code theft. Even though it is likely they have done so. Just a matter of where to start looking and what to compare it to.

[int 21h]

... how about taking a look at the leaked NT4 code or the excerpts of Win2k that were leaked?

When kuro5hin looked at the sourcecode (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/71552/7795) it did not appear to have any blatantly obvious violations, and since then we've heard nothing about it again.

There's no more proof to back up your accusations against Microsoft than there is proof if I started accusing you of doing something unsavory.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by int 21h
... how about taking a look at the leaked NT4 code or the excerpts of Win2k that were leaked?

When kuro5hin looked at the sourcecode (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/71552/7795) it did not appear to have any blatantly obvious violations, and since then we've heard nothing about it again.

There's no more proof to back up your accusations against Microsoft than there is proof if I started accusing you of doing something unsavory.

1. What good does it do to just look at the source code? Shouldn't you have something to compare it to if you are wanting to show some sort of comparitive theft?

2. Not everything is GPL or some other opensource license. Which means that even if I did something technically illegal like downloading and looking at the NT4 source (which IIRC was not complete anyway) all I would readily have to compare it to is GPL etc code. Which is only a small percentage of possible candidates. That is unless I went in and hacked all sorts of proprietary software companies codebases to get the sources to all their products to compare. No small task and I would likely have federal marshals pistol whip me before I could get any serious comparison done.

3. The reason you did not hear much about it before or since is the fact that people were being arested for posession of the stolen code. And that if you were found today to have looked at it you would be unfit to be employed by most major software firms.

I know what you are trying to get at. Although I have never made any pretense to hide it. Yes. I am biased against Microsoft. Haven't you and I gone over this before? At any rate it is not like I am accusing them with anything outlandish or even unlikely. Take a look at this list (http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653) Pamela and volunteers have assembled. And even though most of it has to do with pattent infringement or technology theft how sure are you that there is no code involved in any of those cases? Surely you are not implying that all of those cases are bogus etc? Some are for sure. Like the whole Eolas thing. But not all of them. This Groklaw list should go a long way as proof of my allegations that Microsoft are proliffic technology thiefs. I respect you and all Int but I think you have lost this one.

And if anyone is still reading this has hit slashdot (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/05/02/2119208.shtml?tid=117&tid=188&tid=17).

[int 21h]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
1. What good does it do to just look at the source code? Shouldn't you have something to compare it to if you are wanting to show some sort of comparitive theft?

A cursory glance could reveal any blatant violations. This is exactly how CherryOS was revealed as a derivative of PearPC (some of the fictional drivers from PearPC were used verbatim in the CherryOS product)

Originally posted by Neo Neko
2. Not everything is GPL or some other opensource license. Which means that even if I did something technically illegal like downloading and looking at the NT4 source (which IIRC was not complete anyway) all I would readily have to compare it to is GPL etc code. Which is only a small percentage of possible candidates. That is unless I went in and hacked all sorts of proprietary software companies codebases to get the sources to all their products to compare. No small task and I would likely have federal marshals pistol whip me before I could get any serious comparison done.

What is to say that Microsoft can get access to all of these properietary software products?

Originally posted by Neo Neko
3. The reason you did not hear much about it before or since is the fact that people were being arested for posession of the stolen code. And that if you were found today to have looked at it you would be unfit to be employed by most major software firms.

Perils of being a US citizen I suppose. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I condone or encourage the theft of the Microsoft code, and while I myself have not read said code, I have read many a synopsis on its contents. Countries that are not persuant to WTO and other copyright agreements are in the clear for auditing the sourcecode in question.

Originally posted by Neo Neko
I know what you are trying to get at. Although I have never made any pretense to hide it. Yes. I am biased against Microsoft. Haven't you and I gone over this before? At any rate it is not like I am accusing them with anything outlandish or even unlikely. Take a look at this list (http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653) Pamela and volunteers have assembled. And even though most of it has to do with pattent infringement or technology theft how sure are you that there is no code involved in any of those cases? Surely you are not implying that all of those cases are bogus etc? Some are for sure. Like the whole Eolas thing. But not all of them. This Groklaw list should go a long way as proof of my allegations that Microsoft are proliffic technology thiefs. I respect you and all Int but I think you have lost this one.

And if anyone is still reading this has hit slashdot (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/05/02/2119208.shtml?tid=117&tid=188&tid=17).

If you look at that list of the 40+ cases, the vast majority of them are tied to anti-trust / market violations. After that, the next large majority is tied to the pursuit of patent licensing. In fact, I'm hard pressed to find one case on that page of Microsoft 'stealing technology' or 'stealing code'. Most of the cases involve Microsoft looking at a competitors features and reinventing the wheel, so to speak, to add the feature to their own product. (i.e. how many different ways can you actually implement the formatting of a disk in FAT format?) The idea that Microsoft could actually find code out there that a) fufilled an immediate need for a feature/bug fix and b) could be easily integrated into the existing codebase is laughable at best.

What is this term, technology thief?

