Ned Scott Wrote:http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title=XBMC_manifesto
Some? These are the only policies that the WikiMedia Foundation has made: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies
While the Wikipedia community (just on the English Wikipedia) handles 57 policies ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_policy ) and over 150 guidelines ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wi...guidelines ). The community is by far a self governing system that rarely requires input from the Foundation before making or changing rules.
There's time, but no one wants to do it. It's boring. Still has noting to do with forum rules.
@
ned Scott:
If you want to have a total distrubuted control without central control, GIThub and a forum and a wiki in a country who respect freedom of speech (EU countries like Sweden and the Netherlands) will be sufficient. But the choice was made (by the guys who gained access to millions of dollars via Boxee) to setup this charity Foundation in the US of A.
This (running a community project within a charity foundation) involves a level of co-ordination and process that goes far beyond what you can do at GitHub, whether you like it or not. Proposed piracy policy is a good example of the consequences.
It is nice to see the community put some efforts in drawing the Manifesto and an up to date member page but all policies drawn by teamXBMC (and the community at large) are useless since formally there is no relation between teamXBMC and the XBMC Foundation.
The first thing to understand is that the XBMC Foundation is not only open source projects, frameworks or code libraries. The Foundation is a tax-exempt public charity for a variety of philanthropic reasons. It’s not owning the code; it’s only supporting/empowering it for those philanthropic reasons, supported by it’s mission. Strangely, those are not public (did you actually refer to that GUI manifesto?) while they are used for applying for the tax-exempt status and setting up the Foundation in the first place. Besides, throwing a Foundation at a GPL community created software project means more ways (beside copyright) of controlling a project. Nothing is done to justify that while xbmc codebase is fully legal. Maybe some downsteam projects are in danger in some countries but not xbmc.
What does the GPL means while having a piracy stance like the one proposed? This real discussion is totally avoided and R. Stallmann (and the whole Free / Open Everything Movement) normally are using the word sharing (and more related to the forum: freedom of expression) instead of facilitating piracy. I think about the banned software devs which also are creators. How free are they within this community? Not is as free as stated in teamXBMC manifesto, saying
XBMC is based on the ideas of FOSS.
If there is no moral stance overhere?
Also following point:
- How will addons handled that break EULA's?
- Why doesn't this stance become effective once the domain name is transfered to the foundation?
- Doesn't inappropriate use cover a broader definition than piracy? It's not just copyright laws like SOPA you have to apply to. Also calling for racial hatred, video of pedo-pornographic nature, Incitement to violence and any other content that violates the laws) is.