Talk:KMPlayer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ask Toolbar

It installs this toolbar even if you tell it NOT to. Not nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.30.148.136 (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Old talk

Gabest has been given proof by others, he also posted that he analysed memory dumps and CONFIRMED this information, the authors of the program even sent me a pm admiting that they are using this very code! yet THEY have never proven they are NOT using the code. Thers proof on Gabests side and none on the KMplayers side im afraid, http://digg.com/software/kmplayer_programmers_steal_code_from_open_source its not exactly a secret that kmplayer uses stolen code and never has been. 85.178.249.233 19:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll add this informating without POV. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a fair comprimise to me ;) also my bad but I forgot to use the sig thing in my discussion post. I dont believe either party involved in this GPU thing has come up with conclusive evidence to push their case, but I strongly believe after using both programs that KMplayer uses code from MPC, its clear as day to see, but obviously I would have to reverse the whole program to prove that, while its possible for me to do so it would also be illegal in my country, thus I can only go off the information provided, and the kmplayer team have simply just said "no we didnt" while Gabest has been notified by people of this, has run memory dumps of it and more importantly, you just have to load it. So having it stated as a "rumour" is pretty fair, it gives explains to the readers the history of the program and some of the problems it has faced, without this info I feel there would be something missing about the programs entry in wiki. however KMplayer have never disproven this so I will remove that line as its no more proof than what Gabest has said.85.178.249.233 19:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a forum post nor a digg entry are verifiable sources, please refer to Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information. Do you have a proper news entry of sort? Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

ok well obviously if a dig or post from the author of the program isnt valid then removing the "this has been proven false" part no longer applies as it being proven false never actually took place, and its no different than Gabest saying this. I think this is quite fair. 85.178.249.233 20:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that one thing is missing from this article, but before adding it I would like a few other people to try this because its OBVIOUSLY going to be removed if I just add it. When you sign up for the km players forums, the agreement says nothing about your email being given out to third parties, however I joined up to the forums with a nearly new email account, two days later I had recieved around 20 emails in an asian language, of course I couldnt unsubscribe because I cant read what it says, theres also nowhere on the km player site which allows you to unsubscribe so I ran a little test, I setup a mail server on my system and joined their forums once more (bear in mind that it would be impossible for this email to be obtained from ANYWHERE else), within 6 hours of doing so I was recieving more asian emails. This is 100% proof and verification that they are selling emails illegally and anyone can test this for themselves. I will be adding this shady practise to the article within the next couple of days providing nobody can provide any proof that this is false, however I can reprodouce it every single time without fail so I dont see how that would be possible. 85.178.223.238 13:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

you're taking this the wrong way

the KMPlayer developers actually show a lot of respect to gabest in their forums, despite gabest being actually mistaken about his claim, but he doesn't seem to care or have the time to make the correction. they're some of the few that actually speak of him well, he (gabest) is known to be incredibly arrogant and inconsiderate and is disliked by a good number of coders on doom9. the kmplayer developers have contacted him twice about the issue showing their innocence but he simply doesn't seem to care to correct his original post. the kmplayer developers are actually very open of their work in forums and will privately and sometimes publicly disclose their code if asked, they've helped me numerous times. if they have made any gpl violation, which they once did on the issue of a splitter i think (english is not their first language and so these things happen), the important thing to remember is that it's from ignorance and language barriers; they quickly made amends after the one violation was pointed out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.27.134 (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? Would be neat if you to let us know when he said he was mistaken.

Oh and whoever is doing it, stop biasing the Controversy part in poor written English grammar.... ...RuineЯ|Chat... 16:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

System Requirements for The KMPlayer in Windows

Although their website dosnt bother to tell you, it seems from this page http://software.techrepublic.com.com/download.aspx?docid=290172 that it needs at least XP, and therefore won't run on my system 8-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.119.113 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 28 June 2007

It works on Windows 2000 without a problem. It's probably Windows 9x that isn't supported. GregorB 17:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kmpaudioshade.png

Image:Kmpaudioshade.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kmpcb.png

Image:Kmpcb.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kmpconfig.png

Image:Kmpconfig.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kmpdvd.png

Image:Kmpdvd.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SubtitleExplorer.png

Image:SubtitleExplorer.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Product updates

Hi everyone,

I know these are not forums, but I have no idea where else to ask and I love this player so much.

