Slashdot Mirror


GPL Kerfuffle Takes Xbian For Raspberry Pi Offline

tetrahedrassface writes "Rasbmc developer Sam Nazarko is reporting that Xbian had violated the GPL and stolen his installer code without providing attribution and not releasing their source. His breakdown of events is interesting, and currently the Xbian project has been taken offline with several tweets saying Xbian development is terminated."

154 comments

  1. Dumb Link Award by icebike · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Someone posting a link to a project that "has been taken offline" needs their head examined.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. Re:Dumb Link Award by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That doesn't mean that we can't laugh at you based on the story we received.

    2. Re:Dumb Link Award by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Why has this comment been modded down? Seems like a reasonable, if not slightly abrasive -- but tolerable -- self-defense.

      --
      Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
    3. Re:Dumb Link Award by Omnifarious · · Score: 4, Funny

      You can't fool us. This story is a giant troll to get your ridiculous username in front of as many people as possible.

    4. Re:Dumb Link Award by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, to play devil's advocate here...

      If the just came out and said "the xbian project is cancelled", and DIDN'T post the link for verification (yup! Its dead!), then there would be people denouncing the statement as FUD, and shouting [CITATION NEEDED].

      Rather than take it as "Hey, Check out this TOTALLY AWESOME project that is so totally cancelled on their inactive website! Its a complete waste of time!" I would take it as the req. for the [citation needed] crowd.

      *shrug*

    5. Re:Dumb Link Award by tetrahedrassface · · Score: 0

      True. :) It's all good.

    6. Re:Dumb Link Award by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well far be it from me to point out /. editors don't actually edit or anything, but would it have really killed either them or the dude that posted it to tell us WTF XBian was? Or why we should care?

      I mean not everyone is in the pi builder community, so a couple of words telling what it was, or what its difference between it and the other one was, which again don't know WTF it is except it has something to do with the Pi, would have been nice.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    7. Re:Dumb Link Award by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 0

      Probably would've come under assault for stating the "obvious" or being condescending. The 'perfect' /. post is a wild gambit, a tilting rook amidst a mired swamp of strange and temperamental creatures. It's like blindly striking a smoking electro-piñata filled by Alan Turing, Douglas Adams and Nietzsche -- and Gates, Torvalds and Jobs are screeching so loudly in the background, you consider striking yourself instead. In truth, such endeavors require a rare form of derangement, a harmonious blend of neo-technical madness and erstwhile sentiment; which is why ....shit, I need my meds; I'm done here. What have I done!

      --
      Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
    8. Re:Dumb Link Award by Psicopatico · · Score: 3, Funny

      It hasn't "been taken offline". It's simply slashdotted :-)

      --
      Mastering the English language is fucking easy: all you have to do is to put an f* word in every fucking sentence.
    9. Re:Dumb Link Award by dadioflex · · Score: 1

      Why has this comment been modded down? Seems like a reasonable, if not slightly abrasive -- but tolerable -- self-defense.

      Because there are elegant ways and non-elegant ways to defend yourself. Also, he was being a dick.

    10. Re:Dumb Link Award by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      What have I done!

      With very little modification, your text could easily be used as a description in a classy wine menu.

      "Buckfast is a wild gambit, a tilting rook amidst a mired swamp of strange and temperamental creatures. It's like blindly striking a smoking electro-piñata filled by Alan Turing, Douglas Adams and Nietzsche -- and Gates, Torvalds and Jobs are screeching so loudly in the background, you consider striking yourself instead. In truth, such endeavors require a rare form of derangement, a harmonious blend of neo-technical madness and erstwhile sentiment; undertones of autumn plum married with public toilet and despair."

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    11. Re:Dumb Link Award by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well far be it from me to point out /. editors don't actually edit or anything, but would it have really killed either them or the dude that posted it to tell us WTF XBian was? Or why we should care?

      Yes, yes it would. That's why the so-called editors don't. They're afraid to die.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Dumb Link Award by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 1

      So, you're a fan of Fairbanks port, I see.

      --
      Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
  2. Re:GPL Kerfuffle by wierd_w · · Score: 0

    Kerfuffle, kvetch, futz, meshugenah, etc are all yiddish.

    Clearly you don't spend much time in New York, or around jewish people.

    Either that or you have lots of hutzpah.

  3. Re:GPL Kerfuffle by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

    Clearly you don't spend much time in New York, or around jewish people.

    Its a pretty common term in Australian English. No idea if it came to us via Australian or foreign Jews though.

  4. Re:GPL Kerfuffle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, it's of Gaelic/Scots origin and means "disturbance in the force"
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kerfuffle

  5. Re:GPL Kerfuffle by The1stImmortal · · Score: 1

    Actually from a quick google it looks like the term comes from Scottish Gaelic dialects.
    I'm not going to bother linking because it was the first 5 results for kerfuffle :)

  6. While I'm very against GPL violations by Omnifarious · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My guess is that they didn't want to release the code because, perhaps, they didn't have any, or perhaps because it was all chewing gum and bailing wire and they didn't even have it under source control.

    And this reads a little like one developer trying to use the GPL to prevent a fork.

    But, given the seeming quality of the distribution and level of response from the XBian people, I do not think that in this case it is any great loss.

    1. Re:While I'm very against GPL violations by FrangoAssado · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My guess is that they didn't want to release the code because, perhaps, they didn't have any, or perhaps because it was all chewing gum and bailing wire and they didn't even have it under source control.

      If that had been the case, he could simply have tar'ed his whole tree and put it up in the same place he was distributing the installer. The GPL defines "source code" as:

      The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.

      I don't think anyone can argue that the exact tree that was used to develop the code is not the "preferred" form to make modifications to it -- it is the form he used to make his modifications.

    2. Re:While I'm very against GPL violations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Whether they were in the right or the wrong, the responses from some of the Xbian people are strikingly childish. The youtube analogy actually made me cringe.

    3. Re:While I'm very against GPL violations by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps the xbian group has a lot of high school kids behind it?

    4. Re:While I'm very against GPL violations by Narishma · · Score: 1

      Well, their project leader is like 17 or something. That might explain things.

      --
      Mada mada dane.
    5. Re:While I'm very against GPL violations by paulatz · · Score: 1

      I was pretty evident it was a kid project from the responses they were giving. The hard truth is that operating systems are not lolcat pictures, somebody care about copyright. Nevertheless, the kids would have abandoned the project in a few weeks, after finding a girlfriend or discovering pot; no big loss for the OSS community.

