A piece of text that you see in SourceForge is associated with>

A piece of text seen in SourceForge is reminiscent of <storm video>

Today, I saw this text in my hometown of Media Player classic.

Http://sourceforge.net/project/guliverkli ):
Posted by: gabest
Date:
Summary: GPL Violation
Recently I 've notified about these two products that they use code from the guliverkli project, one of them is free but closed source and not gpled player (kmplayer, http://www.kmplayer.com /), while the other is a fully specified cial product (http://www.vx30.com /). there are boundled dshow filters, String, toolbars, dialogs, command line switches, Etc ..., which can be verified easily by just running the applications and taking a look, or a bit harder by analyzing the memory dump. since I have no better idea about what to do now (I got no reply to the email I sent to kmplayer's developer, it wowould probably be the same with vx30's too ...), i'm posting this as a news here. the developements are going slow anyway because of my job and life, but these cases won't inspire me either.
 
Translated into Chinese:
Poster: gabest (author of Media Player classic)
Time:
Question: GPL infringement (GNU General Public License for short GPL, is a protocol certificate for computer software issued by the Free Software Foundation, the software using this certificate is called Free Software, see the http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.cn.html)
Body:
Recently, I noticed that two software programs use the guliverkli Project (Media Player classic) code, one of which is free, but not open-source, and does not comply with the GPL protocol (kmplayer, http://www.kmplayer.com /). the other is completely commercial software (http://www.vx30.com /),... (I will not translate this paragraph ). although I don't know how to do it (I sent an email to the author of kmplayer's, but I didn't reply; vx30 was about the same), I put it here as news. (Media Player classic) development is slow because of my work and life (Foreign programmers are also busy for life, but they are still open-source, what about China ?), However, these facts will not inspire me.

Then I read on his Forum
About kmplayer, maybe you can try to post on the Forum (http: // 210.181.96.45/phpbb2/viewforum. php? F = 2) and as a last resort you can contact the gpl-violations.org Project (http://www.gpl-violations.org/) and use the threaten of a lawsuit either, however, since it's a Chinese project, don't expect CT much :-/
There is a however, since it's a Chinese project, don't have CT much :-/
Although it was explained later that kmplayer is a Korean project, I think of <storm video>

You can see the following text on the <storm video> Official Website:
About Media Player classic
Solemnly declare that the author of Media Player Classic is gabest. We just get his permission to perform localization and integrate it into our own software. We are not the author of Media Player classic, it's just that our software is based on Media Player classic, and we have also made user-friendly settings and integration, and added some of our original tools and content
You can use it easily. media Player classic can be said to be the best DirectShow player at present, but you may also find some inconvenience during use, such as not being able to adjust the brightness or poor support for playlist, many users have provided us with suggestions for improvement, but I want to add that the author of Media Player Classic is gabest, we just get his permission to perform localization and integration in our own software. We are not the author of the MPC-so we can't do anything about it. if you have any suggestions on Media Player classic, contact the author of the player (in English or Hungary)

I found one sentence interesting: "We just got his permission to perform localization and integrate it into our own software"
This seems to be saying, "we just get his permission for localization.
And
Integrated into your own software"
Does this mean that "integration in your own software" is not allowed by him.

I checked the composition of storm audio and video:
The latest version is the official version 5.07 (Simplified Chinese/English for Win98/ME/2000/XP/2003)

RealPlayer 10.5 decoding core & ActiveX 6.0.12.1235
RealMedia splitter 1.0.1.0
QuickTime 7 pre2 decoding core & ActiveX (including AMR/3GP/h264 in mov Support)
Kopei's Xvid codec 1.1 beta2 (build 20050404)
Ffdshow MPEG-4 codec 20050719 CVS (including realaac, liba52, libdts, libtremor)
On2 VP7 codec 7.0.6.0
On2 VP6 codec 6.4.2.0
Ligos Indeo codec 3.2-5.2
GV codec 1.2
Dscaler mpegvideo module 0.0.6.0
Moonlight MPEG-2 (demultiplexer 3.1.200.50117)
Moonlight Odio dekoda 1.5.156.41217
Moonlight h264 Video Decoder 0.9.0.50208
Ogg splitter 1.0.0.0
AAC parser 1.1
Coreflac audio decoder & source DirectShow filter 0.4.0.46
DS monkey's audio filter 1.0 + ape audio lib 3.99u4
TTA DirectShow splitter 1.0.0.203
Radlight MCM DirectShow filter 1.0.0.3
Ogg Vorbis msacm Codec
Voxware metasound & metavoice ACM Codec
Haali's splitter 20050719
Vsfilter (direct vobsub) 2.33
Media Player classic 6.4.8.4
G. Spot 2.52 beta1
Storm audio and video integrated setup 20050719
Nic's fourcc changer
Storm Download Accelerator (optional) 1.1.0.4 (OEM)
Yahoo search online tool bar (optional) 1.1

In addition to the "Storm audio and video integrated setup program 20050719" and two advertising software "Storm Download Accelerator (OEM), Yahoo search online tool bar", almost all others are Media Player classic (that is, the SourceForge guliverkli Project) code

.