Does anyone know why KMPlayer hasn't been updated in so long? Is it dead?

Thanks 86.28.171.141 (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, player is still under development, but very very slow right now...(84.38.29.159 (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

Announcements in the official forums do not reflect the actual pace of development. New versions are being released regularly on independent download sites. As the changelog at Softpedia shows , since the comments above were made, six beta versions were released in 2009, and two stable versions in 2010 to date. The allegations of slow development are no longer valid, so I am about to remove that paragraph from the article. Rubywine (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Softpedia is incorrect. They've got the latest version number displayed as 2.9.4.1438 when it's actually 3.0.0.1438. It may be corrected by the time someone reads this. Rubywine (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Player Name

So apparently the name of this player is The KMPlayer, as in "Let's try to play this movie with the The KMPlayer." But throughout the article it is called KMPlayer without the The, KMP and KMPLAYER. OK, so they stole the code and the name, and Wikipedia is still trying to disambiguate, and I understand that, but please be consistent.--87.162.32.57 (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We should changing title on K-Multimedia Player, because the "The KMPlayer" simply creates confusion with KMPlayer (Konqueror Media Player) mainly on Linux systems... And this mistake many portals and websites seeding based mainly on Wikipedia...(84.38.29.159 (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

You see, the problem is that this player seems to be KMPlayer! In the official website all I can see is either "The KMPlayer" of "KMPlayer". So we can't just change the name because other software also uses the same name... Maybe we can have "KMPlayer (Windows)" and "KMPlayer (Linux)", but we can't change the name itself... SF007 (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, we can change name...

Official player name is K-멀티미디어 플레이어 (because it's Korean player) and english name is K-Multimedia Player, this can be shorten to KMP, but not KMPlayer which many ppl think it is and still using this wrong name...

see source http://www.kmplayer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.38.29.159 (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

People think that it is called KMPlayer for very good reasons. The developers have introduced extreme confusion in the product information. The player is labelled both KMPlayer and KMP on the main user interface. The About page calls it The KMPlayer Professional Media Player and The KMPlayer. The Version page calls it KMPlayer. The License page says: "Introduction of KMP K-MultimediaPlayer (Hereinafter, referred to as KMP) : KMP is a freeware. Its full name is K-Multimedia Player. But, it is also called as KMP, KMPlayer, KMP Player or kmp player.". The player is distributed on download sites as either The KMPlayer or KMPlayer. It is called The KMPlayer on the official forums, and KMPlayer on the official site (Pandora TV). It's ridiculous to insist that that's the wrong name. Rubywine (talk) 07:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. I hadn't seen that there was a whole additional section of discussion on this below. Still, I think my comment encapsulates the confusion most effectively. Rubywine (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Player's name – Again!

Per recent disagreement with an anonymous user (89.206.21.112) over the name, I'd like to attract your attention to the software license agreement included with The KMPlayer 2.9.4.1435:

Copyright (c) 2009 by Pandora.TV
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distributor: Pandora.TV
Homepage (Forum): www.kmplayer.com
E-mail : kmp.support@kmplayer.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Introduction of KMP
K-MultimediaPlayer (Hereinafter, referred to as KMP) :
KMP is a freeware.
Its full name is K-Multimedia Player. But, it is also called as KMP, KMPlayer,
KMP Player or kmp player.

As you can see:

“ Its full name is K-Multimedia Player. But, it is also called as KMP, KMPlayer, KMP Player or kmp player. ”

This is an authoritative source from the author and hence is a reliable source. The article's name remains the same; but please do not dispute the fact that the software is also called by these names. Fleet Command (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As my recent dispute with 89.206.21.112 was over the fact that this application is also called KMPlayer or not, I'd like to mention that the official download site pandora.tv calls this application KMPlayer. Fleet Command (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

But just look on this... http://www.kmplayer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=25155#post25155

The official name before selling this player to Pandora wasn't

KMplayer (x)
KM Player (x)
KM player (x)
KMPlayer (x) ---> KDE frontend for mplayer which has nothing to do with KMP
Korean Media Player (x)

but only

The KMPlayer (o) - Complete and official form
KMP (o) - Abbreviation of K-Multimedia Player
K-Multimedia Player (o)
Kang Multimedia Player (o)

as co-developer stated.