      --
      this post contain no useful information, no need to mod it down
  7. Re:GPL Kerfuffle by Omnifarious · · Score: 5, Funny

    OH NOES! I've been forced to expand my vocabulary! The pain in my head is killing me, please make it stop!

  8. Permission not needed by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    You don't need permission to fork a GPL project and Nazarko is wrong to demand that he be asked.

    1. Re:Permission not needed by wierd_w · · Score: 3, Informative

      However, gpl code still has copyright ascribed to the author, which needs to remain. Eg, the author must be credited as the author under GPL.

      The GPL permits reuse, repurposing, and redistribution, as long as the terms of the GPL are observed. One of therms of the GPL is the attribution of original authors.

    2. Re:Permission not needed by Omnifarious · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Also, all the supporting code was under GPL. The code that pulled everything together to make a distribution. And XBian wasn't posting that code. That's a hard requirement of the GPL. Attribution actually isn't a hard requirement of the GPL, it's just polite.

    3. Re:Permission not needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He also demanded that all threads linking to it be removed from third party forums. While I think the GPL is a necessary evil, this type of control freak behavior isn't.

    4. Re:Permission not needed by shentino · · Score: 2

      Stop spreading FUD.

      The theme violated was failure to include complete source code. Attribution is a CC/BSD thing.

    5. Re:Permission not needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GPLv3, Section 7 b) ...you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:...
      Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it

    6. Re:Permission not needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing about that is... raspbmc isn't posting any of that code either. Their "source code" is just a set of scripts which run debootstrap to build a root filesystem image.

    7. Re:Permission not needed by wierd_w · · Score: 3, Informative

      Uhm.. GPL is a hack on copyright law. In Berne convention signatory countries, the mere act of writing the software creates a copyrighted work, owned exclusively by its creator.

      The spirit of the GPL is to do away with this, and permit rapid collaboration and joint authorship of complex computer programs that could not otherwise be performed realistically in the absence of a license like the GPL.

      The employment of the GPL as a license does NOT negate obligations to copyright, in such countries. In fact, the GPL is enforcable *BECAUSE* of such copyright.

      Unless the creators of rasbmc explicitly waived rights of ownership and declaired the work to be public domain (if so, why GPL and not BSD?) Then the additional contributors to that code (the person who modified the installer) needs to attribute proper ownership. The license to use that code as delivered by the copyright holder is the GPL. Failure to comply with the GPL results in forfieture of license, which means that xbian is comiting copyright infringement.

      Claiming ownership of a copyrighted work so as to sidestep compliance with the license is a very big NoNo with GPLed codebases. If there is copyright, you MUST respect it, or you are defacto in violation of the license. (How can you caim compliance with a license created by someone you contest ownership of the code with?)

      While not explicitly part of the GPL, (since it is covered by wider copyright law, and not applicable to the GPL itself, but very relavent to enforcement) observing correct attribution of ownership is paramount to proper compliance with the license.

      The copyright holder can relicense arbitrarily. A GPL compliant user cannot, and must comply with the GPL license under law. Attribution is more than just a nicety. It is required for the GPL to function.

    8. Re:Permission not needed by martin-boundary · · Score: 2

      You don't need permission to fork a GPL project

      Correct. You can do whatever you like with it on your own private computer. But you do need permission to distribute it to *anybody*, whether you've made any changes at all or not.

      The GPL happens to give this permission in exchange of making the full and complete source code available to all those who receive the binary from you. If you don't comply, then you have no permission at all to distribute it to anyone, whether you've made any changes at all or not.

    9. Re:Permission not needed by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Oh god no, that's wrong. Attribution is the most basic requirement in any license, and essentially every license does require it. The GPL certainly does.

    10. Re:Permission not needed by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Debian also can assert a compilation copyright, although I don't know if they've claimed one recently. They must be attributed for the distribution overall.

    11. Re:Permission not needed by shentino · · Score: 1

      Please cite the clause in the GPL that requires attribution.

      If you find such a clause and it's not taken out of context I'll eat my words.

    12. Re:Permission not needed by Asic+Eng · · Score: 2

      Not sure what you mean by that. GPL v2 is incompatible with attribution requirements, v3 allows you to amend the terms to require attribution. It's not a requirement by default.

    13. Re:Permission not needed by donaldm · · Score: 1

      Please cite the clause in the GPL that requires attribution.

      If you find such a clause and it's not taken out of context I'll eat my words.

      I won't deny that the word "attribution" is missing in the GPL2 however it is in GPL3 (See 7b Additional Terms). From here "Attribution (copyright), concept in copyright law requiring an author to be credited". Now look at the GPL 2 or 3 they mention copyright and one of the requirements of the GPL is the requirement of the author of said software to be credited.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    14. Re:Permission not needed by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Clause 1 in GPL2 and Clause 4 in GPL4 require all extant license notices to remain in the files intact. Both define the minimum for the notices to contain " (c) Copyright Joe Soap Industries 2012"

      For modifications, Clause 2 in GPL2 and Clause 5 in GPL4 requires the developer to adhere to the verbatim copying clauses as well as the conditions in the modification clauses.

      To me that's pretty clear that the original copyright statements must remain prominent.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    15. Re:Permission not needed by Hatta · · Score: 1

      One of therms of the GPL is the attribution of original authors.

      GPLv2 prohibits attribution requirements. GPLv3 allows attribution requirements as an optional "additional term". We'd need to see the actual license to determine whether attribution is required.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    16. Re:Permission not needed by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Unless the creators of rasbmc explicitly waived rights of ownership and declaired the work to be public domain (if so, why GPL and not BSD?) Then the additional contributors to that code (the person who modified the installer) needs to attribute proper ownership.

      Kinda sorta. They need to refrain from claiming ownership of the code, and when asked they need to correctly identify the owners. But there's nothing about the GPL (excepting optional additional terms in v3) that requires explicit proactive identification of the owners of the GPL licensed software in the way that BSD or CC attribution licenses do.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    17. Re:Permission not needed by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      All GPL licenses require attribution. Without exception. If you don't believe so, you just don't know what attribution is.

    18. Re:Permission not needed by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Attribution is the requirement to convey the identity of the copyright holder. No license that can be applied to third parties, like the GPL, could work legally without this. At a minimum you need the identity of the copyright holder and their license to have any rights beyond "All Rights Reserved".

    19. Re:Permission not needed by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

      GPLv2 absolutely, always, without exception requires attribution. You just don't know what attribution is.

    20. Re:Permission not needed by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative

      Attribution actually isn't a hard requirement of the GPL, it's just polite.

