It is currently Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:27 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: kmplayer portable.
PostPosted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 9:57 am
Posts: 2900
Location: Romania
JohnTHaller wrote:
You'll find them listed in FFMpeg's hall of shame:
http://ffmpeg.org/shame.html

My God, what a big list! :(

I've just noticed that XMediaRecode is in that list (and TPFC database); what should we do?

_________________
My Tox ID


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: kmplayer portable.
PostPosted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:00 am
Posts: 4118
Never knew this! Am I right in saying that they have to include the appropriate source code of the used libraries and then they comply?

_________________
Added 179 Applications: Portable


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: kmplayer portable.
PostPosted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 12:56 pm
Posts: 5
i wonder if microsoft ever stole ideas.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: kmplayer portable.
PostPosted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Posts: 7216
Location: US, Texas
> Am I right in saying that they have to include the appropriate source code of the used libraries and then they comply?

I suggest we need to encourage people to be in compliance with their license requirements both because we all benefit from these developers and its not difficult to comply. Its up to the license-holder if they wish to take other action.

For our purposes we could probably still list the software while making a link to the hall of shame. I'll update the XMedia page.

Edit: a little more research shows they're violating the GPL, which is very uncool. Linking to the source code is really not difficult.

_________________
Supporting Net Neutrality - BattleForTheNet | Why this matters | More from EFF.org


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: kmplayer portable.
PostPosted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 12:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 6:35 pm
Posts: 324
webfork wrote:
For our purposes we could probably still list the software while making a link to the hall of shame. I'll update the XMedia page.
Quote:
This program is not properly licensed with some of the included libraries.
The link 'not properly licensed' pulls up an SSL Error (untrusted security certificate) in Chromium.
webfork wrote:
a little more research shows they're violating the GPL, which is very uncool. Linking to the source code is really not difficult.
XMedia Recode does link to the source code, it's at the bottom of the 'license.txt' file.
KMPlayer also has links to all the libraries used by the program in the 'files.txt' file.

I don't think PortableFreeware should be policing licensing issues with programs and their libraries.
There's already a license tag (License: Free for non-commercial use) that should be used for issues/compliance.
And programs that do become compliant will then need this tag amended.

I can say with some certainty that most programs (freeware) that use the FFmpeg libraries will not be fully compliant with the LGPL checklist at FFmpeg's legal page.
This may also be true for other programs using OSS and their libraries and various licenses.

While I do believe in the FOSS movement and conforming to compliance with GPL, LGPL and the like, we are talking freeware developers, developing code for the general public; Do they care if their programs are compliant?; Do they even know if their programs are compliant?; Do they want to bloat their programs with source code to all the libraries they link to?; Is mention of the libraries used and a link to the source code enough?; Do visitors to PortableFreeware even care about these compliance issues?

I think we all might have different answers to these questions.

So, is PortableFreeware gonna police this licensing issue and go through it's database in search of non-compliant programs and list them as such or just pick on a few here and there?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: kmplayer portable.
PostPosted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Posts: 7216
Location: US, Texas
> So, is PortableFreeware gonna police this licensing issue and go through it's database in search of non-compliant programs and list them as such or just pick on a few here and there?

See it from the other direction: imagine if you were a developer who produced software for free and wanted people to follow some rules. The GPL has a long and effective history and its existence has brought us some really great software over time. Obviously you don't want users dropping whatever they're doing and going to law school to understand it -- that's ridiculous -- but a little time spent trying to work on their behalf isn't asking much.

That said, there is some confusion and contradiction. For example, the GPL FAQ seems to suggest that you are compelled to make the source code available but the FFmpeg page seems to say that you MUST include the source code IN THE DOWNLOAD. Additionally, this post seems to indicate that people who violate the license must publicly apologize and make monetary damages before they even evaluate it again to see if its in compliance https://roundup.ffmpeg.org/msg7948. So the program may actually comply with the license but they won't even check until you take full responsibility, which might mean you still get sued. This is especially confusing as the very nature of a shame wall is to encourage users to get into compliance without a lot of fuss.