So IMO Pandora simply continue using wrong player name, because KMPlayer is frontend layer on MPlayer on Linux. And you simply can't use the same name for different things, because of copyrights.

Regards

89.206.21.112 (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Pandora TV now owns this piece of software and hence is allowed to call it whatsoever it wants. It seems developers have a bit of dispute over the name of this piece of software. In Wikipedia however, editors are to write verifiable facts (not their humble opinion) from a neutral point of view (i.e. without taking side of one developer). I am not an exception to this rule. So, we write all those official names, with reference to their sources. Fleet Command (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Implaying of course that Pandora didn't make mistake in this installer info..., We should validate this co-dev older post with this newer info in installer by emailing to current maintainer. This will be the best thing to do, what you think ? :)

Regards

89.206.21.112 (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that FleetCommand was correct and that nothing further needs to be done. We should maintain neutrality. It is not our role to take sides, or act as copyright lawyers. Rubywine (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This is typical Wikipedia user naval gazing bullsh1t !! You have changed the name FROM the name everyone knows it as into a name that it is only known as UNDER the f*ck1ng license agreement !! You are the kinds of nobheads that leave messages on my Wiki homepage about pointless BS like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.30.143.39 (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Unsafe link

Hello,

The link to http://www.delmadang.com/ as a source may be unsafe. It apparently distributes malware.[1][2] Unfortunately, I cannot find another website to replace its information. What should be done?

Thanks in advance. InverseHypercube 22:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Those links do not say that the site contains malware now. According to Google safebrowsing, the site is "not suspicious". I cannot read the target page where it is used as a reference, but the page appears to be a forum so it could be argued that the source fails WP:RS and should be removed for that reason. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the malware file listed on malwaredomainlist.com is no longer present, so maybe you're right. I tried to find a more reliable source than the one there, but could not. The website is not a forum, it is a place to post software. The post was apparently written by the programmer, and dates to October 1, 2002. That's where the date comes from. InverseHypercube 03:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

GPL and LGPL binaries with no code

The current KMPlayer includes binaries for multiple GPL and LGPL components (LAME, etc) as well as the GPL and LGPL licenses within but with no source code and no instructions on where to find the source code. The publisher's site similarly include no information. Included links to the actual publisher's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.114.27 (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Despite SF007's protests, it's not original research if you say that a given app contains something and link to the download of said app where anyone can download and confirm it by the files and licenses included by the publisher itself. Similarly, if it was stated that a given app was 20MB and we linked to the publisher page that had the download which did not state the download size but had a link to the installer which was 20MB, it would not be original research either.

Well, downloading the installer to check the size an put that on wikipedia is very likely OK under the "No original research policy", but the problem is that the section about the GPL violation is controversial, supported by very weak sources, possible original research ( "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." ) and synthesis. --SF007 (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The claim added was that KMPlayer contains GPLed and LGPLed binaries without sources or instructions to find said sources. That is easily verifiable with a download as the installer includes both the GPL and LGPL licenses for software like LAME but includes no source code nor instructions for said source code. Additionally, the FSF themselves confirm that the publisher is REQUIRED to distribute the source code for all GPL and LGPL binaries they distribute. Link to FSF FAQ confirms this fact. Thus, license violation is confirmed. This has never been in doubt by anyone who understands the GPL. KMPlayer can claim anything they want, but they have nothing to back it up. Multiple open source publishers confirm they are violating the GPL as does the FSF themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.114.27 (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Alleged license violations

I think the section about the GPL violations is in conflict with several policies:

• No reliable sources, not even what I call "semi-reliable sources" (news websites or blogs of "medium" or "small" dimension but still with some reputation)
• All sources are self-published sources and primary sources and with no peer-review whatsoever
• Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence - Not only is the accusation badly sourced, accusations of this nature require even better references than "normal statements" - I've also have not found ANY "hard evidence" of a violation published, like strings in the code, comparisons of the code, etc. (not even by the accusing party)
• Burden of evidence - similar in spirit to the entries above - "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it"
• Possible Original research and/or Synthesis - Claims that the program currently bundles GPL code seem to be based on analysis of the installer by one editor and using two sources to advance a position not clearly in one source
• Possible libel - quoting from the policy "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" and "[…] It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. […]"
• Likely violation of Biographies of living persons policy - while this article is not about a person, the (poorly-sourced) statements about the developer(s) violating copyright law can be easily viewed as a breach of policy: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis is from the policy, not mine)
• WP:NPOV - giving undue weight to badly sourced accusations and presenting the accuser as guilty without proper sources ("Alleged license violations" changed to "License violations")

