[j1nx]

The biggest value kodi has, is our users and those we need to backup.

You miss the fact that a majority of your current userbase does not want to be protected and use KODI as they want it to be used.

KODI != Apple

[fritsch]

The biggest value kodi has, is our users and those we need to backup.

You miss the fact that a majority of your current userbase does not want to be protected and use KODI as they want it to be used.

KODI != Apple

Doing support for raspberry pi people _daily_ I see that fully different. And RPi is one of the largest user group kodi currently has. And btw. this would be the good thing with such a cert: users that don't want to be protected don't buy it. Users that need backup, can make their right choice.

Would be a win, win? wouldn't it?

[Kib]

If you ask me, the trademark policy is just silly. Only usefull if XBMC Foundation starts distributing software themselves and then you need a whole lot of money to have some decent world-coverage.

The reason for the Trademark policy is that people sell boxes using our name and logo, and stating stuff like "Kodi was made to stream illegal videos", "Kodi is software created to allow you to not pay for television".
This is a) untrue and b) potentially hurts the future of the project.

[fritsch]

As I have to leave now, final question @Robotica:

Would would you answer a friend, that asks you if he should buy one of j1nx's boxes? Would you say: go ahead or would you warn that friend?

[Robotica]

The biggest value kodi has, is our users and those we need to backup. So we would - at the end - have some solutions (amongst others), that users could buy painless?

Again - I _asked_ that question three posts above and emphasized on the idea j1nx came up with Microsoft. So - what is your suggestion to make buying a box preinstalled with kodi more safe for average joe?

Again, you can't control free software and it's forks. GPL only covers the redistribution rights and not all aspects related to ownership. All privileges that the copyright law entitles a dev to, are given away by him by using the GPL. Even trademarks can't change this. However, you can create certified Kodi-boxes but it won't solve the free-rider problem. That's the beauty of the GPL: it's business unfriendly due to lack of control.

apples and oranges...

[Kib]

No, the box itself is NOT illegal.

Men verkoopt een toestel om illegaal films te bekijken. Dat is op zichzelf niet verboden. In de uiting doet men echter aan de consument voorkomen alsof een en ander volstrekt legaal is, dit ten onrechte. Klager wijst in dit verband op de tekst:

Yes, downloading is illegal. And streaming is considered the same as downloading. Because of that it is illegal to say that streaming is legal and therefor he is wrongly advertise the box.

And you do the exact same thing on your own website.
But worse, you use our trademarked brand and logo to do it.

[Robotica]

As I have to leave now, final question @Robotica:

Would would you answer a friend, that asks you if he should buy one of j1nx's boxes? Would you say: go ahead or would you warn that friend?

No, I think those boxes are a rip-off but it's not my concern and not under my control. And yes, I have a similar position as any other person on this planet.

[fritsch]

The biggest value kodi has, is our users and those we need to backup. So we would - at the end - have some solutions (amongst others), that users could buy painless?

Again - I _asked_ that question three posts above and emphasized on the idea j1nx came up with Microsoft. So - what is your suggestion to make buying a box preinstalled with kodi more safe for average joe?

Again, you can't control free software and it's forks. GPL only covers the redistribution rights and not all aspects related to ownership. All privileges that the copyright law entitles a dev to, are given away by him by using the GPL. Even trademarks can't change this. However, you can create certified Kodi-boxes but it won't solve the free-rider problem. That's the beauty of the GPL: it's business unfriendly due to lack of control.

apples and oranges...

Okay - then we could at least say: Sorry, we did not know that selling such a box brought into certain trouble. Next time, please contact use via the hardware forum in advance. Here is a link with some boxes, we reviewed that are "safe" to buy - for better impression next time.

[fritsch]

As I have to leave now, final question @Robotica:

Would would you answer a friend, that asks you if he should buy one of j1nx's boxes? Would you say: go ahead or would you warn that friend?

No, I think those boxes are a rip-off but it's not my concern and not under my control. And yes, I have a similar position as any other person on this planet.

Oki - we also need something - to give our users a helping hand in advance. Perhaps we could make a sticky topic on kodi.tv frontpage or list some ebay rip offs in order to explain those issues.

