Kodi Community Forum

Full Version: [GPL] Violating the license KODI is released under.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Let my first line be; This thread is by no means a whine / accustation thread towards the Foundation. (Let us all try to leave emotions out of the equation.) BUT, I do want to discuss the lack or action / communication.

This thread is a spin off of the VidOn Impression thread, which got closed by the moderators after request of the Topic Starter. However after that, the lock itself has not been respected by the mods itself, migrating the thread into a mod only "monoloque". (As constructive feedback; don't close threads and continue the discussion afterwards)
The original thread can be found here;
http://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=207004&page=58

Allow me to quote Ned Scott his post and continue from there;
Quote:That was my assumption as well. As far as I know, their sponsorship has expired, and all of Team Kodi has rejected the idea of renewal. The fact that their logo is still on the website is most likely an oversight, similar to how sourceforce's logo is still on our mirrors pages even though we left sourceforce a looooooong time ago.

Several months ago VidOnMe was "slow" to release their source code. On more than one occasion they even promoted some of the piracy/bootleg add-ons on their twitter account. At that point we made it a clause of all future sponsorships that non-GPL compliance and/or promoting bootleg/pirate add-ons/services would result in removal of sponsorship status. WeTek and MiniX, the only two HTPC hardware venders that are active diamond sponsors right now, have agreed to those terms.

@j1nx I like you, you've always been a nice guy and one of the better groups that have reused XBMC/Kodi. I don't think you deserve the harsh words you have received here from others. I think your assumptions have come from a lack of communication on our part, and we only have ourselves to blame for that.

With all that said, yeah, let's get that VidOnMe logo off our site.

EDIT: Looks like their sponsorship actually expires on May 18th.

I can see the reasoning about; Keeping at least your side of the deal, but in my opinion; Are you not keep "supporting" a company that breaks the law?

The facts, how I see them. Please prove me wrong if I am.

- The XBMC foundation is a non profit organization registered in the US
- The foundation is the "owner" of the core-code of XBMC/Kodi and therefor holds the license.
- XBMC/Kodi is released under GPL-2 license
- GPL-2 is a "Copyright" license, breaking a copyright in the US is felony. (At least a cival one, most likely even a criminal one)

I understand now that apparently not much is at paper for a diamond sponsor deal. However based on the points above, isn't "breaking the law" cancelling all contracts?

Ofcourse as the foundation is the license holder all above is only valid if the foundation want to pursue it as it being a violations. My main dissapointment of the moment is the lack of action or communication.

In regards of VidOn me that got the whole thing started. They have been taking a piss with you guys for at least 6 months. Users (and not only me) have been reporting this many times. Hence the thread is 58 pages of which maybe only 8 about the product itself.

Any other company would have been on the wall of shame after 3 strikes. Hence even if you give a strike after each month of violation it would have been cut-off 3 months ago. To me it is rather simple. IF you release a binary, you did compile that thing from a source tree. If you have crappy code, or do not want to use any version control software as git, svn whatever, releasing the code could be as simple as zipping the folder and dump it somewhere. That does not have to take 6 months, 3 months hence even not 3 weeks.

To me (and again many others) is looks just plain wrong, that a diamand sponsor can walk away with it because of "a deal".

OK, apparently it all goes down the 18th, but again, why wait ??


Now again, please keep emotions out of the picture (I might have fell into that pitfall myself, but will try to do it as well). Secondly don't jump in aggresively about third party addons, conspiracy theorys etc. I am happy to debate that topic in public with you as well, but the topic is GPL-Violation
you sir, with your company that associates Kodi with free movies, are a bigger threat to Kodi than any company that happens to violate GPL.
it's only a matter of time before this project will be shot down by the powers-that-be because because people like you are promoting it as a piracy tool all of the time.

you obviously don't care about it, you give a shit about Kodi. all you care about is making money over our backs by promoting piracy, 'cause piracy sells.

until your company radically changes it's policy on this, i have zero interest in your opinion on any matter.
(2015-05-06, 11:22)j1nx Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcourse as the foundation is the license holder all above is only valid if the foundation want to pursue it as it being a violations. My main dissapointment of the moment is the lack of action or communication.

We take all potential violations of GPL very seriously and will take action if we deem it necessary, if it seems no action has been taken, then perhaps that is because there is nothing to take action on.

As for VidOn.me, we were provided with their source code prior to sponsorship being accepted, and at that time they were deemed as in full compliance. We obviously can't constantly monitor all the forks, however it has been noted a couple of times from forum posts that a new release was pushed by them without Github being updated, but as far as I'm aware that has normally been quickly resolved once we've emailed them.
(2015-05-06, 13:31)jjd-uk Wrote: [ -> ]
(2015-05-06, 11:22)j1nx Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcourse as the foundation is the license holder all above is only valid if the foundation want to pursue it as it being a violations. My main dissapointment of the moment is the lack of action or communication.

