Chris Lanier's Blog

Well, I can't say I'm surprised.  If you remember, XBMC's first incarnation was a direct ripoff of MCE's interface.  MediaPortal is based on XBMC.  I guess they're just up to the same old tricks.

The sincerest form of flattery.....

Is a web interface really something new? Many PVR programs have had it for a while...

Ahh, the graphics are pretty similar.. I would guess the underlying code is not even close to the same.. Just a guess though. The source is there for Doug to examine though, I guess he will find out.

Not just the graphics.

I'm a developer - do you know how much effort goes into creating an appealing screen layout?

Compare the guides - they are identical!

ASP's are not static html pages, they are dynamic, and there is a LOT of code (and time spent developing it) that goes into generating them.

This isn't like just swiping a style sheet, and some graphis (which is still bad) - they flat out stole a heck of a lot of source code.

DO NOT USE MEDIAPORTAL!!!

To be fair, it didn't use Cassini. When i played with it last week, it used IIS, people were asking for Casisin support but it definately started out as IIS + AJAX extensions for it to work.

OK - now if this isn't a smoking gun!  Below is a link to the sourceforge repository (specificaly the 'images' directory).  

Look at the last two members - wg4-logo-silver-big.png, and wg4-logo-silver.png

They look kind of familiar - don't you think?

http://mediaportal.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mediaportal/trunk/TvEngine3/MPWebGuide/MPGuide/images/

I wonder if Doug sells a "system builder" version of WebGuide.  Of course, it does seem fairly suspicious that they yanked the page off their site.

Thanks for all the pointers everyone.  Definately something odd going on.  My whole image library is still in there - including my logos!  Plus, some of the code looks much to similar for my comfort.  Too many nuances that I have left over from older versions of WebGuide that wouldn't make sense to put in there today.

I've contacted them about it.  We'll see what happens.  

Yesterday I posted about the possibility that MediaPortal might have just ripped off WebGuide4 by Doug

Yesterday I posted about the possibility that MediaPortal might have just ripped off WebGuide4 by Doug...

I've been following this discussion carefully, and I'm quite sympathetic to the problem.  But as a developer myself I can understand how it happens.  Still, there are no excuses for the graphics making it to the beta release of the product.

It is very unfortunate what has happened, but it seems like the MediaPortal guys are correcting the problem.  I don't for a minute believe it was done maliciously.

What is malicious are your comments on the MediaPortal forum calling one of the German moderators a Nazi.  That's outrageous.

Team MediaPortal have made an apology on their home page, I think maybe you could do the same?

Update 2: MediaPortal seems to have pulled the webpage!  Good thing for Google Cache.

What whould have happend if they hadn't removed it? The you would have come with a even bigger out cry. They removed it to stop the code/grap. getting out to other people.

I just want to make a few points and then I'll leave this topic alone.  It's not particularly dear to me, so I don't want to spend too long.

But I feel some things have to be cleared up ...

1. "Frodo", the lead developer on MediaPortal, has made a public apology both on the MediaPortal home page and on the WebGuide forums.

Combined with an email to Doug I believe this is as much of an apology as is necessary.  Now, I don't know what has been said privately between Frodo and Doug, and I doubt you do either.  So let's not speculate.

2. The offending graphics have been removed and the MediaPortal web interface project taken down until the issue is resolved.

In my opinion this is the only responsible way to handle the situation.  To leave the project and graphics up after the problem was pointed out would have been criminal.  They did the only responsible thing they could.  They took it down.

Between points 1 and 2 this is what I would call "Correcting the problem".  You feel this is not enough, but exactly what you are suggesting I do not know.

3. Taking it down because it infringes Doug's copyright is not the same as "hiding something".

To leave it up would have been worse.  And I don't think the team at MediaPortal have anything to hide.  The software is open source, so there's not much room for hiding anyhow.

I'm curious to hear how you think the guys at MediaPortal could have done this differently once the mistake was pointed out?

4. In my professional opinion, as a software engineer, I can say quite confidently that the sample source code that has been provided to illustrate code theft proves absolutely nothing.  More than that, it suggests nothing more than imitation of the layout.