I admit a copyright violation is plausible, but as it stands, it seems very clear this section has to go until we find some decent sources. Input welcome. --SF007 (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The misunderstanding imo is that Wikipedia clearly does not claim that K-Multimedia Player is (or was) violating anybody's copyright. Gabest claimed that K-Multimedia Player violated at some point his copyright (and the source for this claim is provided), later, FFmpeg developers explained that K-Multimedia Player is violating their (and MPlayer's) copyright, this is also sourced. Note that K-Multimedia players answer to the original violation claim is also sourced, so I don't see how the paragraph can be called non-neutral.--Regression Tester (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The publisher itself CONFIRMS that both GPL and LGPL code is included. The KMPlayer installer contains both the GPL and LGPL license texts in English and Chinese and both licenses are installed with KMPlayer. KMPlayer includes the LAME binary dll directly unrenamed which is LGPL licensed. Both the GPL and LGPL licenses require the source code to be distributed by any publisher distributing binaries regardless of whether they are modified as confirmed by the FSF. KMPlayer includes no source code for these binaries nor any instructions on where to find them. It's an open and shut case. You don't need any research as KMPlayer itself is claiming the inclusion of the binaries in its own installer and the FSF itself confirms the requirement to distribute the source code (and, thus, the violation by KMPlayer) in their FAQ.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.114.27 (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, Regression Tester, the problem is that the article gives undue weight to the accusations (it is undue because they are badly sourced), and therefore it is NPOV. As I said, the problem is that the sources provided can't be considered reliable. If Gabest accused Microsoft of using his code on MS Windows would that belong on the Windows article? Yes, but ONLY if there was a lawsuit and/or reliable sources.

• To 98.14.114.27, "The publisher itself CONFIRMS that both GPL and LGPL code is included" Actually, from the kmplayer forum "KMP did not include GPL codes or binary within its executable file." [3], so the GPL stuff seems to be external to the program. You are also quick to assume it is a violation, when these issues are not always clear. I would also like to point out that "The FSF confirms, however, that publishers are required to distribute the source code for all binaries that they distribute." is original research and/or synthesis.

RegressionTester - If you download KMPlayer's installer and look inside, you fill find both the GPL and LGPL licenses within it (in English and Chinese) as well as the unrenamed LAME dll and other files. That's not original research. That's a simple fact that any reader can confirm for themselves. As to the FSF position, I've changed it to quote the actual official statement they have made in their FAQ on GPL source redistribution, which makes it crystal clear that KMPlayer is in violation. If you distribute a GPLed binary, you are required to distribute the corresponding source code.98.14.114.27 (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "undue weight": After my last edit this morning, the paragraph contained two sentences of alleged license violations, and three sentences explaining the reaction from K-Multimedia Player denying / fixing the allegations. Concerning "badly sourced": The article claims that 1) Gabest spoke of license violations, 2) KMPlayer said there were wrong, 3) KMPlayer fixed them, 3) FFmpeg claims various license violations, 4) KMPlayer said that the accusations are wrong. All four points have sources, as you kindly pointed out, one may have too many sources, but please allow me to leave it to a more experienced editor like you to fix this. I therefore do not see the missing NPOV as well, actually I don't think the paragraph can be written in a more neutral tone, but I am not a native speaker, so please advice. (Concerning your other answer: Originally, when Gabest accused them, KMPlayer claimed not to use any GPL software, now they distribute their installer with a file that shows all installed third party software including Gabest' work and FFmpeg/libavcodec ("files.txt" as described in the forum link "Reactions on ..."). They still claim that they are not violating the GPL though, the explanation is, afaict, that since they did not modify the programs / did not compile themselves / sources are too big to distribute, they do not have to distribute anything to comply with the GPL.--Regression Tester (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your co-operation Regression Tester, the real problem is that all those forum posts are anything but clear (the fact that one admin there says the developer barely speaks English only adds to the problem). On the KMPlayer forum someone is, theoretically, the main developer, but he/she is not even an admin of the forum, and his/her last post was in 2007... Somewhat strange, right? That same user, kyh96403, indeed says "RadGTSplitter.ax.... OK.. I will remove it in my program.", but it is not clear if he/she removed because of it was indeed a GPL violation, because he considered it in a "grey area" (from the post "Linking dynamically to dlls is a gray area") or simply because the original author did not like the inclusion on a closed-source program and the kmplayer dev removed it as a courtesy. And even if it was clear, we go back to the same: we need "reliable sources" (all the other issues I mentioned are a consequence of the lack of "good sources"), these sources are from interested parties in the dispute, they are not neutral nor independent. Just imagine this situation: The VLC developers say they suspect Microsoft is using some of their code in Windows Media Player and they write a post about it with little or no evidence, claiming "some parts of the interface are similar" or "some parts of the code are similar", well, if they did not file a lawsuit nor this issue was picked up by reliable sources like CNET, Ars Technica, etc... then we should not include this on the Windows media player article, as it is not properly sourced. --SF007 (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

