'DITisTV' violating XBMC's GPLv2. Refusing to share source

  Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Post Reply
j1nx Offline
Fan
Posts: 606
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 22
Location: Netherlands
Post: #46
(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.

/*
* Copyright © 2005-2013 Team XBMC
* http://xbmc.org
*
* 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.
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
* along with XBMC; see the file COPYING. If not, see
* <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
*
*/
find quote
nickr Online
Donor
Posts: 7,528
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 128
Location: Christchurch NZ
Post: #47
Where is that from? I looked at all the files in the root dir of https://github.com/xbmc/xbmc and there was no statement of ownership. I didn't look at any of the actual source files.

Of course that doesn't cover all of the code. As an obvious example, the stuff imported from ffmpeg obviously isn't owned by XBMC Foundation. Even when one of those files is changed by an XBMC dev, the whole file doesn't become copyright to that dev.

Copyright in any original piece of code is owned by the author. How does it then become the property of the Foundation? Some projects insist that authors agree to an assignment of the author's code to the 'project'. This makes the whole business a lot easier to manage.

But if I do a pull request to XBMC's github code [1], how does the copyright in my changes become owned by the Foundation?

[1] not a likely scenario I admit!

If I have helped you or increased your knowledge, click the plus button and increase my reputation :)
find quote
Martijn Offline
Team-XBMC
Posts: 11,035
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 158
Location: Dawn of time
Post: #48
All source code files done by "Team XBMC" contain that header.
Any third-party code still contains their original copyright header.
If there are parts of code done by third-parties used inside XBMC code the correct notice will be added. This only happens if those persons don't actually send a pull-request their selves.

Attributed code can be tracked through the commits done by a person. I think that when you merge code to https://github.com/xbmc/xbmc it will become part of Team XBMC code. (just a guess as i don't know about that part). I'm sure there are some articles floating the internet about that.

I do know that when you want to change from GPLv3 to GPLv2 for example you will have to track down every single person and receive his OK

Always read the XBMC online-manual, FAQ and search the forums before posting.
Do NOT e-mail Team-XBMC members asking for support. Read/follow the forum rules.
For troubleshooting and bug reporting, make sure you read this first

For your mediacenter artwork go to
[Image: fanarttv.png]
(This post was last modified: 2014-07-21 10:06 by Martijn.)
find quote
Martijn Offline
Team-XBMC
Posts: 11,035
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 158
Location: Dawn of time
Post: #49
Seems they already adjusted the website now claiming "The One, onze geheel eigen media interface" (The One, our entirely own media interface).

Don't they use some one else his skin? So again making false claims.

Always read the XBMC online-manual, FAQ and search the forums before posting.
Do NOT e-mail Team-XBMC members asking for support. Read/follow the forum rules.
For troubleshooting and bug reporting, make sure you read this first

For your mediacenter artwork go to
[Image: fanarttv.png]
(This post was last modified: 2014-07-23 09:09 by Martijn.)
find quote
topfs2 Offline
Team-XBMC Developer
Posts: 4,004
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation: 10
Post: #50
(2014-04-11 09:33)Plebian Wrote:  As far as my knowlegde goes on GPLv2, you're forced to share base and or customization to the system. I know they can sell it, but they still have to give out their source (right?)

Since people are sometimes confused by this, he needs to give out the source with the binary. i.e. to be compliant, you don't always need to provide it publically, as long as its provided to those that have received the binary. So if he has the source available in the package, that is enough. It is generally not enough to provide it on requests though, but there is some disagreement on this and I can't recall what the last lawsuit yielded (not xbmc lawsuit, something else).

Obviously, the receiver of the code has full GPLv2 rights and is free to make the source publically available.

If you have problems please read this before posting

Always read the XBMC online-manual, FAQ and search the forum before posting.
Do not e-mail XBMC-Team members directly asking for support. Read/follow the forum rules.
For troubleshooting and bug reporting please make sure you read this first.