Is LightningUK a technology thief for using feature ideas out of other decryption and burning programs for integration into DVDDecrypter? Is Ahead Software a technology thief for developing a transcoding product that implements several features of other transcoding engines? Is the community behind The Gimp full of thieves since they implement features that are present in Photoshop (even going so far as implementing a skin that will make The Gimp appear exactly like Photoshop)?

I am all for the enforcement of proper software code licenses. Microsoft has the largest soucecode repository in the world and their market dominance make them an easy target for zealots and trolls alike. And I guess I was suprised that anyone would lump them in with a company like Maui X-stream, it is pure nonsense.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by int 21h
A cursory glance could reveal any blatant violations. This is exactly how CherryOS was revealed as a derivative of PearPC (some of the fictional drivers from PearPC were used verbatim in the CherryOS product)

Well Microsoft has been in the business alot longer. Who's to say they will make such newbish mistakes. Sometimes it takes more than a cursory glance at program output to determine such things.

Originally posted by int 21h
What is to say that Microsoft can get access to all of these properietary software products?

Often times they form "partnerships" with said companies. Announcing they are going to be working hand in hand to improve interoperability and quality of product X. Microsoft makes a good first effort but right before the close of the project Microsoft either calls it off or stalls till their partner runs out of opperating funds. At which time Microsoft often takes the code as their own either waiting for their former partner to bring suit and settle out of court or buying the rights outright from the corpse of their former partner. Often times there is pattented technology that is not Microsoft's involved.

Originally posted by int 21h
Perils of being a US citizen I suppose. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I condone or encourage the theft of the Microsoft code, and while I myself have not read said code, I have read many a synopsis on its contents. Countries that are not persuant to WTO and other copyright agreements are in the clear for auditing the sourcecode in question.

But I reiterate. Audit it against what? And what good would it do? You would need to track all previous employments of Microsoft coders etc just to get a vague idea of what possible stuff could have migrated with them. And that still does not give you access to the source of those programs. And what if by this method you found out they were infringing. I am rather certain the information would be inadmissable as is in US courts. And good luck extraditing them if you are not in the US.

Originally posted by int 21h
If you look at that list of the 40+ cases, the vast majority of them are tied to anti-trust / market violations. After that, the next large majority is tied to the pursuit of patent licensing. In fact, I'm hard pressed to find one case on that page of Microsoft 'stealing technology' or 'stealing code'.

Look at the pattent licensing cases more closely. Typically Microsoft borrows the pattented technology without any license or approval. Tantamount to theft. Later when the company that was stolen from notices and takes it to court. Microsoft arranges for out of court settlements usually involving rather large sums of cash. It happens in business from time to time accidentally. But Microsoft makes a bit more suspicious habbit of it. IBM is another big target. And they have indeed settled out of court from time to time. But they also see many cases through. Such as this frivolous SCO case. The only case Microsoft has seen through IIRC is the antitrust one. And boy did they luck out on that one. Found guilty of all sorts of stuff with little or no real reprocussions compared to almost any other antitrust trial.

Originally posted by int 21h
Most of the cases involve Microsoft looking at a competitors features and reinventing the wheel, so to speak, to add the feature to their own product.

If the wheel was pattented even if you reinvented it and sold it it is still theft under pattent law. I have mixed feelings about that myself. But that would appear to be the way things are here. IIRC an australian man did get a pattent on the wheel not that long ago anyway. As seen http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/07/02/australia.wheel/

Originally posted by int 21h
What is this term, technology thief?

Is LightningUK a technology thief for using feature ideas out of other decryption and burning programs for integration into DVDDecrypter?

If it is pattented and if he will be compeeting monetarily with out consent of the pattent holder. Yes. Yes indeed. I don't however think this is the case.

Originally posted by int 21h
Is Ahead Software a technology thief for developing a transcoding product that implements several features of other transcoding engines? Is the community behind The Gimp full of thieves since they implement features that are present in Photoshop (even going so far as implementing a skin that will make The Gimp appear exactly like Photoshop)?

I am not going into all that as it is redundant. All you have to do is look at the features. Are thay patented? Is there a licensing agreement between parties involved for said pattents. If not then it is quite possibly patent theft. The Gimp devs etc take this rather seriously anyway. It was only recently that they were able to "legaly" include GIF support with their default distribution as the LZW patents etc just ran out.

Originally posted by int 21h
I am all for the enforcement of proper software code licenses. Microsoft has the largest soucecode repository in the world and their market dominance make them an easy target for zealots and trolls alike. And I guess I was suprised that anyone would lump them in with a company like Maui X-stream, it is pure nonsense.

Is it nonsense? They are different to be sure. I never said they were identical. Just similar. Which is true. They have both in many cases albeit different areas shown themselves to be very unscroupulous. That is where they are similar. Are we getting clearer?

[Neo Neko]

Someone has done a bit more investigation on the subject. http://www.drunkenblog.com.nyud.net:8090/drunkenblog-archives/000534.html

[smiller667]

Incredible reading. Take your time reading all of it, it's worth it. I guess that MXS will withdraw their "product" VX30 sooner or later, as they did with CherryOS.