I'm not saying someone at MediaPortal could not possibly have stolen code, but the code samples shown (and I assume these are the best demonstrations available) prove nothing at all.  Again, they don't even suggest actual theft in my mind.  And I'll try to explain why here ...

The first sample is a standard implementation of a standard feature (text truncation with ellipsis).  This is when a string of text is too long for the area on screen you wish to place it in, so you reduce the string to a size that will fit and use "..." at the end to show the user there is more text not shown.

I've written my own code to do this in the past and it looks almost identical too.  I can provide my own samples if you would like to see them?  Though I'm sure you could find similar code in any number of other open source projects.

The second sample is (from what I can tell) for formatting the details of a television program to be in this style:

"Show Name" "Start Time" - "End Time"

"Description"

eg.

 Heroes 9:00pm - 10:00pm

 In this episode ...

Again, this is a common layout for this sort of information.  It doesn't surprise me at all that MediaPortal's code would be similar.  Especially given that the MediaPortal guys were imitating WebGuide's layout in other areas.

But let me be clear, there is nothing wrong with imitation, and it certainly doesn't speak of code theft.

The later code samples are all in the same ball-park.  Not only does it "prove" nothing, it doesn't even suggest a rip-off.  It's very flimsy.  Admittedly, there are some layout formatting similarities in the code, but that's to be expected.

At worst we are looking at a small amount of WebGuide's layout structure be porting to facilitate rapid development by the MediaPortal guys.  This is akin to opening up Yahoo's web page, clicking "View source" and copying a few layout details, which is perfectly acceptable.  That's assuming they even did that much.

The software industry (Humanity in general) has a long history of copying other people's good ideas.  I certainly don't believe WebGuide is the first software to lay out tv show information in this manner.

It's a shame the graphics were left in the beta release by the MediaPortal guys, because if they had been replaced with original graphics from the start then there would never have been any suggestion of code theft.  Not because it wouldn't have been looked at, but because it would never have been viewed in the same light.

And if I was trying to demonstrate someone had stolen my code I would have used more compelling evidence.

I think everyone needs to accept what has happened for what it is and stop trying to make mountains out of mole hills.  If it was a case of code theft I would agree whole heartedly, and I'd be advising Doug to take it further, but it's clearly not.

5. If MediaPortal was trying to hide something, do you honestly think they would have made a public apology (in two highly visible places) ?

That's hardly a cover-up.  The team at MediaPortal have handled an ugly and embarrassing situation as well as can be expected.

Can you say the same thing, Chris?

6. When you put the word "mistake" in quotation marks you infer that you don't believe it was a mistake.

It is true that using the graphics as a template was no mistake, and nobody at MediaPortal is claiming that it wasn't.  But not replacing them with original content before publicly releasing a beta copy, that's a terrible bone-headed mistake.  One that should get someone's backside kicked.  But it's hardly criminal, and it's certainly not worth the accusations and innuendo that are being thrown about.  I think some of the comments that have been made are outrageous.  And others are just downright ridiculous.

But you seem to be think there is more to it than the team at MediaPortal are letting on.  You make out that it wasn't a mistake at all.  Do you honestly believe that the team at MediaPortal where trying to pass off Doug's work as there own?

They admit they were trying to base the layout on Doug's.  And that's fine.  The whole program is based on the layout of Microsoft's Media Center, but no-one is complaining about that.  With good reason.  To deny people the right to imitate is to block progress.  If Microsoft never imitated Mac OS then we'd never have Windows.  And that's not progress.

Only someone who is suicidal and insane would try to pass off Doug's work as their own.  I don't believe for one minute that it was done deliberately and I'd be very surprised if you honestly believe it was.

It's a very bad mistake, but that is all.  I don't believe it was malicious, and it certainly wasn't for profit.  After all, MediaPortal is free.

7. Comments like "I'll never recommend MediaPortal again" or other suggestions that MediaPortal is now tainted and unsuitable as a Media Center application are without merit.  Honestly, MediaPortal is as a good (with it's positive's and negative's) an application today as it was yesterday.  Nothing has changed.

