Jump to content

Talk:KMPlayer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.14.114.27 (talk) at 05:05, 10 January 2012 (→Alleged license violations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Shell

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "KMPlayer 2.9.4.1438 - Changelog". Softpedia. Retrieved 2010-11-08.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Alleged license violations

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 pretty cut and dry.98.14.114.27 (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:KMPlayer&oldid=470563520"