[Image: badge.gif]

"Well Im gonna download the code and look at it a bit but I'm certainly not a really good C/C++ programer but I'd help as much as I can, I mostly write in C#."
find quote
nickr Online
Donor
Posts: 7,528
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 128
Location: Christchurch NZ
Post: #51
To make an issue of this someone needs to:

1. Buy one

2. Establish that it contains GPL code - run a few of their binaries through the "strings" command for telltale text.

3. Request the source code.

Then assuming that comes up with a violation, the copyright owner needs to take action, which is likely to be expensive.

The history of GPL violation cases brought by the FSF seems to have resulted in contrition and a promise to comply. IE the offender s have been educated, and the problem given publicity.

EDIT: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html

Also report every violation you see. Small distros like this often contain busybox (a kind of swiss pocketknife of tools written for small systems) and the busybox authors have been quite prepared to sue, with the backing of the FSF.

(2014-07-23 09:45)topfs2 Wrote:  
(2014-04-11 09:33)Plebian Wrote:  As far as my knowlegde goes on GPLv2, you're forced to share base and or customization to the system. I know they can sell it, but they still have to give out their source (right?)

Since people are sometimes confused by this, he needs to give out the source with the binary. i.e. to be compliant, you don't always need to provide it publically, as long as its provided to those that have received the binary. So if he has the source available in the package, that is enough. It is generally not enough to provide it on requests though, but there is some disagreement on this and I can't recall what the last lawsuit yielded (not xbmc lawsuit, something else).

Obviously, the receiver of the code has full GPLv2 rights and is free to make the source publically available.
YOu don't need to provide the source at the same time as you distribute the binary:
Quote: 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) being the relevant provision.

If I have helped you or increased your knowledge, click the plus button and increase my reputation :)
(This post was last modified: 2014-07-23 10:06 by nickr.)
find quote
topfs2 Offline
Team-XBMC Developer
Posts: 4,004
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation: 10
Post: #52
(2014-07-23 10:00)nickr Wrote:  To make an issue of this someone needs to:

1. Buy one

2. Establish that it contains GPL code - run a few of their binaries through the "strings" command for telltale text.

3. Request the source code.

Then assuming that comes up with a violation, the copyright owner needs to take action, which is likely to be expensive.

The history of GPL violation cases brought by the FSF seems to have resulted in contrition and a promise to comply. IE the offender s have been educated, and the problem given publicity.

EDIT: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html

Also report every violation you see. Small distros like this often contain busybox (a kind of swiss pocketknife of tools written for small systems) and the busybox authors have been quite prepared to sue, with the backing of the FSF.

(2014-07-23 09:45)topfs2 Wrote:  
(2014-04-11 09:33)Plebian Wrote:  As far as my knowlegde goes on GPLv2, you're forced to share base and or customization to the system. I know they can sell it, but they still have to give out their source (right?)

Since people are sometimes confused by this, he needs to give out the source with the binary. i.e. to be compliant, you don't always need to provide it publically, as long as its provided to those that have received the binary. So if he has the source available in the package, that is enough. It is generally not enough to provide it on requests though, but there is some disagreement on this and I can't recall what the last lawsuit yielded (not xbmc lawsuit, something else).

Obviously, the receiver of the code has full GPLv2 rights and is free to make the source publically available.
YOu don't need to provide the source at the same time as you distribute the binary:
Quote: 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) being the relevant provision.

You are correct, it was a while since I read it and misremembered it as that part was not clear. Thanks for correcting me.

If you have problems please read this before posting

Always read the XBMC online-manual, FAQ and search the forum before posting.
Do not e-mail XBMC-Team members directly asking for support. Read/follow the forum rules.
For troubleshooting and bug reporting please make sure you read this first.


[Image: badge.gif]

"Well Im gonna download the code and look at it a bit but I'm certainly not a really good C/C++ programer but I'd help as much as I can, I mostly write in C#."
find quote
Post Reply