A stupid (I would use more colourful language, but I don't want to be offensive) mistake was made by a member of the MediaPortal development team, but nothing that suddenly makes the software unfit for use.

You clearly don't hold yourself to the same standards as you hold MediaPortal or you wouldn't have called an member of the MediaPortal forum a Nazi would you?  People could just as easily say that they can't recommend your blog now because of your comments.  But that wouldn't be a fair reason either.  You wouldn't want your blog's reputation marked by one stray comment, and MediaPortal shouldn't be struck off just because one team member made an awful and lazy mistake.  Try to keep things in perspective.

Finally, I don't intend to continue in a back and forth argument, I feel I've made all the key points I wanted to.  If you want to respond with answers to the questions I've raised feel free, I'll read with interest.  However, if you want to put this behind you and move on, I can understand that too.  I think when all is said and done, this topic has raised far more peoples heart-rates than it should have and will be viewed in the future as a bit of a waste of time.

me.

I put some effort into elaborating on my concerns, yet you've made very little effort to elaborate on yours.

I'm disappointed, but I guess I shouldn't have expected anything better from you Chris.  Especially after your outburst on the MediaPortal forums.

You've spouted the same conspiracy theory rhetoric about "something to hide" and made it seem very cloak and dagger, when it's obvious to a third party that you're blowing the whole thing out of proportion.

Your response is as vague and pointless as all your previous ones.  You've added nothing worthy of debate, and you've failed to address my key questions.  Why did you even bother?

It's disappointing to me that someone as opinionated as yourself makes such little effort in articulating those opinions.  You fall back on personal attacks and misdirection through absurd arguments.  You rely on other people's arguments instead of making your own.  Really your blog is nothing more than a patchwork of other people's opinions, since you don't seem to know anything yourself.

They must have copied code deliberately because they, as far as you know, haven't been in sufficient email contact with Doug?

One does not imply the other, Chris.  I can't speak about what contact has been made between the two parties but I'd be surprised if no contact has been made.  To use that as proof of a cover up or anything else is just ridiculous.

You won't use/recommend MediaPortal because of the way they handled this?

This says nothing of their product and everything of your attitude.  Childish.  The product remains unchanged, only your ego has grown.

You claim my viewpoint is ill-informed?

Yet you comment on source code comparisons that you admit you have no idea about.  You say, "in my non-programmer opinion", that's like a janitor giving his opinion on the space program, it might be interesting for a moment, but it's ultimately meaningless.  It's a shame someone purporting to be a technical blogger has such a poor technical knowledge.

MediaPortal has an imitation MCE interface, therefore it stole from Doug?

Again, one does not follow the other.  What a simplistic accusation.  The fact that someone who regularly blogs would use such a pathetic argument is quite distressing.  Have you ever heard of logic?

As far as using MediaPortal's source to create a for-pay program in the future.  That is possible, though it would violate the GPL.  But of course you assume, based on your non-existent knowledge, and on other peoples arguments (not your own) that MediaPortal's source is a copy of Doug's.  Even though it is in a different programming language, works on a different product, and shares only a passing resemblance in only the most inconsequential areas.

There is not a single algorithm presented for comparison, if you knew anything about software development you'd know that all the code presented for comparison is simple fluff that a first year college student could write in 5 minutes.  But the peanut gallery say it's a rip-off.  So I expect we'll see commercial competition for Doug any day now?

"Since I could use the source, I can build a for-pay program that does the same thing", well actually Chris, you couldn't.  But it's a nice thought.

It's just a shame you're not financially dependant on Doug's software, or there would be a good reason to violate the GPL and give Doug a run for his money.  Of course, I'd need to find a real programmer to make the necessary wholesale changes to actually make the product.   But from the opinions flying around in here there must be a surplus of programmers to help out.

The worst part of all this is that it generates interest in your blog, which doesn't deserve the extra traffic and certainly wont be getting any more of mine.

I hope you can tone down your conspiracy theories and racist slurs in the future.  It's just a shame that what could have been an interesting discussion has degenerated into dribble.

Good luck with your blog in the future, I have a feeling you'll need it.

me.

dude if all you got is they ain't emailed doug I think you run out of arguments