      People who are saying this just don't know what attribution is. It is absolutely always required. When you say "Copyright (C) name of legal entity, that is attribution. If you don't have some statement of that kind, you are always, absolutely, without exception, violating the GPL.

    21. Re:Permission not needed by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I believe what he said was that the copyright law, not the GPL, required the attribution. I know it used to be a lot more specific than that, but copyright law changed a decade or so ago, and I don't know the current state.

      Originally, you were required to include (some form of...I'd need to look up the precise form):
      This post copyright (c) by Hi There, 2012, Erewhon, Utah
      (with the name and location being valid names and places)
      That phrase would be legally required to be preserved. I have no idea what the law says now that copyright is automatic, but that it requires attribution is quite plausible.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    22. Re:Permission not needed by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      That's a somewhat useless comment. If you think I'm missing something at least tell me what that is. If you want to talk about some legal technicality: either tell us what it is or have a hard look whether it's relevant in the context of this thread. Surely you can do better than this "I know something and you common people couldn't possibly understand" act?

    23. Re:Permission not needed by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2
      I was giving you an opportunity to look it up for yourself. However, I will spoon-feed it to you.

      When a copyright holder puts the statement:

      Copyright (C) Author's Name

      in their work, that is their attribution.

      You may be required to make other sorts of statement by some licenses, but the statement that I have included above is always required. You are required to preserve it and convey it in the source code in every Open Source license (public domain isn't a license). Many licenses in addition require you to convey it in binary copies, this includes all GPL licenses.

    24. Re:Permission not needed by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      Lame. "in their work, that is their attribution" - that's most definitely not what we were talking about in this thread, and you could have made your point in the first post without this whole dance. What we were talking about is whether you have to keep that note intact in derivative copies. Do you think you have contributed to clarify that point through your posts? Seriously: this style of discussion sucks.

    25. Re:Permission not needed by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      I sincerely find it difficult to believe that anyone would consider for a second that they might not have to preserve the attribution and license in derivative works. Nothing else establishes their right to make derivative works at all.

    26. Re:Permission not needed by Christian+Smith · · Score: 1

      <ianal>
      Copyright itself doesn't require attribution. Copyright in itself gives noone but the copyright owner the right to distribute the copyrighted work.

      What the license does is grant third parties the right to redistribute the work under the terms of that license. If that license requires attribution, then so be it. If the license does not explicitly require attribution, then indeed no attribution need be given, but in the case of the GPL, the original work must be available on request, and presumably the original author would have their own details included in the original work, so attribution is unnecessary anyway.

      Not legal advice etc.
      </ianal>

  9. Oh, wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The server at www.xbian.org can't be found, because the DNS lookup failed.

    They weren't kidding when they said it had been taken offline.

    1. Re:Oh, wow. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      Nuked it from orbit.

    2. Re:Oh, wow. by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      any cached copies?

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    3. Re:Oh, wow. by lanswitch · · Score: 1

      And it's back: http://www.xbian.org/

  10. Re:Cromulent by stms · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't see why Kerfuffle shouldn't be used in the post title. It's a perfectly cromulent word.

  11. Re:GPL Kerfuffle by Sowelu · · Score: 2

    Much like the Jabberwocky poem, you don't need to know what it means to know what it means.

  12. Re:GPL Kerfuffle by In+hydraulis · · Score: 1

    ^ He speaks the truth.

  13. NOT a GPL violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The disputed code is not licensed under the GPL. The actual License can be found here:

    http://svn.stmlabs.com/svn/raspbmc/LICENSE

    1. Re:NOT a GPL violation by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Debian distribution and its associated packages

      Hmmm I wonder what debian think about their software being aggregated with software distributed under this license?

    2. Re:NOT a GPL violation by Teancum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      WE reserve the right to change the terms of this agreement at our discretion.

      That is just an evil license agreement... something even Microsoft doesn't try to insert into their licenses. In other words they can change the terms at anytime to any other terms for any other reason and it can mean whatever they want it to mean when the time comes.

      I don't know how that would hold up under an actual legal challenge, but it seems real slimy. Yes, I know the GPL does have the ability to use the "or later version" option, but that is an optional license upgrade that any end users or redistributor can apply or you can stick with the original terms and conditions. Not everybody trusts the Free Software Foundation and sometimes deliberately leaves that clause out of the license.

      This sounds like somebody begging to have this software reimplemented in a clean room environment and released under a proper software licensing agreement... like the GPL.

    3. Re:NOT a GPL violation by i.r.id10t · · Score: 2

      Well, according to the Open Source definition they really don't have anything to think about it...

      9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

      The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    4. Re:NOT a GPL violation by bmo · · Score: 1

      >Hmmm I wonder what debian think about their software being aggregated with software distributed under this license?

      "Mere aggregation" is just fine and is spelled out in the GPL.

      From 3.0

      A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an âoeaggregateâ if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.

      From 2.0

      In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.

      Which is why you can distribute work with various licenses including GPLed software on the same media.

      --
      BMO

    5. Re:NOT a GPL violation by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      They'd be fine if it was really aggregation. Want to bet the folks who wrote that crayon license can't tell when they're creating a derivative work?

    6. Re:NOT a GPL violation by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Want to bet the folks who wrote that crayon license can't tell when they're creating a derivative work?

      Yes that was my thought.

  14. Re:GPL Kerfuffle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe you are just trying to read at too high of a level?
    Perhaps you should start with fox news and work your way up to coloring books, and tackle slashdot later on ;)

  15. Re:GPL Kerfuffle by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 1

    Seems you are correct: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=kerfuffle&searchmode=none ~ At least according to a dictionary of etymology

    --
    Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
  16. Re:GPL Kerfuffle by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because you needed to google the term does not mean that the poster did.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  17. Re:GPL Kerfuffle by causality · · Score: 1

    OH NOES! I've been forced to expand my vocabulary! The pain in my head is killing me, please make it stop!

    Amen, brother.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  18. Really a violation? by neoshroom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The problem is that XBian doesn’t release any source code, claiming that it is all ‘available’ via Raspian’s archives and XBMC’s website."

    I'm not sure XBian is wrong. All they did is take an installer from another project and use it for their own project. If they didn't functionally change the source, why can't they say "here's the code" and just point to where they got it from.

    According to this site "This doesn’t account for all source code however, such as their plugins, their method of building images or their updating scripts. Thus, XBian is not GPL compliant and does not release its entire source."

