2014-09-17, 02:53
Is there an e-mail address for these guys? We'll put them on our public shame list and request takedown notices people who sell them on ebay and such.
2014-09-17, 03:37
(2014-09-17, 02:53)Ned Scott Wrote: Is there an e-mail address for these guys? We'll put them on our public shame list and request takedown notices people who sell them on ebay and such.
I think that's the way we're going to have to do it. The modded XBMC is being distributed by one software house at this point, from what I can tell. They have confirmed they are the source; whether or not they are being truthful is another issue, but I haven't found the modded builds in any other firmware packages and I've looked at dozens.
As updates roll out, there will be many devices carrying this modded version of XBMC. I know of six devices currently shipping with firmwares from this software house and that's not counting the clones that are popping up damn near by the hour now.
The factory reps are just getting into the office over in China. Let's give them one last chance to enter into compliance. If they do not budge during my discussions with them today, I say we all (users, devs) take an organized approach towards confronting the issue using the methods you described.
2014-09-17, 03:49
(2014-09-17, 02:24)shomari Wrote: I don't care for copyright as an enforcement mechanism
To be clear, I have an affinity for open source
These two statements are inconsistent. Without copyright there is no GPL2. Without GPL2 and other opensource licences (which all depend on copyright) there is no open source.
2014-09-17, 04:00
(2014-09-17, 03:49)nickr Wrote:(2014-09-17, 02:24)shomari Wrote: I don't care for copyright as an enforcement mechanism
To be clear, I have an affinity for open source
These two statements are inconsistent. Without copyright there is no GPL2. Without GPL2 and other opensource licences (which all depend on copyright) there is no open source.
I can see why you'd say that, it's been said to me before.
I don't want to engage in a protracted battle about copyright enforcement during a battle against non-compliance [of copyright/GPL] in which I'm trying my best to help.
I ask that you please simply accept that on this issue I'm an ally and don't cause this to devolve into a disjointed melodrama focusing on the finer points of copyright and philosophical wrangling.
I only stated how I'm willing and able to help and never meant for any battle about the merits of copyright to ensue. I'm not saying you're guilty of any of this, but I know how quickly things devolve online.
I'm going after the source code with all I can muster. If that's not good enough because I haven't proven fealty to copyright theory worthy of this board, please let me know now. I don't have the time or the inclination to do anything other than the task I set out for, and that is to try and get this source code or publicly shame and condemn the factory for non-compliance in the case of non-disclosure.
2014-09-17, 04:54
Woo sorry, I should have said "Good to see your efforts and your support for Open Source but these statements are inconsistent..."
You clearly are on the side of the angels on this one. However I think that there is a misconception about how licensing works, and that copyright is essential to open source licensing. I was just trying to clear that up, but if I offended you in my bluntness please accept my apology.
Keep up the good work with whoever you are chasing for the source.
You clearly are on the side of the angels on this one. However I think that there is a misconception about how licensing works, and that copyright is essential to open source licensing. I was just trying to clear that up, but if I offended you in my bluntness please accept my apology.
Keep up the good work with whoever you are chasing for the source.
2014-09-17, 05:07
(2014-09-17, 04:54)nickr Wrote: Woo sorry, I should have said "Good to see your efforts and your support for Open Source but these statements are inconsistent..."
You clearly are on the side of the angels on this one. However I think that there is a misconception about how licensing works, and that copyright is essential to open source licensing. I was just trying to clear that up, but if I offended you in my bluntness please accept my apology.
Keep up the good work with whoever you are chasing for the source.
No worries, this situation has me on edge, as I'm sure it does most of us on this board.
I'm attempting a fruitful dialogue with the executive manager of the offending factory. The sales staff was denied access to the source code. If I can't convince the manager it's in their best interests to release the source code, at that point I see no other recourse but to publicly expose/shame them for wanton disregard of the public license.
2014-09-17, 05:51
My advice would be to ask Rockchip to blacklist their customer and ask them to speed up development of a compliant xbmc release so that this rogue unstable fork is no longer used and will no longer tarnish the reputation of xbmc/Kodi.