SF007 - The FSF make it quite clear that dynamically loading a GPL DLL from a proprietary program is a violation of the GPL. It's cut and dry. The only way you can load/run any GPL code from a proprietary program is via a fork and exec. Dynamically loading or sharing complex data structures makes it a part of the same program and is a violation of the license. It's cut and dry in their FAQ here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins 98.14.114.27 (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And that does not change anything: not only has the FSF not analyzed this case in particular, even if they did, they are not a court of law to rule that something is legal or illegal. --SF007 (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The FSF's word is the best word on the GPL and LGPL. Their lawyers and developers wrote these licenses and understand the intent and legal implications. They also wrote the guidelines and FAQs for them. It's also these very licenses that are the ONLY way that KMPlayer is even permitted to distribute these binaries that are written and copyrighted by someone else. Without the GPL/LGPL, KMPlayer has no legal right to redistribute LAME or FFMPEG, etc. You need to distribute the code if your distribute the binary. It's cut and dry and stated as such in the GPL article in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Terms_and_conditions 98.14.114.27 (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Do I understand you correctly that Gabest' and FFmpeg's claims that KMPlayer violates their copyright have to be removed because KMPlayer's answers to the accusations are difficult to understand? Please explain why you think "sources", "original research" and "npov" are needed, I will remove them otherwise.--Regression Tester (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly, they should be removed because they are not backed by reliable sources, it is as simple as that (therefore I added the "sources" tag to request better sources). What I tried to say was that even if we assume the posts at the KMPlayer forum could be considered "reliable" (and they are not), it was far from clear the developer was aknowledging he was violating the GPL or the law (therefore it can be constructed as "original research"). The "npov" tag was added because, from my point of view, we are giving undue weight to unsourced accusations (or badly sourced), therefore we are hardly being "neutral", in addition to that, we also alert the readers to the controversial nature of the section. --SF007 (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• As this discussion does not seems to be heading to a conclusion, I have started this discussion Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#K-Multimedia_Player --SF007 (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You wrote above about "burden of evidence", if I understood correctly you meant that there is no reason to believe The KMPlayer is actually using Gabest' software or FFmpeg - here is a link to the The KMPlayer's Changelog that contains some evidence The KMPlayer is using both software written by Gabest and FFmpeg's libavcodec: http://www.digital-digest.com/software/kmplayer_history.html --Regression Tester (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it exactly that way, like I said, from my POV a violation is plausible and the inclusion of the software above is not the main dispute. Even assuming we can undeniably "prove" that the software above is included in KMPlayer, the real issue is "is it a violation of GPL or the law?":

• Lets assume KMPlayer bundles that code (I'm not really disputing that)
• Does it do "static linking" of GPL code? (considered by some a violation of the law - but untested in court) - Nobody mentions that, not even the accusers, so lets assume KMPlayer does not do that.
• Does it do "dynamic linking" of GPL code? (a much more grey are, also untested in court) - Possibly, according to this post by (presumably) Gabest [4]
• OK, lets assume (for the sake of the argument) it does dynamic linking. Is that illegal in general? - We don't know, as no court as ruled on that (yet).
• Now lets assume dynamic linking is indeed a violation of the GPL (for the sake of the argument), is that illegal in this particular case? - We don't know, this case could be considered, for example, fair use as the program is distributed free of charge and (lets assume) no financial damage was done to Gabest/FFmpeg.