    If these things are separate executables or modular plugins, why can't they be closed source? Maybe I don't know all the technical details or all the nuances of the GPL, but this sounds more like a project trying to badmouth a competing project than a huge GPL issue.

    --
    Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
    1. Re:Really a violation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically the GPL does not allow this, since it is possible that the upstream source may go offline in the future.. Of course, raspbmc is in violation too since they are not making available the source of the debian software that they distribute.

    2. Re:Really a violation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Plugins are not always separate. It greatly depends on how the plugin system works but basically, if they are library based plugins like dll and so files, then yes, they must be gpl since it is still considered to be part of the program.

      http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins

    3. Re:Really a violation? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      To be covered under the GPL, it has to be a derivative work. If you can make a plugin that is NOT a derivative work (for example, a driver that was made for BSD then ported to Linux), then it won't be covered under the GPL.

      Derivative work is a legal term, not a computer systems term. If someone can convince a jury that your plugins and dlls are not infringing, then they are not.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Really a violation? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      You interpretation that a plugin built as a dll or so file is must be GPL because they're built for a piece of GPL software is bollocks. That's not different than saying every single piece of software that runs on Linux must be GPL, since the Linux kernel is licensed under GPLv2 and all software calls the kernel at some point.

    5. Re:Really a violation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong, for non-commercial use the GPL allows to just point to an upstream source if you used it unmodified.

    6. Re:Really a violation? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you are an idiot!

      Linking (static or dynamic) indicates derivative work. This is why there is LGPL, a license identical to GPL that allows linking, and why Linux kernel has a mechanism for handling modules' licenses.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    7. Re:Really a violation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is no such exemption.

      http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary

    8. Re:Really a violation? by lingon · · Score: 1

      I've been taught that the difference is static or dynamic linking: If you statically link your software with GPL'd software and distribute it, it's a derivative work and you need to release your software under the GPL. If you link dynamically, it's a legal grey area and nobody knows, but most people think it's ok.

    9. Re:Really a violation? by lingon · · Score: 1

      Well, to be perfectly honest, Linus has explicitly stated that it is ok, no matter what the GPL says. Even though he doesn't have copyright on the entire kernel code, nobody who is doing mainline kernel development seems to be arguing with him. Legally, it's probably a grey area.

    10. Re:Really a violation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why do people feel the need to invent their own interpretations of "What the GPL says" instead of just reading the damn license?

    11. Re:Really a violation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people think it's not OK, and the FSF thinks this AS well.

    12. Re:Really a violation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they didn't functionally change the source, why can't they say "here's the code" and just point to where they got it from.

      The gpl is what stops them from saying "here is the code over there". If you distribute gpl you are required to also provide access to the code yourself. You can't rely on someone else. For at least 12 months after you take the binary offline, the source still needs to be made available.

      If these things are separate executables or modular plugins, why can't they be closed source? Maybe I don't know all the technical details or all the nuances of the GPL, but this sounds more like...

      You don't know the technical details of GPL. There are two versions of the license, one called "lesser gpl" allows what you are suggesting and one just called "gpl" doesn't allow mixing gpl and non gpl code. They are the same otherwise, so it's clear you cannot mix plugins/etc without releasing all the code under gpl.

      Personally, I've worked with GPL a lot and I hate it. I would love to see all "copyleft" licenses kicked out of the open source community, especially GPL.

    13. Re:Really a violation? by ThosLives · · Score: 1

      I personally think even statically linking shouldn't make your product be a derivative work. An automobile is not a derivative product of the engine, even though the engine is "included" in the product.

      I think the terms used in the license related to linking should make this explicit: If you have a fixed dependency on this code such as static linking, then your product must also be GPL, because your product is including a copy of our work. If you link dynamically, then we can't care, because you're only relying on an API, and the courts have ruled that you can't copyright an API.

      What you would have to do if you distributed a work that's dynamically linked is provide source for all the dynamic libraries if you distribute those libraries with your source, because of their license, but if you just send the application and assume the user has appropriate libraries, then there can be no restriction on the application.

      This should be fairly obvious: there is no (and can be no) violation of Microsoft or Apple copyright with an application for Windows or MacOS, even though those applications most surely dynamically link to copyrighted libraries.

      Of course, most of this argument and personal opinion is based on logic, and I'm well aware that courts have no requirement to base their precedents on logic.

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    14. Re:Really a violation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a grey area. The gpl says you cannot link.

      Linus does not own the entire copyright so he can say whatever the fuck he wants - it is completely irrelevant. The gpl is what applies and it only takes a single contributor to get you in deep trouble if you link to gpl'd code without releasing your own code under gpl.

      For example, the VLC project released their app for iOS, apple approved it, then some random conteibutor sent a legal threat to apple - and apple immediately pulled it from the store. It doesn't matter what the VLC project guys say, it is GPL code and apple is not allowed to distribute it unless *every* copyright holder agrees to it. A single copyright holder sending a threatening letter is a pretty clear sign that at least one VLC contributor didn't want apple to distribute it.

    15. Re:Really a violation? by msauve · · Score: 1
      "I'm not sure XBian is wrong...If these things are separate executables or modular plugins, why can't they be closed source?"

      I tend to agree. The license isn't GPL, although the author's complaint speaks as if it is. In fact, the license never refers to source code, but has this vague requirement:

      IT should be noted that for components applicable to this license, any changes made MUST be made publicly available and free of charge.

      There's no requirement (as with the GPL) that additional components be made available. From the complaint of the Raspbmc author, indicating confusion about his own license, which isn't GPL, and doesn't require additions to be open sourced:

      This doesn't account for all source code however, such as their plugins, their method of building images or their updating scripts. Thus, XBian is not GPL compliant and does not release its entire source.

      In fact, the license specifically says such things don't fall under the license (assuming they're not modified versions of the Raspbmc ones):

      The following components of Raspbmc are licensed under this agreement:...Any other Raspbmc scripts, such as build scripts and helper scripts which are not sourced from an alternative source.

      (emphasis added)

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    16. Re:Really a violation? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I personally think even statically linking shouldn't make your product be a derivative work.

      Statically linking incorporates the work into your work, and that clearly is a derivative work.

      Dynamically linking is a bit hazier area, but what really is the difference? Your program can't function without their program. To the user, the result is precisely the same. GPL is about the rights of the user, not of the developer.

      An automobile is not a derivative product of the engine, even though the engine is "included" in the product.

