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."
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.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Actually, it's of Gaelic/Scots origin and means "disturbance in the force"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kerfuffle
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
OH NOES! I've been forced to expand my vocabulary! The pain in my head is killing me, please make it stop!
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
You can't fool us. This story is a giant troll to get your ridiculous username in front of as many people as possible.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
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*
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.
I don't see why Kerfuffle shouldn't be used in the post title. It's a perfectly cromulent word.
Much like the Jabberwocky poem, you don't need to know what it means to know what it means.
Nuked it from orbit.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
The disputed code is not licensed under the GPL. The actual License can be found here:
http://svn.stmlabs.com/svn/raspbmc/LICENSE
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
Stop spreading FUD.
The theme violated was failure to include complete source code. Attribution is a CC/BSD thing.
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
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
For your use of the word cromulent, may I offer you my most enthusiastic contrafibularities!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOSYiT2iG08
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.
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.
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.
I bet you're anaspeptic, phrasmotic, even compunctious to have cause such pericombobulation.
bang goes my karma... again...
GPLv2 absolutely, always, without exception requires attribution. You just don't know what attribution is.
Bruce Perens.
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.
Bruce Perens.
When a copyright holder puts the statement:
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.
Bruce Perens.