A hacked UI but no chips to run it on might be a good deterrent.. currently the RK3288 demand is higher than supply so canceling delivery due to the fact they made Rockchip lose face is a logical next step..
But if the compliant solution takes to long to deliver we might see more brands coming out with this release just to stay in business.
A hacked UI but no chips to run it on might be a good deterrent.. currently the RK3288 demand is higher than supply so canceling delivery due to the fact they made Rockchip lose face is a logical next step..
But if the compliant solution takes to long to deliver we might see more brands coming out with this release just to stay in business.
2014-09-17, 10:00
I have just been informed a new, updated modified fork will be released (non-compliant) in the immediate future.
Incredibly, this information is what is being used to bogard the source code for the existing non-compliant distribution. Seems the factory is attempting to stymie my request for the current sources/changes by promising a newer version.
Incredibly, this information is what is being used to bogard the source code for the existing non-compliant distribution. Seems the factory is attempting to stymie my request for the current sources/changes by promising a newer version.
2014-09-17, 10:29
Might just be their original code into the latests xbmc release.. I wonder how they upgrade their users or what they'll do when users upgrade here... and miss the hevc HW decoding.
Bring the problem to Rockchip... they hold the key to a solution.
Bring the problem to Rockchip... they hold the key to a solution.
2014-09-17, 10:41
Rockchip is probably already partly behind this.
2014-09-17, 11:07
Then all their customers must have this release... which I doubt..
And they are supposed to be working privately with Koying who is part of Team Kodi Development in getting a compliant release out..
Again the plot thickens...
And they are supposed to be working privately with Koying who is part of Team Kodi Development in getting a compliant release out..
Again the plot thickens...
2014-09-17, 11:18
(2014-09-17, 11:07)Willem55 Wrote: Then all their customers must have this release... which I doubt..
And they are supposed to be working privately with Koying who is part of Team Kodi Development in getting a compliant release out..
Again the plot thickens...
I just received another update, released for yet another device, and am inspecting to see if the modded build is there as well.
[EDIT: At least this firmware update (for another device, same software house) did NOT include the modded XBMC. So it is not as widespread as I initially thought - yet.]
You have to understand that most devs/modders and end users wildly speculated (going off known history) that Rockchip would release a mess of software in early versions of RK3288 firmware and particularly with regards to video decoding/playback. Instead, we end up not only with mature RK3288 firmware right off the bat, but also new formats being hardware decoded before even the main branch of XBMC/Kodi has accomplished the same?
Also if all the other factories had this, there's no way someone else would not have stumbled on it by now.
I don't mean to be a conspiracy theorist, but come on...
2014-09-17, 11:30
Then again, Occam says to never ascribe to conspiracy that which may be explicable by fuckup (or ignorance for that matter).
2014-09-17, 11:32
(2014-09-16, 18:30)JohnAStebbins Wrote:(2014-09-16, 11:30)csgabe Wrote: amc-h265 support seems to be added here:
https://github.com/jstebbins/xbmc/commit...27339b69bd
This is from my pull request. As noted in the pull request comments, mediacodec playback isn't working. It returns an IllegalStateException during configure. From what I've read, this exception happens when all attributes are not initialized before calling configure. So I'm wondering if there is some new attribute that must be set for hevc. Haven't found any hints yet though.
But StageFright accelerated playback works fine (also part of my pull request). Testing done on a Measy BS4.
Pull request is here https://github.com/xbmc/xbmc/pull/5374
Not sure if it's relevant for playback on Rockchip RK3288 SoCs but Stane1983 ( https://github.com/Stane1983 ) mentioned in a comment on CNX-Software.com that he is also working on HEVC hw-decode support for Kodi too, but for AMLogic S805 SoC http://www.cnx-software.com/2014/09/05/m.../#comments
stane1983 Wrote:I’m waiting for one S805 (week or two) or S812 (long shot…) to be able to add hevc support. It’s partially added into libraries as well as S805 chip, just no device yet to implement and test hevc…Stane1983 submitted patches to XBMC before and is a member of this community too so maybe have a chat with? him http://forum.xbmc.org/member.php?action=...uid=158756