      The engine is covered by patent law, not copyright law. You can copy any non-patented part of the engine and sell it. You only have to acquire a license to sell your own functional copies of a patented part which have not been changed somehow so as to avoid infringing on the patent. The design of the car applies to its overall style and that is copyrighted, so you can't use the car's likeness in a catalog without permission, though you can have it off in the background somewhere, not the focus of the image. However, you can sell reproduction body parts, provided that they are not somehow protected by patent. The actual blueprint of the vehicle is covered by copyright, but the vehicle itself is not, which is why it cannot be a derivative work of the engine, not for any other reason.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Really a violation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations, you are a CUNT!

    18. Re:Really a violation? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      You are wrong, for non-commercial use the GPL allows to just point to an upstream source if you used it unmodified.

      Not in general it doesn't, there are a few special cases but they don't seem to apply here.

      If you received a written offer of source then in some cases (for GPL2 it merely had to be noncommercial, for GPLv3 it has to be both noncommerical and occasional) you can supply a copy of that written offer of source but if that written offer never existed in the first place (which unless you received binaries on a physical medium it probablly didn't) then this isn't an option for you.

      GPLv3 gives you the option of pointing the user to a different place to download the source. However there are a number of strings attached. Firstly you have to provide "clear directions" to where the source can be found. Secondly it is your responsibility to ensure that said source remains available which means you are putting yourself at leagal risk if you rely on a server you have no contractual relationship with and hence could dissappear without notice. Furthermore GPLv2 DOES NOT give you this option, it specifically states that source and binary must be distributed from the "same place" and linux is still GPLv2 only.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    19. Re:Really a violation? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      These are people who think "fair use" means "I can do any damn thing I want with copyrighted content as long as I don't charge money for it".

      I agree that sometimes folks need to just read the license.

    20. Re:Really a violation? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The point of the LGPL is to explicitly clean up the legal mess about plug-ins, suggesting that software which isn't GPL'd can explicitly use those plug-ins and "libraries" which are licensed under the LGPL. Permission is explicitly granted for this kind of use.

      If you instead use the GPL instead of the LGPL, that sort of forces software which uses those libraries to also be GPL'd. MySQL used this sort of licensing scheme as a way to force you to use their alternative (and very proprietary) license for commercial products for a fee. You could use MySQL for non-commercial products or for things that used the GPL license as much as you wanted, but as soon as you used their software for products not using the GPL license (like a proprietary licensed product or something made by Microsoft... to give an example) you needed to purchase a separate license that even needed annual renewing.

      That is an interesting business model that sort of takes advantage of the GPL, allows for some independent development using a certain set of libraries, but does traditional software licensing when it is needed.

      As for the Linux kernel, that is a huge grey area. Linus Torvald may say it is OK to use ordinary proprietary licensed software on Linux, but Richard Stallman may beg to differ. Some parts of the kernel are LGPL'd, so it isn't a problem at all, but not all of it is that way. The LGPL and the GPL have some other subtle differences that can make a huge impact in situations like this.

    21. Re:Really a violation? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      GPL is about the rights of the user, not of the developer.

      No, the GPL is about the rights of somebody trying to distribute software. It is a distribution license, not an EULA. What an individual user can actually do with GPL'd software is not even covered at all, including reverse engineering, modifications, or how it is used if even as placemats for dinner.

      The only thing the GPL covers is what happens if you want to give a copy of the software covered under the GPL to somebody else. Normally most companies simply say you can't redistribute the software and that is the end of it. The GPL instead spells out specific conditions that must be met if you engage in that practice.

      Then again, you can opt instead for something like the CC0 license. If that had been done, this whole mess wouldn't even be remotely a problem. I've offered some of my software under this license when I thought it was appropriate.

    22. Re:Really a violation? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No, the GPL is about the rights of somebody trying to distribute software. It is a distribution license, not an EULA.

      The GPL is about the rights of the user, and the way it attempts to secure those rights is to use copyright to control who may distribute the work and under what terms.

      What an individual user can actually do with GPL'd software is not even covered at all, including reverse engineering, modifications, or how it is used if even as placemats for dinner.

      That is very much the point. The idea of the GPL is to preserve those rights for users.

      The only thing the GPL covers is what happens if you want to give a copy of the software covered under the GPL to somebody else.

      Yes, and it does that in such a way as to protect the freedoms of users by making sure that the users (the recipients of the binary code) can get the source code. And now, also that they can do something with it. The purpose of the GPL is to secure freedoms for the user, and it uses copyright because it works more or less everywhere.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:Really a violation? by Procyon101 · · Score: 1

      It is kind of grey. The GPL says you cannot link, but in doing so it is governing usage, not copying, which could be considered outside of the copyright holder's jurisdiction. They are defining what it is to be a derivative work, which isn't something a copyright holder can necessarily do. They can have an *opinion* as to what defines a derivative work, and the FSF certainly does have a strong opinion on that. Someone can of course disagree with that opinion and link anyway. Personally, I sure as hell don't want to be the one defending the opposing opinion against the FSF in a court of law, so your interpretation is by far the safer one.

    24. Re:Really a violation? by Procyon101 · · Score: 1

      > and the courts have ruled that you can't copyright an API.

      Not to my knowledge. In the Oracle v. Google case the judge specifically avoided ruling on this. Non-expressive API's should be okay for some vague notion of non-expression.

    25. Re:Really a violation? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      The point of the LGPL is to explicitly clean up the legal mess about plug-ins, suggesting that software which isn't GPL'd can explicitly use those plug-ins and "libraries" which are licensed under the LGPL. Permission is explicitly granted for this kind of use.

      And it means that at very least FSF intended to have such distinction, so GPL does not include and never intended to include permission to link object code into non-GPL software.

      The only possible question is that if copyright law itself considers results of linking a derived work, thus enabling to make such distinction. And the answer is yes.

      If you instead use the GPL instead of the LGPL, that sort of forces software which uses those libraries to also be GPL'd. MySQL used this sort of licensing scheme as a way to force you to use their alternative (and very proprietary) license for commercial products for a fee.

      This has nothing to do with GPL and everything with MySQL.

      As for the Linux kernel, that is a huge grey area. Linus Torvald may say it is OK to use ordinary proprietary licensed software on Linux,

      This only applies to in-kernel proprietary software (what at this point means, NVIDIA and AMD graphics drivers). It's Linus who licensed kernel, so only his intentions matter if there is any doubt. Someone who wrote software, distributed it under GPL, then found it re-used in Linux kernel and decided that he disagrees with use of his software in a manner Linus considers acceptable, may have a valid complaint against Linus' interpretation, however such a thing never happened, and is unlikely to happen, so it's a moot point.

      but Richard Stallman may beg to differ.

