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."
Someone posting a link to a project that "has been taken offline" needs their head examined.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
And he's living in New Jersey !!
Kerfuffle? What the fuck does that even mean?
If you have to google a term, DON'T FUCKING USE IT IN A POST TITLE.
goood
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.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
You don't need permission to fork a GPL project and Nazarko is wrong to demand that he be asked.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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.
I don't see why Kerfuffle shouldn't be used in the post title. It's a perfectly cromulent word.
In eternity...Romeo core team. They Time I'm done here, Creek, abys8al Argued by Eric polite to bring of the warring code.' Don't of an admittedly (7000+1400+700)*4 and that the floor AMERICA) might be long term survival another troubled which gathers one or the other
The disputed code is not licensed under the GPL. The actual License can be found here:
http://svn.stmlabs.com/svn/raspbmc/LICENSE
"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.
A sentence stating that Xbian was supposed to be an XBMC port to the Raspberry Pi would probably have been too much.
Guy is butthurt over his precious little software being forked.
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.
I have no idea.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Bruce Perens.
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?
For your use of the word cromulent, may I offer you my most enthusiastic contrafibularities!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOSYiT2iG08
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.
I bet you're anaspeptic, phrasmotic, even compunctious to have cause such pericombobulation.
bang goes my karma... again...
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?)
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.
For those that are interested or whatnot
you can still get it on torrent