So should storm audio and video comply with GPL and open source code (including the Comprehensive configuration program of storm audio and video? Let's take a look at GPL.

GPL Protocol

Where the copyright holder declares in his or her programs or other works that the programs or works shall be distributed under the terms of general public authorization, this authorization shall apply to the copyright holder. The "Programs" referred to below refer to any program or book applicable to general public authorization; "books produced based on this program ", it refers to this procedure or any derivative works produced based on the copyright law. In other words, it refers to the work that contains all or one of this procedure. It is not a complete or modified procedure, and (or) programs translated into other languages (the following "modifications" include but are not limited to translation behaviors ). The authorized person is called "you ".
2. you may modify one or more duplicate objects of the program or any part of the program to form a book based on the Program and, in accordance with the foregoing, copy and disseminate this modified program or book, but you must meet the following requirements:

(B) You shall, in respect of the books that you have spread or published, whether they contain all or one of the books of this program, or any works derived from this program or any part of it, it authorizes all third parties to use the service in accordance with the provisions of this authorization and shall not charge any fee for such authorization.
(C) These requirements apply to modified works as a whole. If a portion of the work that can be recognized is not derived from this program and reasonably considered to be an independent and individual work, when you spread it as an individual work, this authorization and its terms will not apply to this part. However, when you spread the above part as part of the work produced by this program, the distribution of the entire work must comply with the provisions of the terms of authorization, the permission granted to other authorized persons shall be deemed as a whole in the work.
The source code of the book refers to the form applicable to the modification of the book. For an executable work, the complete source code refers to all the source codes of all modules contained in the work, and the definition files of related interfaces are added, it also adds a description to control the compilation and installation of this book.

As far as I know, "Storm audio and video" is not "not derived from this program. It can be reasonably considered as an independent and individual book that will be spread as an individual book ".

Therefore, I think "Storm audio and video" should also comply with GPL, open source code. I think open source will not affect the development of "Storm audio and video", and I am not opposed to adding advertisement software (after all, we need to save and live again ). On the contrary, open source code will further promote the development of "Storm audio and video" (for example, I may make some contribution when I am free ), it will also form a Firefox reputation advantage (refer to Google's "koubei marketing" http://forum.adidea.net/index.php? S = 3704bbc75a9cecd9997b2f13a278c52b & act = Print & client = choose & F = 6 & t = 2198), becoming the focus of everyone.

At last, I copied the following:
If you believe that you have seen a violation of the GPL (or lgpl or GFDL) terms, the first thing you should do is to reconfirm these facts:

Does this distributor contain a copy of the license?
Does it clearly state which software is covered in the license 』? Does it mean anything to make people misunderstand, maybe to people?

Something is covered in the "License", but in fact it is not like this?
Is the source code included in the package?
Is the source code included with the distribution provided in writing only binary files?
Can the source code be obtained completely, or is it designed to connect to other non-Free Modules?
If it seems to be a real violation, all you need to do is record the [all] Details carefully:

The exact name of the product.
Name of the individual or organization that spreads it
How to contact the poster's email address, postal address, and phone number
The exact name of the package that violates the license
How is the "License" violated:
Does it include the "License" statement of the copyright holder?
Is the source code completely missing?
Are there only websites available for download and/or FTP sites provided in writing (if any) of the source code?
Is there a copy of the "License" contained in the package?
Can I only obtain some, not all, source code? If so, what parts are missing?
The more details you provide, the sooner the copyright owner will be able to handle the matter.

Once you have collected these details, you should send a report to the copyright owner of the incorrectly used package. The copyright owner is a legally authorized person who can execute the "License" (force by law.

If the copyright owner is the Free Software Foundation (FSF), send the report to <license-violation@gnu.org>.

Note that GPL and other Copyleft licenses are Copyright licenses. This indicates that only the copyright holder has the right to take action against the violation. FSF takes action against all violation reports of codes copyrighted by FSF, And we [also] provide assistance to any other copyright owner who wants to do so.

However, if we do not have copyrights, we cannot take actions independently. Therefore, when reporting a violation, you must first determine who is the copyright owner of the software.