[umOuch]

Look, I am sorry if I am coming off as frustrated... It is only because I am. I am trying desperately to put right what has clearly gone off track. I can't do this without some direct discussion and feedback. I have offered, and clearly told Brat, that I would happily remove the section if he wanted. I expressed that my I tent was to show him some support.

It clearly wasn't taken that way, but when I asked if he would like the guide and subforums section removed, he simply never responded. The fact is, I don't want to have this drag out discussion on a thread. I would rather talk man to man, understand what has actual gone on... And discuss options for peaceably resolving it.

The het of the above post is because I am trying to work this out with a Super Repo as we speak... yet instead of responding to me with what actions he would Ike me to take, note... I told him I would honor WHATEVER decision he made, he comes here and clearly flames up some claims, accusations, and slander. I appreciate your talent for level headed-ness Ned... but, you can't read his post and not say there are not all three of these items found in the post.

I want to get things progressing NOT regressing.

[fullmoonguru]

So I'm a little confused. Are there outgoing links from the hub, or not? I've been there but didn't stay long because it really looked Windows/Apple centric, and I'm running Linux.

There are usually two views on whether this stuff gets resolved publicly or privately in PM's or whatever. It can be messy in public, but I think there is usually a better chance of resolution. Definitely need to try not to take bait from the other side, & just stick with addressing claims without yelling, even if they seem wild and offensive. Only makes things worse to take the bait and escalate the argument.

Not easy, I know. A lot of us in the community, not so intimately involved, would like to know what's really going on and that doesn't happen if people only argue behind closed doors.

[umOuch]

There are, in fact, links to XBMC.ORG. We link users directly here for questions that are better asked on this forum, as well as anytime users are complimenting XBMC at large. The forum is full of links to XBMC.org. As well as on our home page.

UPDATE:

Actually, I just searched out forum for "XBMC.org" and there were over 400 results.

[BartOtten]

I came out of bed cause of this as I could not sleep, so allow me to be very short (I am really tired).

- I did not know Don, adam and Secure Circle were the same person as SC rejected answering me who he was on the forum. Don, adam and Secure Circle being the same person makes that all 'direct negative' actions are being done by the same individual. This makes a big difference for me as this means there was no group process involved (still could but I prefer 3 seperate people saying it's not over one with 3 identities. ) So that clears most of my list.

- By wanting to help SuperRepo, you Abrasher, hit the spot heavily damaged by Secure Circle and Don (again, did not know they were the same person) and your own constant removal of every message mentioning Super Repo on Hub forum. I think you can imagine this by knowing that I rejected every offer from Don and the first action done by 'the new contact' (you) is making excuses but directly after that making it look like SuperRepo and Hub are affiliated. Seeing Team XBMC at least feeling troubled by Hub for some while, I could not risk anything like that.

- Hub forum not having something like a PM web notifier, nor email, makes it easy to miss a message. Which I did so that's the reason I never responded: had not seen the new message so the last one was the 'less helping' one. Although, I probably would have seen it as 'the trap' considering the points above and those in my first post.

- Too be honest, the 'no outgoing linking' policy is really a dealbreaker for me as it makes Hub a black hole storing everything what went to it. Hub benefits from a 'share all' policy (afaik XBMC is the reason of a kickstart) so I think it should return the favor as I don't see any danger in that. It's not fair I think to compare it with SuperRepo linking to Hub as there is nothing to link yet. Addons don't contain hyperlinks and addons are all there are at SuperRepo. (there are plans to offer addon maintainers to include 'extra meta info' like links to support so it complies with the way XBMC handles things though - fully optional as I don't want to cause more work for developers)

- There is no point for SuperRepo in 'stealing' devs which already have a repo as it does not matter at all to the SuperRepo. 99% of the features in the Addon Center can be used by devs who don't have SuperRepo as 'primary repo', so they are free to use whatever primary repo they want. Official XBMC repo being the recommended one for 'stables'.

- I further reference to the post from Ned Scott about 'the way it looks' and add: no external links [edit: besides XBMC.org] (only text domain.com is not really common use), logo in affiliated(?) addons logo, fanart and text in description (sometimes not more than: SUPPORTED BY XBMCHUB.com, which won't really help users reading what the addon does", and the things you said before yesterday about SuperRepo on the forum _publicly_ (while excuses came in private and afaik XBian never received a "Don was harsh about SR, we do not support what he said")

As I clearly stated I did not want to pick a fight, I still don't want to and I even did not want to post that message. I think I wrote why I did it nonetheless. I'll take the suggestion that I am a liar and stuff like that as 'frustration' by being misunderstood, which I know how it feels really well.

That being said, I go for a nap. Therapy is taking much energy but I hope it does resolve a lot of issues in the end + everybody is on 'one line' after this is all done.

