[natethomas]

add-ons are fine to use closed source binary blobs license wise, only the bridge between Kodi and the closed source blob would have to be open source IIRC (the part that interacts with Kodi headers/APIs etc).

I'm not sure if that's even necessary, but making LGPL connector add-ons would definitely solve whatever remaining license issues exist.

[skylarking]

From technical standpoint, video/audio plugins with closed source binary components are possible right now. But as I've been told here, the current Kodi license requires publishing addon sources even if binary components do not link to the Kodi itself but only call Kodi API. I do not quite understand this (for example, in "Oracle vs Google" litigation a US court found that APIs are not copyrightable), but I'm not a layer. What I mean is that legal content distributors would hardly agree to this with all their DRM and stuff.

That was the initial finding by Judge Aslup but was later overturned on appeal which sent a chill through the software developement industry.
As a result of the appeal, the case was sent back to the lower court to determine whether utilizing the API was considerd "fair use".
That retrial resulted in the use of Oricle's API's being considered "fair use" but Oracle has since appealed that decision as well.
And just the other day, it seems Oracle also lost that appeal .

Six years stuck within the leagal system before an end result is reached can be frightening.
Too often, being correct in law means having deeper pockets than your enemy... hardly a fair and just system for us mere mortals
Luckily Google prevailed in this instance.

End result is that API's are copyrightable but can be used under "fair use" provisions (atleast in the USofA)...

Sadly the best unbiased source of such legal info, groklaw, has gone dark due to the lack of privacy on the internet

[edited to clarify the end result and remove lady singing references that may be offensive to some ]

PS: I doubt the offender caught selling pirate enabled boxes has the law or deep pockets on his side but hope it's all taken into perspective and he gets a fine and doesn't do any time for what is a non violent crime.

[Hedda]

We did discuss allowing Add-ons in Official repo that use binary blobs then have some sort of md5 hash checking to make sure they are legitimate since the source of the blob would have to be provided. Not sure if we reach a firm decision, but as I recall there was no one vehemently against it at the time.

There's nothing in the license that requires add-ons to be open. The issue is that we have been traditionally hesitant to offer closed binaries in our repo from a philosophical standpoint. During devcon we seemed to come to an agreement that exceptions could be made in certain circumstances.

Does that mean that partially closed source Netflix and Spotify binary addons for Kodi have a chance then to make it into the official repository if they had some kind of LGPL wrapper?

I have been hoping that someone would update Spotyxbmc2 (binary addon) and re-submit to for Kodi merger:

http://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=67012

I think that Spotyxbmc2 is a grea proof-of-concept what binary addon could do for Kodi if closed source addons could legally be added to Kodi. Then please also checkout this idea:

http://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=105147

[Hedda]

The Gazette (UK) still don't get the difference between Kodi and third-party illegal addons for Kodi:

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teessi...s-12022544
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teessi...g-12032833
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teessi...y-12025765

At least not when you read their headlines which make it seem that UK courts will ban Kodi itself.

[speedwell68]

The Gazette (UK) still don't get the difference between Kodi and third-party illegal addons for Kodi:

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teessi...s-12022544
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teessi...g-12032833
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teessi...y-12025765

At least not when you read their headlines which make it seem that UK courts will ban Kodi itself.

I will agree it is a very poor piece of journalism as it isn't explaining the facts behind Kodi use. People do have a problem understanding the difference between Kodi and addons for Kodi, in the same way they can't differentiate between broadband and Wifi. It is because they are packaged together. But nothing in those articles suggest that there is any plan for the courts to ban the use of Kodi in the UK. Any such ban would be impossible to Police and stop nothing. If they banned Kodi people would just use a renamed fork.

[Asphyx]

All this talk about Courts and LGPL is moot really...
The Kodi Devs (who I assume to be the IP Owners) are the only ones who can enforce and determine what constitutes a violation to their copyright. They are the only party who can start an action against a product that may not fully comply with the LGPL release provisions of their copyright.

LGPL allows the owner to stop certain development if it uses their LGPL code in a project that is not also licensed under the LGPL.

But the owner can waive that right (or simply ignore it) if they so choose. The reason why most don't issue a waiver is because if you allow one project to ignore that provision you really are opening the door for others to do so as well as they will cite the waived project as an example in court.

By simply ignoring the violating project they can pick and choose when and what to enforce.

[natethomas]

All this talk about Courts and LGPL is moot really...
The Kodi Devs (who I assume to be the IP Owners) are the only ones who can enforce and determine what constitutes a violation to their copyright. They are the only party who can start an action against a product that may not fully comply with the LGPL release provisions of their copyright.

LGPL allows the owner to stop certain development if it uses their LGPL code in a project that is not also licensed under the LGPL.

But the owner can waive that right (or simply ignore it) if they so choose. The reason why most don't issue a waiver is because if you allow one project to ignore that provision you really are opening the door for others to do so as well as they will cite the waived project as an example in court.

By simply ignoring the violating project they can pick and choose when and what to enforce.

This actually is not correct. The submission process for core code does not include a copyright transfer, which means all code is still owned by all the respective authors of Kodi. This means any author could enforce their copyright. While quite a lot of the code is owned by team members, probably over half is not.

[Asphyx]

This actually is not correct. The submission process for core code does not include a copyright transfer, which means all code is still owned by all the respective authors of Kodi. This means any author could enforce their copyright. While quite a lot of the code is owned by team members, probably over half is not.

That pre-supposes that the add-on accesses the code without the help of Kodi.
Kodi has permission to use the code submitted and Kodi being LGPL is in compliance with the LGPL release requirements.
So as long as the add-on goes through Kodi to get the functionality it's not technically using the submitted code and using Kodi instead.
Kodi in this case would fit into the role of LGPL Bridge Software.

As long as the owners of Kodi don't start action then no one else could.
Where the issue would be is if the initial IP holder of that code Kodi uses decides that Kodi is violating the license by allowing those add ons to allow access to it.

[nickr]

AFAIK Kodi is GPL not LGPL.

[natethomas]

Kodi is definitely GPL, which is why I brought up an addon acting as an LGPL bridge in the first place.