2014-07-19, 22:33
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.
That is, because they are not freely distributing it.
(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:
"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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
(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.
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
(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.
(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