Has I have (hopefully) shown, the the case is complex and that section suggests a violation when the matter is hardly clear. PS: You might be interested in following the refs here: GNU_General_Public_License#Libraries --SF007 (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

At least the FFmpeg accusation does not claim any of the things - except the first that you are not disputing - you mention above (and while it is simply not true that dynamic linking changes anything concerning the relevance of the GPL, I agree it may be one step more difficult to reproduce such issues), neither that it links against its code nor that it uses it in any way iirc, and the article here also does not claim that (concerning FFmpeg). The KMPlayer distributes binaries from the FFmpeg project (notably libavcodec) and it does so together with a text file that mentions that FFmpeg code is distributed. Distribution is the only thing (apart from warranty) that is limited by the (L)GPL (usage is not, therefore linking can never be "illegal" under the GPL/LGPL, distributing binaries not complying with the obligations explained in the license may be). Apart from other obligations (that The KMPlayer fails to meet), distributing sources is required by the (L)GPL. Neither are these sources distributed together with The KMPlayer, nor is information provided where these sources (the exact sources that where used to compile the binaries distributed, not any similar sources) can be found. Or in other words: The KMPlayer is violating the copyright of the FFmpeg authors by distributing binaries based on their source code without offering source code.--Regression Tester (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with you that dynamic linking per se is completely legal, as the GPL only governs distribution, I should have made that clear. Regarding the FFmpeg sources in KMP, it is my understanding people distributing GPL code need to either make the sources available, tell where they are available, or provide the sources "on demand". If it my understanding KMPlayer uses unmodified FFmpeg sources (could be false, but as far as I know, there is no indication they modified the sources) and they refer users to the official ffmpeg website, where they can get the source. From my POV this likely satisfies the requirements of the GPL that users should have access to the source. However, I think it is pointless to discuss this kind of issues, as we, editors, should not try to interpret a complex license (GPL) that interacts with complex law (copyright). --SF007 (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Dynamically linking GPLed DLLs requires that the program dynamically linking them is released under a GPL-compatible license (GPL, BSD, etc) and not proprietary code. This is an accepted fact based on the license and the FSF FAQ. Only providing the sources "on demand" is not in any way permitted by the GPL. The publisher is required to offer them directly. This is stated directly in the GPL article on Wikipedia as well. 98.14.114.27 (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You cannot get the FFmpeg sources used for the FFmpeg-based binaries that The KMPlayer distributes on the FFmpeg homepage! (This is exactly the same misunderstanding that the people in the KMPlayer forum have.) Concerning "on demand": This would need a legally binding offer and is completely irrelevant and unused since the internet (this has been useful at a time when distribution created costs, nowadays, such a binding offer would create costs). Note that you started the discussion about the correctness of Gabest' and FFmpeg's claim that The KMPlayer violates their copyrights, I simply believe that the fact that Gabest and FFmpeg claim that their copyright was violated (and this is a well-sourced fact) is the only relevant information in this article about a completely irrelevant (non-notable) piece of software.--Regression Tester (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"You cannot get the FFmpeg sources used for the FFmpeg-based binaries that The KMPlayer distributes on the FFmpeg homepage" That may or may not be true, I really have no idea. You see? This is exactly the kind of confusion we get when we don't have proper sources. I perfectly understand your point that we are only reporting the accusations, but like I tried to explain before, just because X accuses Y (and the accusation itself is provable) does not mean we should put that in an article. I brought the issue to the reliable sources noticeboard and they told me what I expected: Unless they sue and win or settle out of court, accusations by themselves mean very little. The accusation has been in the article, since it's start, in 2006 and in over 5 years nothing was proved or further sources found, it simply can't stay. --SF007 (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is simply not true: Nobody claims that you can download (or find) the sources for the FFmpeg-based binaries used in The KMPlayer anywhere on the Internet, because those sources are not offered anywhere (and definitely not on the FFmpeg homepage, the developers would certainly know). The reason we have to inform about the accusations (made not by anonymous, but by notable - see their Wikipedia articles - software developers) is that they are the only relevant information in an article about a completely non-notable piece of software. In case this is not clear: There is absolutely no way that the FFmpeg (MPlayer. etc) developers can sue because of software that originated in Korea and whose developers are unknown.--Regression Tester (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

As expected, I disagree with that, and I will glady comment on that once the Dispute is over. Meanwhile, I suggest you make your point there, in particular, it might be a good idea to answer the question made by user "Ravensfire", as the other IP user will probably not care about the discussion anymore. --SF007 (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move to "KMPlayer"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

K-Multimedia Player → KMPlayer – Hi. Perhaps some of you know that Wikipedia's naming policy is Wikipedia:Article title. The part of it that concerns our subject (WP:COMMONNAME) says:

The most common name for a subject,^[3] as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural.

