[openboxee]

The Boxee Box was shipped containing GPLv3 software, but D-Link and Boxee refuse to permit installation of custom software. Go to http://infinityoverzero.com/bbox/ for the whole story.

Open this platform and put XBMC on it!

Openboxee.

[topfs2]

Uhm, what parts of boxee is GPLv3? most of XBMC is GPLv2+ and the few parts which is GPLv3 can be removed (which is what I think boxee had).

Granted I have only looked at the sources of boxee very quickly so I might have missed them. Please make it clear what parts are gplv3.

Cheers,
Tobias

[darkscout]

Why do that when you can put up your own fancy website, get front page on slashdot then ranting about how the Boxee mods "changed your post"

Anonymous Coward, indeed.

It looks like an angry ex-employee or some 14 year old with a personal vendetta. Personally I'm going with Occam's Razor, although Hanlon's Razor may apply a bit more.

[teaguecl]

Uhm, what parts of boxee is GPLv3? most of XBMC is GPLv2+ and the few parts which is GPLv3 can be removed (which is what I think boxee had).

Granted I have only looked at the sources of boxee very quickly so I might have missed them. Please make it clear what parts are gplv3.

Cheers,
Tobias

The page he linked to clearly answers your question, it's gpg. My guess is that this violation will be remedied by replacement of gpg in future revisions of Boxee, and will not result in the publishing of the private keys as the article hopes.

[Robotica]

Boxee is starting to become the largest scam in history of GPL-software. Beside this problem, Boxee is redistributing XBMC Code with closed source components for:

1. streaming content. This component is called “bxflplayer”. This is used to view online content;
   
2. a payment model for their streaming services. they share revenue with Content Providers;
   
3. social networking. This component is called “libboxee”. It deals with proprietary methods of communication with Boxee’s online back-end server which handles the user account information and social network communications between the users in the Boxee userbase.
   

Boxee is redistributing XBMC Code with those components under a custom license or even without a license and without access to the source code. Either way, Boxee prevents users to exercise their GPL-rights to redistribute those components and backport it into XBMC. This is not in the spirit of Open Source, the GPL and the FSF but it is no problem to the XBMC Foundation, from whom they monetized their business case!

[topfs2]

The page he linked to clearly answers your question, it's gpg. My guess is that this violation will be remedied by replacement of gpg in future revisions of Boxee, and will not result in the publishing of the private keys as the article hopes.

If its gpg we can almost lock this thread, this has nothing to do with XBMC then. Please contact the gpg people if you wish.

@Robotica you should read the licenses properly, all the code which interacts which said daemons is gpl. Much like you can have a gpl licensed loader for a closed source shared object (dll), it does not force the dll to be gpl. You can almost take compare it to that libsmbclient is opensource but can talk to a closed source smbclient, this doesn't make microsofts implementation of smb gpl..

EDIT: Better example, many drivers in linux works like this. You have a driver wrapper which is gpl which handles the loading of the closed source dll, this does not make the closed source driver gpl.

At any rate, I'm out of this thread. Nothing interesting in it IMO but conspiracy theories and claims (which concerns us) without proofs.

[teaguecl]

Boxee is starting to become the largest scam in history of GPL-software. Beside this problem, Boxee is redistributing XBMC Code with closed source components for:

1. streaming content. This component is called “bxflplayer”. This is used to view online content;
   
2. a payment model for their streaming services. they share revenue with Content Providers;
   
3. social networking. This component is called “libboxee”. It deals with proprietary methods of communication with Boxee’s online back-end server which handles the user account information and social network communications between the users in the Boxee userbase.
   

Boxee is redistributing XBMC Code with those components under a custom license or even without a license and without access to the source code. Either way, Boxee prevents users to exercise their GPL-rights to redistribute those components and backport it into XBMC. This is not in the spirit of Open Source, the GPL and the FSF but it is no problem to the XBMC Foundation, from whom they monetized their business case!

I'm unsure about this accusation, I've seen no proof of a GPL violation other than that of gpg. If they really are violating the GPL (by linking libboxee against XBMC code for example), then the copyright holders (Team XBMC) have the right to pursue legal action. Additionally, anyone who purchased the BoxeeBox has the right to demand the source code. Again, that is all hypothetical, assuming there really is a GPL violation.
My biggest complaint is that Boxee has always been a very transparent and Open Source friendly company, and then seems to have changed their minds. They have backed away from many of their pre-BB promises, and have completely ignored the open source Boxee software since the BB release.

[Robotica]

@Robotica you should read the licenses properly, all the code which interacts which said daemons is gpl. Much like you can have a gpl licensed loader for a closed source shared object (dll), it does not force the dll to be gpl. You can almost take compare it to that libsmbclient is opensource but can talk to a closed source smbclient, this doesn't make microsofts implementation of smb gpl..

EDIT: Better example, many drivers in linux works like this. You have a driver wrapper which is gpl which handles the loading of the closed source dll, this does not make the closed source driver gpl.

At any rate, I'm out of this thread. Nothing interesting in it IMO but conspiracy theories and claims (which concerns us) without proofs.

@topfs2: you should read my post properly. I am not talking about technical solutions to circumvent the intention of the GPL v2. Companies like Boxee give the GPL a bad name. And since XBMC is using GPL v2 and an easy way to circumvent the GPL v2, the software is begging to be forked and commercialized. For reason like this, there nowadays is a GPL v3.

[topfs2]

EDIT: No point in feeding the troll

[Robotica]

Exactly, it makes more sense that Cory Fields responds to this matter since he knows all about software freedom since his FSF internship. Or maybe even a Foundation member could respond since they are setting directions for the XBMC software. You are just defamating.