• 1
  • 2
  • 3(current)
  • 4
  • 5
  • 12
'DITisTV' violating XBMC's GPLv2. Refusing to share source
#31
They only need to give the source to those who bought the "newer" version and ask for it.
That is, because they are not freely distributing it.
Reply
#32
(2014-07-18, 23:14)WeirdH Wrote: Also, how about this little gem:
(2014-04-10, 20:31)DITisTV Wrote: We use OpenELEC as the base of our install.
As far as we know, we follow all guidelines set by OpenELEC + XBMC.

But on their site they claim:
Image

"DIT is TV The One; ons geheel eigen besturingssysteem", which translates into "DITisTV The One; our wholly own operating system", as in 'proprietary'.

There's a mighty fine contradiction to establish how trustworthy these guys are. Trying to turn a profit on other people's ignorance, this sickens me.

(2014-07-19, 22:33)wsnipex Wrote: They only need to give the source to those who bought the "newer" version and ask for it.
That is, because they are not freely distributing it.

wrong,

If you use free software in your project, you have to make the code containing the "free software" also free. The costs they are allowed to charge is the way of sending the software to you, if that is, by mail.
I'll look it up for you and paste it in an edit.
small edit: If by any means you would use free software and "sell" your software for 1 million euro's. so that no one would buy. you'd have proprietary software. that's why it's not allowed. there are restrictions.
Reply
#33
The gpl2 requires you to only supply the source to someone you have distributed the software. So they only have to supply the source to someone who has paid for the product and been supplied with it. Then they have to supply the source for no more than the cost of the media and postage.

So to prove a gpl2 breach someone needs to pay the 30 euro, request the source and be refused.
If I have helped you or increased your knowledge, click the 'thumbs up' button to give thanks :) (People with less than 20 posts won't see the "thumbs up" button.)
Reply
#34
regardless they are still a bunch of assholes
Read/follow the forum rules.
For troubleshooting and bug reporting, read this first
Interested in seeing some YouTube videos about Kodi? Go here and subscribe
Reply
#35
(2014-07-19, 22:59)Martijn Wrote: regardless they are still a bunch of assholes

Indeed.
If I have helped you or increased your knowledge, click the 'thumbs up' button to give thanks :) (People with less than 20 posts won't see the "thumbs up" button.)
Reply
#36
Inndeed, they only have to supply their source code to people who they provided the code to.

stated here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm...tyToPublic

However on their website there's also stated, at the bottom i quote
Quote:High or low fees, and the GNU GPL

Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, so don't complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy.

The one exception is in the case where binaries are distributed without the corresponding complete source code. Those who do this are required by the GNU GPL to provide source code on subsequent request. Without a limit on the fee for the source code, they would be able set a fee too large for anyone to pay—such as a billion dollars—and thus pretend to release source code while in truth concealing it. So in this case we have to limit the fee for source in order to ensure the user's freedom. In ordinary situations, however, there is no such justification for limiting distribution fees, so we do not limit them.

Sometimes companies whose activities cross the line stated in the GNU GPL plead for permission, saying that they “won't charge money for the GNU software” or such like. That won't get them anywhere with us. Free software is about freedom, and enforcing the GPL is defending freedom. When we defend users' freedom, we are not distracted by side issues such as how much of a distribution fee is charged. Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue.

So that's 1 part covered.

Second part is that in their terms there's written as part 4 in dutch:
Quote:Artikel 13 Eigendomsvoorbehoud

1. Alle door DIT is TV! aan de klant verkochte en geleverde zaken blijven eigendom van DIT is TV! zolang de klant a) de vorderingen van DIT is TV! uit hoofde van de overeenkomst of eerdere of latere gelijksoortige overeenkomsten niet heeft voldaan, b) zolang de klant de verrichte of nog te verrichten werkzaamheden uit deze of gelijksoortige overeenkomsten nog niet heeft voldaan en c) zolang de klant de vorderingen van DIT is TV! wegens tekortkomingen in de nakoming van verbintenissen nog niet heeft voldaan, waaronder begrepen vorderingen ter zake van boeten, renten en kosten, een en ander zoals bedoeld in artikel 3:92 BW.

2. De klant is niet bevoegd de onder het eigendomsvoorbehoud vallende zaken te verpanden noch op enige andere wijze te bezwaren.