      Richard Stallman never intended to prevent proprietary software from being used on free operating systems, and there is nothing in GPL, LGPL or any statements from Stallman or FSF to express such intention. Stallman dislikes proprietary software, and would prefer that it didn't exist in the first place, but mere dislike does not prohibit people from using it. I am sure, Theo de Raadt does not like the idea of baby mulching machines, either.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    26. Re:Really a violation? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      My point in bringing up the Linux Kernel is that some contributions to the kernel are strictly GPL'd, yet software using Linux must by necessity access functions in the kernel to perform basic tasks normally assigned to an operating system. As such they are linking to those functions and technically in violation of the GPL.

      Most kernel functions are LGPL'd, so it isn't that big of a deal most of the time. For those that aren't, it becomes something of non-enforcement of the LGPL.

      Richard Stallman matters so far as he helped to author the LGPL and is active in the "or later version" drafts of both the GPL and LGPL.

    27. Re:Really a violation? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      My point in bringing up the Linux Kernel is that some contributions to the kernel are strictly GPL'd, yet software using Linux must by necessity access functions in the kernel to perform basic tasks normally assigned to an operating system. As such they are linking to those functions and technically in violation of the GPL.

      Userspace software does not link with kernel, and does not call functions in kernel. It doesn't even use kernel headers. System call are performed through macros that are a part of libc, and syscall format is completely unrelated to the C function call convention.

      Most kernel functions are LGPL'd

      No, they are not. Syscall macros and wrappers (both in libc) are.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  19. WTF is Xbian supposed to be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    A sentence stating that Xbian was supposed to be an XBMC port to the Raspberry Pi would probably have been too much.

    1. Re:WTF is Xbian supposed to be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Xbian and RaspbMC are competing distributions based off Crystalbuntu to run on a $35 Raspberry Pi board.

      http://www.raspberrypi.org/faqs
      http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title=Crystalbuntu

    2. Re:WTF is Xbian supposed to be? by jabberw0k · · Score: 1

      Gotta love projects whose homepage (judging on Google's cache) have not a word of explanation of what they are. For that matter, what is XBMC? If your website does not explain, in 25 words or fewer, what it's talking about, that's a good sign that you haven't a clue what you are doing.

  20. Re:GPL Kerfuffle by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    Hell I'm in the middle of the deep south and even i knew those words and kerfuffle is used down here as well. I think some words just end up common language, like putz or schmuck.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  21. Arbitrary. by neoshroom · · Score: 1

    That's sort of a silly requirement since any programmer can easily create a separate executable that interfaces with any DLL and then post messages between two executables, which does the exact same thing.

    In other words, everything on a computer is at some level connected to everything else. Divisions between executables and DLLs are rather arbitrary, especially since with the source of both, it is trivial to make one into another. No program is an island.

    --
    Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
  22. WTF is XBMC supposed to be? by Frankie70 · · Score: 1

    I have no idea.

  23. Re:Long story short by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forked in the arse, and you're to blame!
    You give FLOSS a bad name!

  24. I will bite, WTF is xbian? by ukoda · · Score: 1

    Am I the only person you wants to know what xbian is? A single sentence description would be nice, rather that lots of links to a single dead site. How can this be news if the xbian is so unimportant, what ever it is, that it doesn't even have a wiki page?

    1. Re:I will bite, WTF is xbian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Xbain and RaspBMC are competing distributions based off Crystalbuntu to run on a $35 Raspberry Pi board.

      http://www.raspberrypi.org/faqs
      http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title=Crystalbuntu

  25. Re:GPL Kerfuffle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you mean Obi Wan Kenobi.

    Do you even have a geek card to hand in?

  26. Re:GPL Kerfuffle by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

    maybe you should learn to english

    --
    This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
  27. Re:GPL Kerfuffle by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

    double posting for awesome: why should he take your ignorance into account?

    --
    This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
  28. XBians Story by eNORm · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is the case from XBians side:
    http://frambozentaart.com/xbian/sotu.html

    To summarize:

    1. XBian did NOT steal code.
    2. XBian DOES live up to the LGPL license.
    3. XBian is doing everything possible to get everything solved.

    1. Re:XBians Story by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Informative

      But if you are redistributing GPL code, even code that you have not modified, you must distribute the source for the GPL code too. You can't just say "get it from Debian".

    2. Re:XBians Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not? If I download AOSP and compile it for a handset, and mode no changes, why can't I just link to google's AOSP site. I think git even works that way to link to other repositories. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

      Second, Xbian has said that a user on their forums was the one that uploaded this questionable installer. Raspbmc then asked for them to remove the dropbox link to the installer but they couldn't do that since it was not a release from xbian but from a user (if you believe the xbian side of the story.).

      Also on raspbmc, Sam says that permission was needed to use the code, but if it's gpl'd then they do not need permission as the GPL license makes it free for everyone to use, distribute, and change.

    3. Re:XBians Story by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      Why not? If I download AOSP and compile it for a handset, and mode no changes, why can't I just link to google's AOSP site. I think git even works that way to link to other repositories. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

      Second, Xbian has said that a user on their forums was the one that uploaded this questionable installer. Raspbmc then asked for them to remove the dropbox link to the installer but they couldn't do that since it was not a release from xbian but from a user (if you believe the xbian side of the story.).

      Also on raspbmc, Sam says that permission was needed to use the code, but if it's gpl'd then they do not need permission as the GPL license makes it free for everyone to use, distribute, and change.

      that would be ok if you just provided patches and the end user would get them(or use a program) to combine them into a working binary.

      but if you're redistributing the binary, you're responsible to redistribute the sources that went into making it(though, at least it used to be that you had to publish the license along with the binary and if someone _asked_ you had to provide the source??).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:XBians Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes you can as long as you are very careful to stay non-commercial.
      Also a link to the souce code at yhe same place as the binary is considered distributing together, that should apply even when the source is on a different server.
      Of course I don't really see the point of not just hosting the source, too.

    5. Re:XBians Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False; there is no such exemption for non commercial distribution.

      see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient

    6. Re:XBians Story by lingon · · Score: 2

      Why not? If I download AOSP and compile it for a handset, and mode no changes, why can't I just link to google's AOSP site.

      Because it's not up to you, the GPL license text explicitly covers this scenario in section 3, specifically section 3.c. You are only allowed to say "go get it at Debian" for non-commercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer. "Such an offer" refers to if Debian has given you a written offer as stated in section 3.b: "Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code,[..]"