[Neo Neko]

Quite possibly. The only problem is that they can't just withdraw it. They have already sold several coppies at exorbitant prices. Perhaps they did add some extra value on top of all the code they stole. But is it enough to justify paying them thousands for the software. This time they are going to have corporate customers to answer to. They can't just withdraw the product "no harm no foul" style. This is the stuff jail terms might be maid of. Last I knew fraud and copyright violation were both serious offenses. And while opensource authors might be ok forgetting the copyright infringement after the fact some of the customers might be very interested in the fraud angle.

[=CrAzYG33K=]

Isn't KMplayer freeware now??

[celtic_druid]

Probably it was free when this thread was started. That isn't the point though.

[=CrAzYG33K=]

Just look at this thread on their official forums :
http://www.kmplayer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141
Do not believe the bad rumors spreaded in networks
Originally Posted by Dragu
I have heard that there is evidence that KMPlayer actually uses GPL:d
software in the code, although KMPlayer neither is open source, under GPL
or has any notice about the included code in any form of EULA or such.

Is this true?
The sources tell that it is easily detectable that there is code from a
GPL:d project by examining the memory dumps of KMPlayer.


There is an official comment written in korean about this. To make a long story short, The KMPlayer has its own developing history since 2001. KMP was written by delphi from scratch and had nothing to do with MPlayer or etc. MPC is nothing but such a technical reference of media player as mplayer, zoomplayer, bsplayer, tcmp, vlc, mv2player, radlight, crystal etc.

I'll let you know some behind stories of KMP. The full name of KMP is a K-Multimedia Player. The "K" of KMP simply indicates the initial character of the developer's family name(Kang). What a funny thing it is to think of his naming sence! Anyway, he had been very famous for Kang utility series under domestic condition which really looked like Norton utilities from DOS in viewpoint of perfomances and functions. Some day after his obligatory military service, he was fascinated by the overlaying feature of Sasami2k. The developer told me that it was the main cause fallen into temptation to do it by himself. You can still find a piece of evidence in the current version of KMP. (Right click on kmp and select Overlay Skin Control under the Skins menu)



The article reaches the following conculsion:

* KMP did not include GPL codes or binary within its executable file.
* The external libraries packed in KMP were not modified or changed at all, but composed of a binary or compiled version from cvs directly. Actually, there are no needs to change anything for its rapid developement status of each components. That's the reason why there are so many bugs whenever KMP is updated.
* KMP was not dependent upon any kinds of external libraries. Originally, KMP was designed as a standalone player based on directshow structure.



Libraries Information packed in the full & install version of The KMPlayer

1. <General Public License> :: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
* AC3filter : http://ac3filter.sourceforge.net/
* libmpeg2 : http://libmpeg2.sourceforge.net/
* libmad : http://www.underbit.com/products/mad/
* liba52 : http://liba52.sourceforge.net/
* libdca : http://developers.videolan.org/libdca.html
* libmpalyer : http://www.mplayerhq.hu/
* MediaInfo : http://mediainfo.sourceforge.net/
* Gabest's filters* : http://sourceforge.net/projects/guliverkli/
2. <Lesser General Public License> :: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html
* libavcodec : http://ffmpeg.sourceforge.net/
* XviD : http://www.xvid.org/
* MPC : http://www.musepack.net/
* mmswitch : http://corecodec.org/projects/mmswitch
3. <BSD or BSD-style license> :: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license
* Ogg(Vorbis) : http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/
* FLAC : http://flac.sourceforge.net/
* Theora : http://www.theora.org/
4. <Mozilla Public License> :: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/
* DSP-Works : http://dcdspfilter.corecodec.org/
* Image loader : http://www.delphi-gems.com/Graphics.php
5. <ETC>
* Libfaad2 : GPL, owned by Ahead : http://www.nero.com/
* Monkey's Audio : Custom license : http://www.monkeysaudio.com/
* BASS : free for non-money making use : http://www.un4seen.com/
* Unrar library : Free : http://www.rarlab.com/



* Gabest's Filter lists

* Splitter : Avi;MKV;RM;OGG/OGM;MPEG;MP3/AAC;Dirac;DSM;Nut;RadGt;MP4
* Decoder : Audio(MPEG1/2;AAC;AC3;DTS), Video(MPEG1/2)
* Stream Switcher

They seem to contradict the statements here!

[striker9]

They seem to contradict the statements here!

Yes, because they would come out and say they were code thieves. :rolleyes:

[skal]

Someone has done a bit more investigation on the subject. http://www.drunkenblog.com.nyud.net:8090/drunkenblog-archives/000534.html

for the (off the) record: Isibaar has been trying to have these people at
least comply with the GPL. And honestly, this is no fun at all. We lost
time and even money, as they were opposing 3 news lawyers every
time we were trying to discuss. And considering the price they
sell their loot...
Nothing can beat bad will, so better take precautionary measures next
time...
Skal

(ps: and kudos to drunkenbatman for his amazing work!)

[MACC]

Not to mention that the Zentu encoder is just VX30 with only some updates.