3. Indien derden beslag leggen, dan wel rechten daarop willen vestigen of doen gelden op de onder eigendomsvoorbehoud geleverde zaken, is de afnemer verplicht DIT is TV! zo snel als redelijkerwijs verwacht mag worden daarvan op de hoogte te stellen.

4. Kopieren van de bijgeleverde software is verboden. Deze is eigendom van DIT is TV B.V. . Bij overtreding behoudt DIT is TV het recht om een bedrag van €1000,- per overtreding in rekening te brengen.

part 4 states that making copies of the software provided by DIT is TV B.V. is forbidden. If you violate this, they can charge you a fine of 1000 euro per violation.

GPL software is free. you are allowed to make as many copies as you want, and redistribute is as many times as you like. Because you are FREE to do so.

3rd part they state as seen on the screenshot in this topic earlier. that they state that they are using their own OS. They even stated that they have a "paid" XBMC.

This conclude that they are 1, a bunch of liars. Since openELEC is not created by this company, nor does it have a "paid" module of XBMC included.
And 2nd, they don't show credit to the creators of the software. Which is a very insolent, shameless and respectless.


conclusion:
They violate the GPL in part 4 of their terms.
Reply
#37
Also you have to consider that the difference between a derived work (which is also subject to gpl2) or a separate independent work (which is not) .
Quote: These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
overall this seems to be a gpl2 breach but as a lawyer I know you have to cover off all options. But as I don't own any of the copyright in xbmc/openelec so I can't take any action.
If I have helped you or increased your knowledge, click the 'thumbs up' button to give thanks :) (People with less than 20 posts won't see the "thumbs up" button.)
Reply
#38
(2014-07-19, 23:46)nickr Wrote: Also you have to consider that the difference between a derived work (which is also subject to gpl2) or a separate independent work (which is not) .
Quote: These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
overall this seems to be a gpl2 breach but as a lawyer I know you have to cover off all options. But as I don't own any of the copyright in xbmc/openelec so I can't take any action.

What actions can be taken anyway? Seems like they can get away with it?
Reply
#39
In appropriate cases an injunction will be granted by the courts (although I know nothing of Dutch court system).

the fsf have taken some successful cases.
If I have helped you or increased your knowledge, click the 'thumbs up' button to give thanks :) (People with less than 20 posts won't see the "thumbs up" button.)
Reply
#40
(2014-07-20, 00:20)nickr Wrote: In appropriate cases an injunction will be granted by the courts (although I know nothing of Dutch court system).

the fsf have taken some successful cases.

If actions are taken would that be needed on Dutch ground since it is a Dutch company violating GPLv2 ?

Quote:Domeinnaam ditistv.nl
Status actief
Houder Koll, Franklin
Administratieve contactpersoon jf.koll@DITisTV.nl
Registrar TransIP BV
Schipholweg 9 b
2316XB LEIDEN
Nederland
Technische contactpersonen jf.koll@DITisTV.nl
DNSSEC nee
Domeinnaamservers ns-1385.awsdns-45.org
ns-43.awsdns-05.com
ns-1787.awsdns-31.co.uk
Datum registratie 2013-05-29
Datum laatste wijziging 2014-05-06
Administratie door NL Domain Registry
Reply
#41
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_...Law_Center

This also brings up the question of who owns the copyright to xbmc's code.
If I have helped you or increased your knowledge, click the 'thumbs up' button to give thanks :) (People with less than 20 posts won't see the "thumbs up" button.)
Reply
#42
(2014-07-20, 00:29)nickr Wrote: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_...Law_Center

This also brings up the question of who owns the copyright to xbmc's code.

Besides the copyright owner, were do you report such activity?
Reply
#43
I know that you can report it to GNU. But i don't know if they will do anything against it.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
Reply
#44
(2014-07-20, 00:35)Toofle Wrote: I know that you can report it to GNU. But i don't know if they will do anything against it.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html

Better then nothing right?
Reply
#45
I suspect Holland would be the appropriate venue. There may be an argument for USA.
If I have helped you or increased your knowledge, click the 'thumbs up' button to give thanks :) (People with less than 20 posts won't see the "thumbs up" button.)
Reply
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3(current)
  • 4
  • 5
  • 12

Logout Mark Read Team Forum Stats Members Help
'DITisTV' violating XBMC's GPLv2. Refusing to share source2