@Abrasher: I did not searched the whole forum, only a subset with the word XBMC.ORG but not a hyperlink.Therefore I'll reject my claim that there are none. Point still stands that every other hyperlink is removed (which makes it really hard to travel cross-website) and makes providing 100% service a no-no.

[Ned Scott]

So we're not going to go back and forth about this other dispute. The point I was trying to make by bringing up SR was as an example of behavior. I think everyone has been giving a fair chance to explain themselves regarding that.

Does anyone else have any questions about why some posts were deleted, or why some websites are not allowed to be discussed on xbmc.org? Is there anything along those lines that users still feel we need to clarify?

[jmarshall]

@Abrasher: I can't tell you how to run your show, but I can suggest that XBMC has issue with primarily one person that does stuff in the name of "XBMChub", some of which you may not be aware of.

The only thing that will get XBMChub back into some sort of positive relationship (like it was when it started) is by making an effort to ensure that the misrepresentation (real or perceived) stops. That means, at least at first, making it bleedingly obvious in any press release, any blog post, any email to members, official comments on forums etc. that this is from XBMChub, a third party website that has no links to Team XBMC or xbmc.org. It will seem over the top, and perhaps even a bit silly, but it's only through repeated, clear positive moves that attitudes within our team will soften (I know these guys well - some will forgive quickly, others will take a lot longer, and may never fully trust the aforementioned individual.)

Keep plugging away - remember that you offer a service that we cannot - this was the reason you started up, after all. It doesn't serve either you, us, or more importantly the users of XBMC to be unclear about who is who.

Cheers,
Jonathan

[rikardo1979]

my point of view is -
to guys from XBMChub or any other site : gives the credits to who deserves it,so to XBMC as if there is no XBMC that clearly there would not be you(us) !
I dont see the point to go against something/someone who you would like to support or contribute. This is simple not make any sense
Just get your piece of cake what you have right for and be happy

no offence to anyone

[Doctor3D]

So we're not going to go back and forth about this other dispute. The point I was trying to make by bringing up SR was as an example of behavior. I think everyone has been giving a fair chance to explain themselves regarding that.

Does anyone else have any questions about why some posts were deleted, or why some websites are not allowed to be discussed on xbmc.org? Is there anything along those lines that users still feel we need to clarify?

I certainly don't understand the why's and how's of what is and isn't allowed. For example, the 'utorrent control' plugin is designed to control the downloading of torrents - even the mention of torrents - is always associated with pirating. If XBMC is trying to distance themselves from pirating - why are add-ons such as SABnzbd or what was mentioned above allowed and an add-on like Navi-X not?

While one could argue that torrents could be used to download non-copyrighted content - the same could be said for most other add-ons that are now blocked from discussion. I used Navi-X for example in the past as it scraped websites like history channel, archive.org, youtube, vimeo and many other sites that were freely providing content to view. -It was the swiss-army knife of add-ons at one point in time. ---I'd venture to say that a torrent add-on is much more likely to be used consistently for illegal purposes than some of these add-ons are.

Do you realize that the software developers for programs like Limewire, imesh were sued for those programs? Even though they could be used to obtain legal items too. If a plugin that permits a similar functionality (Nzbs,torrents) is seen as an officially supported plugin - XBMC could be placed in a similar situation as those?

So, don't get me wrong - I think it's a good idea to distance the official public face of XBMC from all things that could be used against it. But, it's incredibly hard to follow the logic of what is deemed appropriate and not appropriate. It doesn't seem very fair or consistent.

Edit*

To further clarify what I mean - Take the YouTube add-on that's supported here. This add-on circumvents the ads that generate the income for the content curators. If you look at the TOS for YouTube and its API - it specifically forbids doing this - and one entity you NEVER want to piss-off is Google.. lol You're a direct competitor to them...

So, I hope that kinda gives you an idea of how some people may not understand why one thing is allowed and another isn't - when they both go directly against the rules.

[umOuch]

@jmarshal

I here you, and will be working hard over the upcoming months to show you all that our intentions are good. I will be taking your advice, and working hard to make sure that EVERY piece of advertising, any promotions, or simply our mail-outs are all given CLEAR phrasing and effective verbiage. I am sure it will be a process, and I may fail on my wording once or twice... but the difference will be clear.

As I stated in my "Open Apology To XBMC.ORG" on XBMCHUB.COM

(This is not the full post)

If you spend time on our site, you know we are proud of who we are and where we differer from XBMC.ORG and would never attempt to be what we are not. the lack of link backs was based on the fact that we, i, believed EVERYONE knew that this news was straight from XBMC.

This will not happen again. Any information we share from XBMC will be somehow marked and labeled... as something from them not us. If ANYONE has been confused... I am sorry and I encourage you to contact me. Or, if you think this site is the actual XBMC Foundation site, you would be wrong. If you want to talk to the actual XBMC Foundation team... Visit XBMC.ORG

I would plead with you all... If there are more concerns, or problems, PLEASE P.M. me directly.