Whatever the case, I'll continue to make a reasonable effort to give users information where possible. Obviously we can't fix it or fully understand it and we can't know if the site's visitors or the majority of GPL developers really care, but its important to try to at least pay attention and its not difficult to add a disclaimer at the bottom of an entry.

For now I'll put the following:

    Note that this program may or may not be in compliance with one or more licenses.

If anyone has any input on this, I welcome it.

_________________
Supporting Net Neutrality - BattleForTheNet | Why this matters | More from EFF.org


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: kmplayer portable.
PostPosted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Posts: 572
Location: New York, NY
On the KMPlayer's licensing violations, the details are included here:
http://roundup.ffmpeg.org/issue820

It appears they are violating multiple things, including compiling two libraries together which actually makes them legally unredistributable.

In addition, they are distributing a GPLed/LPGLed binary without also redistributing the GPLed/LPGLed source code, as required by the license, which is also a violation.

I think in cases where when some of the code (FFMpeg) included in an app (KMPlayer) has been pointed out to be illegally included by the owners of said code (FFMpeg), then that app should not be listed. The host of this particular portable app is a known copyright, trademark, open source license, etc violator that basically *ONLY* distributes illegal apps, so linking to them at all is a bit of an issue.

_________________
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: kmplayer portable.
PostPosted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 12:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 6:35 pm
Posts: 324
JohnTHaller, can you share your thoughts on this:

You redistribute some apps which utilize FFmpeg in some way, i.e.
Google Chrome Portable
SMPlayer Portable
VLC Media Player Portable

None of which contain the source code to FFmpeg.

Are these apps not in violation?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: kmplayer portable.
PostPosted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 4:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Posts: 7216
Location: US, Texas
I just looked through the 7-zip distribution of VLC direct from the web site. It doesn't seem to have any source code at all. The readme file seems to say there should be an \src directory but it doesn't exist.

A quick search seems to say that FFmpeg is in VLC (http://wiki.videolan.org/FFmpeg) and the web site seems to point to a separate source code page, not any files that should presumably be inside the download.

So I don't think this "including the source code" is mandatory or VLC obviously belongs on the wall of shame as well.

_________________
Supporting Net Neutrality - BattleForTheNet | Why this matters | More from EFF.org


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: kmplayer portable.
PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Posts: 572
Location: New York, NY
webfork wrote:
I just looked through the 7-zip distribution of VLC direct from the web site. It doesn't seem to have any source code at all. The readme file seems to say there should be an \src directory but it doesn't exist.

A quick search seems to say that FFmpeg is in VLC (http://wiki.videolan.org/FFmpeg) and the web site seems to point to a separate source code page, not any files that should presumably be inside the download.

So I don't think this "including the source code" is mandatory or VLC obviously belongs on the wall of shame as well.


It doesn't have to be included in the distribution as long as you provide written notice that it is available and distribute it yourself using your own servers (you can't just link to someone else hosting the source). Generally, this means that you link to both the binaries and source from the same website as well as having links to the source within your binary package. Those links must be to your own servers that you pay for (or contract someone else to provide). For example, if you redistribute 7-Zip, you must also redistribute the 7-Zip source code (you can't just link to 7-Zip's source on their SourceForge project).

_________________
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: kmplayer portable.
PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 11:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Posts: 572
Location: New York, NY
Ruby wrote:
JohnTHaller, can you share your thoughts on this:

You redistribute some apps which utilize FFmpeg in some way, i.e.
Google Chrome Portable
SMPlayer Portable
VLC Media Player Portable

None of which contain the source code to FFmpeg.

Are these apps not in violation?


We don't redistribute Google Chrome itself, we provide an installer to download and install it from Google servers. Repackaging it is a violation of their EULA (and illegal).

We don't have a PortableApps.com SMPlayer release. We have a volunteer developer who is repackaging it. He should be redistributing the source to SMPlayer as well as all included bits as well. I can check on that. As we plan on releasing this officially at some point in the semi-near future, I've added it as well as the specific version of the MPlayer source they use (including the bundled FFMpeg sources used within it) to our own source repository.