    7. Re:XBians Story by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Such patches would need to be under a GPL-compatible license.

    8. Re:XBians Story by MSG · · Score: 1

      First, AOSP isn't GPL for the most part. Aside from the Linux kernel, you're dealing mostly with the Apache 2.0 license, which includes different terms for distribution.

      Second, the GPL license requires you to distribute the source if you distribute compiled object code. If you build and distribute, you are obligated to also distribute source. Those are the terms. A related issue was actually one of the motivations of the GPL v3. Under 2, you were obligated to distribute source if you distribute object code. There was some concern that those terms technically made BitTorrent distribution of GNU/Linux systems a violation of the license terms. The terms of GPL v3 clarified this and allowed simple redistribution.

    9. Re:XBians Story by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      Yes you can as long as you are very careful to stay non-commercial.

      Not true. Debian, being a flavour of Linux, is distributed under GPLv2. GPLv2 states that, if you have a written offer to make the sources available to you for three years, you can effectively forward the offer to the people you distribute it to, provided its for non commercial purposes. It's unlikely that anybody who uses Debian has such a written offer if they just downloaded it off the Internet.

      Also a link to the souce code at yhe same place as the binary is considered distributing together

      This is a bit ambiguous. If you mean putting a copy of the Debian source on your download server counts, then yes. If you mean just having a URL that points at Debian's server, then no, it's not good enough.

      that should apply even when the source is on a different server.

      Wrong if the "different server" is Debian's. The reason why this is so should be obvious: Debian cannot be held responsible under the terms of the GPL for software that you got from somewhere else.

      Of course I don't really see the point of not just hosting the source, too.

      Neither do I. It's the easiest way to fulfil the terms of the GPL.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  29. The story is crap by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The summary is two lines and doesn't explain what the referenced projects are about (and it's not something that you would know by default).

    It's also factually wrong, since - reading the linked content - the dispute is specifically over XBian installer, which was packaged and posted by a forum member not otherwise associated with the project, and the offending bit is said installer. The post had a link to Dropbox where the actual installer file resides. The original author who claims LGPL violation demanded that the post be taken down, which it was.

    Why this is even a front page story is beyond my understanding.

    1. Re:The story is crap by csumpi · · Score: 1

      It's just another reason to mention the Raspberry Pi (Slashvertising).

  30. Probably is a GPL violation by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative
    The license text referred to indicates a poor understanding of licenses and law. It's what we generally refer to as a "crayon" license. The term "crayon" is referring to a Monty Python sketch about a dog license with the word "dog" crossed out and "cat" written in in crayon.

    The bottom line is that the stuff you wrote is probably derivative of other code, which you say is "exempt" from your license, but that's not enough, you must use a GPL-compatible license. And I don't see from that license text that you would understand what was derivative and what was not.

    1. Re:Probably is a GPL violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I meant to say was that Xbian has not violated the license on any GPL code which raspbmc holds the copyright on, because all code which raspbmc holds copyright on is distributed under a license which is not GPL compatible. I agree that it is highly likely that both Xbian and raspbmc are violating the GPL license with regards to other software they both distribute.

    2. Re:Probably is a GPL violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you've missed the point. This is the license which covers the software which was allegedly stolen. There cannot be a GPL violation where there is no GPL software.

    3. Re:Probably is a GPL violation by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I think you've missed the point. This is the license which covers the software which was allegedly stolen. There cannot be a GPL violation where there is no GPL software.

      No, you've missed the point. If the works are derivatives of GPL works then they must be GPL'd themselves. FTFL, "YOU are granted the usage of Raspbmc under the conditions set within this license". That suggests the question, what is Raspbmc? If we scroll down a bit we see the following:

      The following components of Raspbmc are licensed under this agreement:

      - The Update System
      - The Raspbmc website and logo
      - Any other Raspbmc scripts, such as build scripts and helper scripts which are not sourced from an alternative source.

      The Raspbmc update system is a handful of scripts. The website and logo were not included; the logo was replaced. Then there's the build and helper scripts. The installer is never mentioned. The scripts may well be required to be GPL, if they turn out to be derivatives of GPL works themselves. It is not clear what license the installer is covered by!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Probably is a GPL violation by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I think you've missed the point. This is the license which covers the software which was allegedly stolen. There cannot be a GPL violation where there is no GPL software.

      No, you've missed the point. If the works are derivatives of GPL works then they must be GPL'd themselves. FTFL, "YOU are granted the usage of Raspbmc under the conditions set within this license".

      This particular license for Raspbmc is attempting to rewrite the terms and conditions of the GPL for at least their extensions. After a fashion that may be reasonable, but the problem is that they are redistributing that software including GPL'd software using that mixed license software. In effect it terminates the distribution rights for Raspbmc in terms of any GPL'd software.

      The work-around is to make everything available under the GPL and be done with it, or stop distribution.

      This whole thing seems to be incredibly laughable as it looks like a bunch of guys who don't take license seriously until they get their noses out of joint, and are just now trying to play catch up but slamming each other in the process.

    5. Re:Probably is a GPL violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another person who has missed the point. Raspbmc is not the software which has been accused of GPL violation, so whether it is in compliance or not is totally irrelevant to TFA.

  31. Re:GPL Kerfuffle by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

    There's an ancient Vulcan proverb: Only Nixon could go to China.

  32. Re:GPL Kerfuffle by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    Scots, not Gaelic.

  33. Re:GPL Kerfuffle by metallurge · · Score: 1

    No. You misheard. Indiana Jones seemed to have caught a bit of a sniffle . But it's easily misunderstood, what with the scots accent and all.

    The reference

  34. A cautionary tale... by Genda · · Score: 1

    Listening to the sides I'm left with an overwhelming feeling that someone (whose project starts with an 'X'), got lazy, took short cuts, rationalized a whole bunch of cheesy decisions as within the spirit of Open Source, if not in fact by the letter. This is a cautionary tale of how people find themselves in a tight spot by cutting corners. You start with 100% integrity and everything is plugging along like gangbusters. But its a lotta work, and you're a busy guy, so you shave a few points, because hell, who's gonna notice. So now you're running at 96%, but that's still great, you're playing with way more integrity than a lot of guys out there and you're proud that for the most part your work is solid. Only that 96%, becomes your new 100%, and before long, you figure hell it worked fine last time so I'll shave a few more points and cut a few more corners. Before long you running at 7% integrity, nothing is happening when you say it will, or if it does its because you lied, cheated and stole to do it. Worse when someone confronts what a sleaze you've been, you have to demonize them. because you've built this who complicated rational to justify all the cheesy crap you've been pulling.