[j1nx]

Doing support for raspberry pi people _daily_ I see that fully different. And RPi is one of the largest user group kodi currently has. And btw. this would be the good thing with such a cert: users that don't want to be protected don't buy it. Users that need backup, can make their right choice.

Would be a win, win? wouldn't it?

Don't get me wrong. I am not discouriging it, I just thik it is pointless without commercial reasons backing it up.

As I have to leave now, final question @Robotica:

Would would you answer a friend, that asks you if he should buy one of j1nx's boxes? Would you say: go ahead or would you warn that friend?

Don't use my site as Kib is right below about me breaking trademark. But DITisTV isn't.

No, the box itself is NOT illegal.

Men verkoopt een toestel om illegaal films te bekijken. Dat is op zichzelf niet verboden. In de uiting doet men echter aan de consument voorkomen alsof een en ander volstrekt legaal is, dit ten onrechte. Klager wijst in dit verband op de tekst:

Yes, downloading is illegal. And streaming is considered the same as downloading. Because of that it is illegal to say that streaming is legal and therefor he is wrongly advertise the box.

And you do the exact same thing on your own website. No I am not
But worse, you use our trademarked brand and logo to do it.

You are right. I will just call it "J1nxOS" and somewhere in small letters mention it is actually XBMC/Kodi and linking to github

[Robotica]

Doing support for raspberry pi people _daily_ I see that fully different. And RPi is one of the largest user group kodi currently has. And btw. this would be the good thing with such a cert: users that don't want to be protected don't buy it. Users that need backup, can make their right choice.

Would be a win, win? wouldn't it?

Don't get me wrong. I am not discouriging it, I just thik it is pointless without commercial reasons backing it up.

As I have to leave now, final question @Robotica:

Would would you answer a friend, that asks you if he should buy one of j1nx's boxes? Would you say: go ahead or would you warn that friend?

Don't use my site as Kib is right below about me breaking trademark. But DITisTV isn't.

No, the box itself is NOT illegal.


Yes, downloading is illegal. And streaming is considered the same as downloading. Because of that it is illegal to say that streaming is legal and therefor he is wrongly advertise the box.

And you do the exact same thing on your own website. No I am not
But worse, you use our trademarked brand and logo to do it.

You are right. I will just call it "J1nxOS" and somewhere in small letters mention it is actually XBMC/Kodi and linking to github

I even think those trademarks are just US and not EU. I don't know this but having 5 or 6 trademarks in US and EU is very, very costly while offering nada.

[Robotica]

As I have to leave now, final question @Robotica:

Would would you answer a friend, that asks you if he should buy one of j1nx's boxes? Would you say: go ahead or would you warn that friend?

No, I think those boxes are a rip-off but it's not my concern and not under my control. And yes, I have a similar position as any other person on this planet.

Oki - we also need something - to give our users a helping hand in advance. Perhaps we could make a sticky topic on kodi.tv frontpage or list some ebay rip offs in order to explain those issues.

Fighting this is like bringing sand to the beach. Only effective measure would be to build in a validation mechanism for trusted sources. But that's nothing different then DRM or secure boot. Again, such measures are against GPL principles.

[fritsch]

Then I think, we end up with a: "Take care, when buying preinstalled boxes. Check the hw forum for reviews and known issues first. Remember Kodi is always free of charge".

[j1nx]

* This Program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
* any later version.
*
* This Program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
* GNU General Public License for more details.

But I am not allowed to mention the software it's name otherwise I break the Trademark policy.

By not allowing me to state the name if I changed it, doesn't the Trademark forces me to break the copyright?
I get it.

[Robotica]

* This Program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
* any later version.
*
* This Program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
* GNU General Public License for more details.

But I am not allowed to mention the software it's name otherwise I break the Trademark policy.

By not allowing me to state the name if I changed it, doesn't the Trademark forces me to break the copyright?
I get it.

Yes, that trademark policy is crazy. It tries to build contract law into copyright. I wonder who came up with that crap but GPL is simple: no extra UELA, TOS of whatever. Distribution simple is uncontrolable with GPL.

Trademark is just protecting a brand and that's it. It has no relation to copyright.