We take all potential violations of GPL very seriously and will take action if we deem it necessary, if it seems no action has been taken, then perhaps that is because there is nothing to take action on.

As for VidOn.me, we were provided with their source code prior to sponsorship being accepted, and at that time they were deemed as in full compliance. We obviously can't constantly monitor all the forks, however it has been noted a couple of times from forum posts that a new release was pushed by them without Github being updated, but as far as I'm aware that has normally been quickly resolved once we've emailed them.

Ok, at least it is good to hear GPL is still taken very seriously.

I understand ofcourse you guys are always "running behind" and it is difficult to keep tracking different forks. But in this particular case it happened all straight under your own nose. And to be honest, it never really was resolved by them even after you've emailed them.

If you would go through the thread, you will see (probably besides the very first snapshot that got them in) non of the code pushes where able to build the same binary. And even that has been reported multiple times.

This is how it went for multiple months.(imo)
- VidOn release a binary (not even mentioning the breach of version numbering which was also reported multiple times and ignored)
- No sources released.
- Than after another 5 - 10 pages of reporting, discussing, etc, something got pushed.
- Users reported it was not the same, nobody of the team either checked or responded and moved along
- Above repeats


Call it non-action . passive attitude or lack of communication. (In my oppinion lack of communication is also non-action)

In this particular case, it was all very obvious and right at the front. The management and action taken or lack of it is/was very dissapointing.
My guess is that the people most able to review have simply not had the time for any in depth checks.

This is the life of some of our devs

Image

so the occasional broken plate may result.
Sounds very plausible.

Let it then be a lessons learned. Hopefully in the future, diamond sponsors will get the needed attention; both positive and negative.
(2015-05-06, 11:22)j1nx Wrote: [ -> ]......<cut>.......

The facts, how I see them. Please prove me wrong if I am.

- The XBMC foundation is a non profit organization registered in the US
- The foundation is the "owner" of the core-code of XBMC/Kodi and therefor holds the license.
- XBMC/Kodi is released under GPL-2 license
- GPL-2 is a "Copyright" license, breaking a copyright in the US is felony. (At least a cival one, most likely even a criminal one)
......<cut>.......

Regarding facts:

Owning the code.
I've never seen any CLA (or the like) which could give ownership to XBMC Foundation. So I think as Github presents commits, authorship (and thus ownership) is determent. So XBMC codebase has many, many owners. Specifcally, the active and prominent (former) Foundation members. Those guys write most large features and leave bughunting to the community. The Foundation merely represents those authors.

And the license is GPL v2 and latter. But the codebase isn't consistent about GPL v2 vs. GPL v2 and latter.

But be warned, those are sensitive topics. So those "facts" aren't consistent and/or open to the community. Or I must have missed some communication.
(2015-05-06, 11:22)j1nx Wrote: [ -> ]I understand now that apparently not much is at paper for a diamond sponsor deal. However based on the points above, isn't "breaking the law" cancelling all contracts?


If that were true contracts would be voided every time someone went faster than the posted speed limit. Contracts normally include language as to how they are voided. If, as you say, the diamond deal does not have much on paper it makes more sense to ride it out.

Suing them for a copyright violation has to be carefully considered. Likely they will not have enough money to "win" to offset the cost of lawyers. I do not know enough to make a speculation as to what is the right course of action.
(2015-05-06, 11:22)j1nx Wrote: [ -> ]I understand now that apparently not much is at paper for a diamond sponsor deal. However based on the points above, isn't "breaking the law" cancelling all contracts?

GPL doesn't allow extra contracts like terms of usage etc. The extra trademarks are soley for brand-usage and not about the codebase.
(2015-05-06, 12:31)ronie Wrote: [ -> ]you sir, with your company that associates Kodi with free movies, are a bigger threat to Kodi than any company that happens to violate GPL.
it's only a matter of time before this project will be shot down by the powers-that-be because because people like you are promoting it as a piracy tool all of the time.

you obviously don't care about it, you give a shit about Kodi. all you care about is making money over our backs by promoting piracy, 'cause piracy sells.

until your company radically changes it's policy on this, i have zero interest in your opinion on any matter.

Parties who build upon Kodi-codebase can only violate the GPL. Legal implication about piracy are for them. The legal home of the codebase, the US, is the largest threat to the codebase. This is the reality and XBMC Foundation should reflect this so proper stewardship could thrive.

Otherwise, good luck controlling all forks in their behavior.
(2015-05-06, 17:25)Robotica Wrote: [ -> ]Parties who build upon Kodi-codebase can only violate the GPL. Legal implication about piracy are for them.
I don't think so. The Foundation holds the trademark of Kodi. Anyone who sells the software (with Kodi branding) has to meet some requirements to do so (like no piracy add-ons), or else they violate the trademark.