As for VLC, we redistribute the source code the we get from VLC for each release. Within the vlc-1.0.5.tar file, there appear to be the sources for all the various codecs and filters that VLC uses (I don't believe they use the entire FFMpeg tree, just some bits of it).

_________________
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: kmplayer portable.
PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Posts: 7216
Location: US, Texas
JohnTHaller wrote:
webfork wrote:
So I don't think this "including the source code" is mandatory or VLC obviously belongs on the wall of shame as well.

It doesn't have to be included in the distribution as long as you provide written notice that it is available and distribute it yourself using your own servers (you can't just link to someone else hosting the source). Generally, this means that you link to both the binaries and source from the same website as well as having links to the source within your binary package. Those links must be to your own servers that you pay for (or contract someone else to provide). For example, if you redistribute 7-Zip, you must also redistribute the 7-Zip source code (you can't just link to 7-Zip's source on their SourceForge project).

It sounds like you just have to provide "clear directions" on where to find the source code, not host it on your servers. And that's only GPLv3.

From the wikipedia page :

Quote:
The fourth section for version 2 of the license and the seventh section of version 3 require that programs distributed as pre-compiled binaries are accompanied by a copy of the source code, a written offer to distribute the source code via the same mechanism as the pre-compiled binary or the written offer to obtain the source code that you got when you received the pre-compiled binary under the GPL. The second section of version 2 and the fifth section of version 3 also require giving "all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program". Version 3 of the license allows making the source code available in additional ways in fulfillment of the seventh section. These include downloading source code from an adjacent network server or by peer-to-peer transmission, provided that is how the compiled code was available and there are "clear directions" on where to find the source code.

_________________
Supporting Net Neutrality - BattleForTheNet | Why this matters | More from EFF.org


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: kmplayer portable.
PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Posts: 572
Location: New York, NY
webfork wrote:
It sounds like you just have to provide "clear directions" on where to find the source code, not host it on your servers. And that's only GPLv3.

That's not correct. You have to distribute the source yourself according to the Free Software Foundation. Specifically:

Quote:
I downloaded just the binary from the net. If I distribute copies, do I have to get the source and distribute that too?

Yes. The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where you received a written offer for source code is quite limited.


There are really two reasons for this. The first is availability. So that when you distribute the binaries, you are distributing the source, and will continue to do so. That way, if the original source goes dark (offline, out of business, etc), you are still distributing the binaries as well as the source to those who got the binaries from you, so those recipients can continue to get the source even though the original provider has disappeared.

The second is fairness. This way, if a repackaged, modified or redistributed version of a given program were to become wildly popular, the recipients of that program aren't all going back to the original provider (who may be comparatively tiny and have far less resources) and sucking up their bandwidth (and, thus, money) or using their resources to mail out physical copies. This keeps people from leeching off another open source provider's resources.

_________________
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: kmplayer portable.
PostPosted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 3:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Posts: 7216
Location: US, Texas
> You have to distribute the source yourself according to the Free Software Foundation.

I went through it with a friend of mine carefully last night to iron out the language and, yes, that's clearly what the license says. The problem now is tracking down the source code. It seems people LOVE hiding it deep in the website under a bunch of layers. Ugh.

_________________
Supporting Net Neutrality - BattleForTheNet | Why this matters | More from EFF.org


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: KMPlayer 2.9.3.1432
PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 4:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 6:35 pm
Posts: 324
The KMPlayer (kmp.zip) archive in the database is Version 2.9.3.1428.

The version was showing 2.9.4
I've updated to reflect > 2.9.3

Something a little odd, I entered the hash (0E9C34D6E8406A2985C606A2E0CF5D2A) of the download (kmp.zip) in VirusTotal
It has it listed as 'kmp_tr.exe'

Is it possible someone renamed it, changed the ext and then uploaded it. :?

TrID : File type identification
GetRight Skin (77.7%)
ZIP compressed archive (22.2%)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Protected by Anti-Spam ACP Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group