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."

Comments

Re:GPL Kerfuffle

[Anonymous Coward]

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

While I'm very against GPL violations

[Omnifarious]

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.

Re:While I'm very against GPL violations

[FrangoAssado]

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.

Re:GPL Kerfuffle

[Omnifarious]

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

Re:Dumb Link Award

[Omnifarious]

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

Re:Dumb Link Award

[wierd_w]

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*

Re:Cromulent

[stms]

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

NOT a GPL violation

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Re:GPL Kerfuffle

[Attila Dimedici]

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

Re:Dumb Link Award

[hairyfeet]

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.

Really a violation?

[neoshroom]

"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.

Probably is a GPL violation

[Bruce Perens]

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.

Re:Permission not needed

[Bruce Perens]

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.