(2015-05-06, 17:25)Robotica Wrote: [ -> ]The legal home of the codebase, the US, is the largest threat to the codebase. This is the reality and XBMC Foundation should reflect this so proper stewardship could thrive.
The location of the codebase is not important. Why would you think that?
(2015-05-06, 17:25)Robotica Wrote: [ -> ]Parties who build upon Kodi-codebase can only violate the GPL. Legal implication about piracy are for them. The legal home of the codebase, the US, is the largest threat to the codebase. This is the reality and XBMC Foundation should reflect this so proper stewardship could thrive.

Otherwise, good luck controlling all forks in their behavior.

This is why we wanted a name we could trademark, anyone changing the default installation package of Kodi without our say so is altering our product and thus has no right to use the name Kodi in connection with it.
(2015-05-06, 17:06)Robotica Wrote: [ -> ]Regarding facts:

Owning the code.
I've never seen any CLA (or the like) which could give ownership to XBMC Foundation. So I think as Github presents commits, authorship (and thus ownership) is determent. So XBMC codebase has many, many owners. Specifcally, the active and prominent (former) Foundation members. Those guys write most large features and leave bughunting to the community. The Foundation merely represents those authors.

And the license is GPL v2 and latter. But the codebase isn't consistent about GPL v2 vs. GPL v2 and latter.

But be warned, those are sensitive topics. So those "facts" aren't consistent and/or open to the community. Or I must have missed some communication.

True, indeed a lot of people worked on the code, but I believe the majority of files contain this header;

/*
* 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/>.
*
*/


Even the code written by other non team member, the develope choose to put that header in. I guess that if you put that header in, you agree upon giving the rights to the XBMC group.



(2015-05-06, 17:14)BeesKnees Wrote: [ -> ]If that were true contracts would be voided every time someone went faster than the posted speed limit. Contracts normally include language as to how they are voided. If, as you say, the diamond deal does not have much on paper it makes more sense to ride it out.

Suing them for a copyright violation has to be carefully considered. Likely they will not have enough money to "win" to offset the cost of lawyers. I do not know enough to make a speculation as to what is the right course of action.

If you get your drivers license you agree upon obeying the rules and laws. If you get caught speeding to far or to many times, they can withdraw your license. A judge will not care about you spending a lot of money to get it.

And suing them is one thing, but keep giving them the strong marketing exposure (which is worth 10k apparently) is another don't you think. Going to court is indeed costing a lot of money. Removing them from the website cost zip...


(2015-05-06, 17:17)Robotica Wrote: [ -> ]GPL doesn't allow extra contracts like terms of usage etc. The extra trademarks are soley for brand-usage and not about the codebase.
(2015-05-06, 17:45)membrane Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think so. The Foundation holds the trademark of Kodi. Anyone who sells the software (with Kodi branding) has to meet some requirements to do so (like no piracy add-ons), or else they violate the trademark.

Again I am talking about violating the GPL copyright here, not the violation of the Trademark. Am happy to participate into that debate as well, but please move that to a seperate topic.
(2015-05-06, 20:05)j1nx Wrote: [ -> ]If you get your drivers license you agree upon obeying the rules and laws. If you get caught speeding to far or to many times, they can withdraw your license. A judge will not care about you spending a lot of money to get it.

And suing them is one thing, but keep giving them the strong marketing exposure (which is worth 10k apparently) is another don't you think. Going to court is indeed costing a lot of money. Removing them from the website cost zip...

The point is that breaking the law or one party wronging the other does not immediately invalidate a contract. You say that removing them from the website costs nothing but it could be considered a breach of contract forcing XMBC to return some or all of the money. Again, I don't know the specifics.

Another way of looking at it is if you had a checking account with the same bank to which you owe a mortgage. If the bank stole money from your checking account you could pursue them in court and win but you would still owe them the mortgage.
(2015-05-06, 20:41)BeesKnees Wrote: [ -> ]
(2015-05-06, 20:05)j1nx Wrote: [ -> ]If you get your drivers license you agree upon obeying the rules and laws. If you get caught speeding to far or to many times, they can withdraw your license. A judge will not care about you spending a lot of money to get it.

And suing them is one thing, but keep giving them the strong marketing exposure (which is worth 10k apparently) is another don't you think. Going to court is indeed costing a lot of money. Removing them from the website cost zip...

The point is that breaking the law or one party wronging the other does not immediately invalidate a contract. You say that removing them from the website costs nothing but it could be considered a breach of contract forcing XMBC to return some or all of the money. Again, I don't know the specifics.

So Huh Exactly my point!

By not terminating the agreement you condone the actions. It is something that needs to be done, even if that means sending back half the money. The fact it did not happen is the actual dissapointment I am talking about.

Not going to comment about your strange mortgage comparison. It is far from an actual similarity. Already thought the driving thingy was far away..
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6