[fullmoonguru]

I agree with Doctor 3D's points. I thought you guys were working on it, but it's certainly not clear at this point.

This is like the DRM stuff. I should be able to copy a DVD to host it on my server and/or move it to a tablet for my kid to use in the car, but then how does the content provider ensure that I'm not giving it away? So far the answer has been that they include some sort of software that makes it so I can't use the thing at all half of the time, but that's a whole other conversation that I definitely don't want to start here...

Point is, it's not going to be easy because many times there is no definitive line of weather something is used to deliver content that violates content providers regulations or not. Right now your rules say that it can't directly access pirated content, and that it's OK if it can be used for accessing pirated content as well as other, legitimate sources of content.

I can see how you landed at that position. It seems to be the best choice, because the alternatives are to be open to anything, which you have already decided you can't do, or take a very hard line and say that nothing is allowed that could lead to pirated content. Well you couldn't even talk about a browser plugin then.

So if you keep your current stance, it's open to some interpretation, which is never going to make everyone happy. Instead of deleting threads though, it would be much more helpful if they were locked with an explanation as to why that happened (as I believe someone suggested earlier in this thread). Even if you deleted the posts and replaced them with an explanation, in the thread, of why they were deleted, at least the community could better understand the decision making process.

But there is still the question of where we're at right now. There does seem to be some heavy contradictions. The Youtube plugin is a great example because it sounds like it's pretty clearly violating the content providers rights.

[j1nx]

I certainly don't understand the why's and how's of what is and isn't allowed. For example, the 'utorrent control' plugin is designed to control the downloading of torrents - even the mention of torrents - is always associated with pirating. If XBMC is trying to distance themselves from pirating - why are add-ons such as SABnzbd or what was mentioned above allowed and an add-on like Navi-X not?

Let me first start with the by now famous words in this thread;
- No offense, but ...
- Just my humble opinion, but ...
- (Fill in the other dozen possibilities...)

I fully understand that the foundation is trying to make a stand against piracy aka "violating the copyright law", but the way how it is done at the moment make it all way to vague ....

I think the whole conclusion of some of the "overflown buckets" here and there is all because of this vagueness about the rules.

We are not allowed to talk about violating the copyright laws, but as stated above some are allowed and others not, hence it is even allowed for people that are even violating XBMC's own copyright license to talk about it or even lobby for new customers! (GPL is still a copyright license)

Make the rules black or white, not 256 tints of grey.

[TugboatBill]

I went to the xbmchub site for the 1st time after reading through this thread. I was able to find one link to xbmc.org via a small "xbmc foundation" tag buried in the page.

So I then went to the openelec site and there were no links to xbmc.org on their home page at all.

A quick browse through both sites revealed there are virtually no acknowledgements of the all the great work team xbmc does. If you go to these sites in the mindset of "I don't know anything about xbmc" they appear to be the source of xbmc and xbmc.org doesn't exist at all.

For me, I would find it untruthful to not give due credit to the group that made my site possible. If I had a site such as xbmchub or openelec I would clearly give credit on the home page as well as wherever it seems pertinent throughout the site. It would be the right thing to do.

Edit: I went to the passion-xbmc.org site and couldn't find any links to xbmc.org, but I don't speak/read french and they could easily be there. Again though, no home page credit to xbmc where it is clear to the visitor where xbmc really comes from.

[fullmoonguru]

Good info. I think there is an assumption that people already know what xbmc is & where it comes from, which of course is not necessarily the case.

[DavidT99]

I went to the xbmchub site for the 1st time after reading through this thread. I was able to find one link to xbmc.org via a small "xbmc foundation" tag buried in the page.

So I then went to the openelec site and there were no links to xbmc.org on their home page at all.

A quick browse through both sites revealed there are virtually no acknowledgements of the all the great work team xbmc does. If you go to these sites in the mindset of "I don't know anything about xbmc" they appear to be the source of xbmc and xbmc.org doesn't exist at all.

For me, I would find it untruthful to not give due credit to the group that made my site possible. If I had a site such as xbmchub or openelec I would clearly give credit on the home page as well as wherever it seems pertinent throughout the site. It would be the right thing to do.

Edit: I went to the passion-xbmc.org site and couldn't find any links to xbmc.org, but I don't speak/read french and they could easily be there. Again though, no home page credit to xbmc where it is clear to the visitor where xbmc really comes from.

I personally don't see this as a bad thing. Do you want a site that is breaking the law to be advertising why it is breaking the law and potentially bring XBMC into disrepute. I think XBMC need to publicly keep a very wide gap between themselves and such sites so as not to be seen to be associated with them which is what I believe XBMC want.

David

[TugboatBill]

I guess that's something team xbmc would have to consider.

I like what Plex has done. The have a link to a credits page. XBMC.org is featured there at the top of the list.