Slashdot Mirror
XBian's Koenkk Replies To the XBian/RaspBMC Flap
New submitter juenger1701 writes "Xbian's developer Koenkk has posted a reply to the code stealing accusations mentioned here Friday." In response, Sam Nazarko of Raspbmc has replaced his earlier complaint, "on the agreement that XBian participate with compliance of the GPL." Koenkk makes the case that his project has always complied with the GPL.
That summary was like reading the Warsaw telephone directory.
Koenkk makes the case that his project has always complied with the GPL.
Many moons ago, when the internet was young and fresh, and wild UNIX admins roamed freely, there was a thing called Usenet, and on this thing called Usenet, was a relatively new problem called Spam. And much of this Spam came from a particular ISP. And as Usenet back in those days was a community-run entity, there was much discussion about how to resolve this problem. E-mails sent to the ISP were met with silence, or with "not our problem." And the Spam continued. One day, after there had been a much-heated debate, a vote was held, and it was declared the ISP (AT&T), would be given the ultimate punishment: The Usenet death sentence.
It was rarely carried out, and even the elders recall only a handful of times when an ISP had earned its place amongst the killfiles of the wild UNIX admins of old. And so the call went out: At midnight, the killfiles would be updated, and AT&T would be purged henceforth from the world of Usenet. And word of this spread, and yet the giant still slumbered, refusing to do anything. And it was seen that the death sentence was good, and so all waited for it to come to pass.
Suddenly, in the final minutes of the final hour, an e-mail appeared from the beligerant ISP! It read, simply, "We do not have a problem, and we are working as quickly as possible to fix it." And thus was it seen for the first time on the internet how corporations deal with these sorts of problems. And ever since, whensoever a cry went up in an internet community that called for the end of access for a corporation, thus has been the response... by tradition, only uttered in the final minutes, of the final hour.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Umm, wut?
So far, the communications I see on this issue don't come from people who appear to understand all of what they're required to do. And the licenses used by these folks on their own work aren't even close to Open Source.
I think this community needs to go back to the Debian core it started with, and add to that whatever optimizations and installers are necessary without the crayon licenses.
Bruce Perens.
more nerd sissy fights
no one even knew what this was before they started their PMS, and no one cares today
For GPL and LGPL licenses the source code must be provided by the _distributor_, it doesn't matter whether you modified it or not.
All I got from that reply was :
"We dont have source code for the installer, we dont know whats in it ergo we are not breaking any licenses. Maybe theres a pot of gold inside, or a MALWARE and a botnet , we dont know, we dont care, we only distribute this binary lalalaa"
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
No you can't just take it and use it any way you like. Your obligations are fully spelled out in the license so there is absolutely no excuse for Koenkk not complying, particularly after being reminded of the obligation. His actions say all there is to say. If he keeps talking, he'll just make it worse.
This isn't news. They have fixed the "problem". If they had made any changes and distributed the binary without source this might be a problem. They didn't make changes though and pointing to the source is little different than handing it on a platter from there own web site. If you are really that obsessed with getting it from them because technically maybe it requires them to put it on there own servers you have a serious problem.
This is in no way a free software issue. It's nitpicking over the details. The only thing that might have made this an issue is if they got the source code from a party which does not distribute it publicly and then linked to it. For instance I believe Oracle has done such things. If you took that source which only you have access to as it is required under the GPL, compiled it, and shipped the binary. You can't then go point to a site that the user doesn't have access to. There are permissions within the license which allow you to charge a reasonable fee for production of the source. They did need to indicate somewhere to be technically compliant that the source code was available on request. Actually having the source code published is NOT required.
With the tradition of world's biggest mobile and electronic companies suing each other over patents.
Another 10 years from now, this will be remembered as the day when the same tradition came to Open Source Software *sigh*.
If you are really that obsessed with getting it from them because technically maybe it requires them to put it on there own servers you have a serious problem.
Well, GNU has a serious problem with people not putting it on their own servers.
The only thing that might have made this an issue is if they got the source code from a party which does not distribute it publicly and then linked to it.
Wrong, and also wrong. See above link.
Actually having the source code published is NOT required.
And, wrong again. But don't take my word for it, follow my link above and let the FSF explain it to you in a FAQ that you should read before making such idiotic statements, whoever you are besides a coward.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Well, know I know why you posted your idiotic drivel as an AC... so you could abuse your modpoints
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"