    By the way, any one of us could get all preachy, but this behavior is as human as squirting our young'ns. Common as dirt. So, at one level, our intrepid slacker can say, hey, everyone else is doing it, and he's pretty much right. Only its why things suck in the world. No integrity. Not even like integrity as a moral state, but simple integrity like functional, complete, workable. Our political leaders, corporations, school administrators, dedicatedly self devoted are all cutting corners. Pointing fingers and exclaiming, well I'm not as bad as he or she is, and only a tight-ass would care anyway, right?

    Being a person of integrity is like being pregnant. You are or you aren't. Do whatever little monkey dance you want to camouflage your behavior to high heaven, what you did was cheesy, then you tried to cover it up, then you tried to work around it, and finally you white washed it with jailhouse lawyering, and still, not a bit of it washes, not a bit of comes clean. The answer is you stop and begin doing the right thing. You honor the GPL. You acknowledge the code author. You share your source. You do it straight by the numbers. Or you don't, but don't try to justify yourself, just be honest and admit you're lazy and a little bit larcenous. There are worse things. Right?

    1. Re:A cautionary tale... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      For people who are being lazy with the GPL, often the best course of action is just to insist that they get back up to 100%.

      I've had people do that to me in various locations where I've worked with open source content and it has helped. It does become a bit of an educational process, particularly compared to what happens in private business where the level of integrity is close to 0% and stuff like licenses or even concern about copyright is something that is left for the lawyers to figure out how to resolve including purchasing licenses when necessary to make things legal.

      When it comes to the GPL, it shocks lawyers because they suddenly find a licensing issue that money can't gloss over and fix. Their usual reaction in a commercial software situation is to stay away from GPL'd software as a contagious disease that should never be let into the company.

      What I also see here is that the folks who were upset didn't even let a reasonable amount of time pass to resolve this issue. If you are out of compliance with something like the GPL, it takes more than a few minutes to get back into compliance. That doesn't mean you should take a year or more to resolve the situation, and perhaps temporarily taking down your software that is out of compliance may be a reasonable solution until you get back into compliance, but getting your panties into a bunch when action isn't immediately taken is also unreasonable.

  35. Re:Cromulent by pr0nbot · · Score: 2

    For your use of the word cromulent, may I offer you my most enthusiastic contrafibularities!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOSYiT2iG08

  36. Re:GPL Kerfuffle by donaldm · · Score: 1

    So, Han Solo was feeling a kerfuffle?

    No, Obi Wan, Luke and Leia can as can all the Jedis and Siths, however Han Solo can cause a kerfuffle as demonstrated by his hasty departure from Tatooine :)

    --
    There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
  37. That's a right copyright gives to the owner. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason why "Not even Microsoft does this" is because they don't have to SAY they do this. They just do it.

    Every time you click "I agree" you're agreeing to a license that can, and often IS, different from the one you agreed to when getting the original.

    It seems like you have a problem with copyright, not with the GPL.

    Join the club with RMS.

    1. Re:That's a right copyright gives to the owner. by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Microsoft changes their terms of service, no doubt. But the terms of service that you agree to when you click on the "I agree" button are what you have agreed to and can't change if you go into litigation. If you update the software often there will be a new contract which you much "agree" to in order to install the software update, but that is also when the terms change. So no, Microsoft doesn't just change the terms arbitrarily.... you know when they change and you must agree to those changes first. That few people ever bother to read what those changes actually are is a travesty, but the opportunity to read those changes to the terms is always presented including the ability to reject such changes.

      What this clause says essentially is that the terms of the agreement can change at any time at their discretion with no limit. That means the terms can be anything they want and those terms can even change (in theory) even in the middle of a trial and certainly the day before they decide to shut down anybody else using their software. It is such an open ended clause that it might as well simply say "All rights reserved" and be done with it.

      Actually "all rights reserved" would be a much more honest approach to a license of this nature. At least you would understand that any duplication of content under such a license gives you absolutely no rights for redistribution.

      The "evil" part of what Microsoft throws into their EULA is that they feel they can go beyond controlling redistribution and immunity from indemnification if their software causes problems with your computer and moves into attempts to control what you can and can't do with their software as an end-user... moving beyond copyright law to pure contract law. The GPL, on the other hand, demands no contract but it does give terms and conditions for how you may be permitted to perform redistribution.

      This particular license for the boot loader goes well beyond even controlling redistribution but also can be used to control how the end user even operates their computer and other practices that make the Microsoft EULA seem tame in comparison. It doesn't matter if it isn't being used in this fashion, just that it could be done that way. No matter what way you cut it, this particular boot loader license is no by any stretch of the imagination an open source license and it should never be seen as one either. It is also poorly worded in a number of ways that I don't think would hold up in court, but then that would simply throw out the license altogether and turn it into a pure copyright situation.

      In other words, all the author needed to say was simply "All Rights Reserved". I wonder why this author decided to get fancy?

  38. Re:GPL Kerfuffle by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    If I have to google a term, don't use it in a post title.

    FTFY (Fixed That For You)

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  39. Re:Cromulent by 19061969 · · Score: 2

    I bet you're anaspeptic, phrasmotic, even compunctious to have cause such pericombobulation.

    --
    bang goes my karma... again...
  40. Assholes by fa2k · · Score: 1

    The blog post seems well thought out, but it's still an asshole move to have the other site taken down.

    Unfortunately, I tried to talk to the author Koen Kanters about this and avoid this situation, but he did not leave much choice

    AFAICT, the choice was to leave the site up and go public or go to someone like FSF, or to play hardball and take it down. The other guy seems like an amateur who doesn't like dealing with legal issues, and thus comes off as an asshole too.

    Also, I find it hard to sympathise with someone who uses "stolen" to describe unauthorised copying (or should I just give up on that one?)

  41. Re:GPL Kerfuffle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's no reason to make such a kerfuffle about ordinary English.

  42. Re:Cromulent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When this conversation comes up, someone always makes this post. and it's always modded funny. an "in joke" isn't funny for its own sake. This stopped being funny a decade ago.

  43. Re:GPL Kerfuffle by nashv · · Score: 1
    --
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
  44. Re:GPL Kerfuffle by JabberWokky · · Score: 1

    I always mean what I say and say what I mean.

    --
    "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  45. Can still get Xbian for Ras Pi on torrent by Cito · · Score: 1

    For those that are interested or whatnot

    you can still get it on torrent