Alright then, let's take a look at reliable English-language sources: PC Magazine ([5]), PCWorld ([6]), Download.com of CNET ([7]), Softpedia ([8]), Softonic.com ([9]) and FileHippo ([10]). Even the official website ([11]) and the official forum ([12]) prefer to use KMPlayer instead of the full name. So, don't you agree that it is prevalent? Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: its true that this software is almost exclusively referred to as "KMPlayer", but there is completely different and independent Konqueror Media Player which is also known as KMPlayer. The current KMPlayer page is a DAB between these two, and I don't see a good reason to prefer one obscure video player to another obscure video player. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi. So, you agree that I defined the problem correctly; but since the solution is a little complicated, you advise we elude it? But my friend, it is not that complicated: Konqueror Media Player is definitely not the primary topic, judging by the amount of sources that support it. But it can be named "KMPlayer (KDE)" to adhere with WP:COMMONNAME. So long as you agree that Wikipedia policy supports "KMPlayer" as the article name for this page, other auxiliary problems can be resolved. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It is not as straightforward as you put it. First of all, on Wikipedia the natural disambiguation is preferred, which reflects the current state of affairs. Furthermore, there is a common trait of all the resources you link above: they are Windows software distribution services; I may provide several dozens (or even hundreds) of links to KDE KMPlayer descriptions and reviews by Linux distributions (these match the status of the Windows software distribution sites you link above), so probably the KDE player looks more like primary topic. FWIW it is a bad idea to compare the numbers of references in articles – these numbers don't necessarily show the number of sources actually existing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Hi. First, I doubt that "the natural disambiguation is preferred" and I doubt "natural disambiguation" being "the current state of affairs". In fact, there seems to be evidences to the contrary. I have read both WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TWODABS, and have seen [13] and [14]. From what I gather, it seems the accepted way is to have the primary topic (this article, in this case) have the name and it seems this article is the primary topic by a margin of 7 to 0.9.

Second, I didn't use article sources. These sources are the result of my own independent investigation. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Please see WP:PRECISE. Particularly this:

Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit, not as commonly as the preferred but ambiguous title (do not, however, use obscure or made up names).

As these two players are equally obscure and no obvious primary topic is there, this is the guiding principle for this case. The WP:TWODABS does not apply here as the KMPlayer name is equally claimed here by both topic and no valid rationale to prefer one candidate over another is present.

I would also note, that I find hit counts-based rationale significantly flawed, as both topics are similar, though this article is linked (via navbox) from more relevant scope of media players, while another KMPlayer is only linked (via navbox) from KDE-related articles. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Your quote does not say that "natural disambiguation is preferred". In fact I see that WP:PRECISE recommends other courses of action as well. As of the rest, which are all your own opinion, well... let's just say I respectfully disagree. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

My quote says "if it exists", while here is the flow of Parenthetical disambiguation:

Parenthetical disambiguation: If natural disambiguation is not possible, add a disambiguating term in parentheses, after the ambiguous name.

So this seems to be a straightforward resolution order. As to the other disagreement, I hope someone else weights in so that some consensus will be reached. I would kindly ask to disregard my opinion over primary topic if it appears to block consensus. (I'm removing this page from watchlist, so ping me if my input is wanted later on.) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Relisting comment. Need some input on whether there is a primary topic for "KMPlayer". Jenks24 (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Audio players

Given that K-Multimedia Player is a video player, it makes no sense to add a link to audio players.--Regression Tester (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Actually I think it makes perfect sense. People outside Wikipedia think if something plays audio then it is an audio player; they think one thing can be an audio player and a video player at the same time. So, including that links serves to tells them what is regarded what in Wikipedia. It is a matter of arbitrary definition (and not exactly a matter of perspective.)

I have another reason too: It is a good addition to See also section. It is not a hypernym but you can't deny that it is related. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)