×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

63 comments

Jesus Christ. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41426179)

That summary was like reading the Warsaw telephone directory.

Re:Jesus Christ. (2)

aliquis (678370) | about a year and a half ago | (#41426233)

My first reaction was whatever it was a Chinese project.

(I still don't know and the website didn't explained what it was but I googled it instead.)

Re:Jesus Christ. (5, Informative)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#41426607)

Xbian and raspbmc are competing distributions of operating systems for the rasbery pi .(you can google rasbery pi).

Well, I say operating systems but they seem to be more or less flash utilities and scripts to change some settings and load debian linux from a debian repository somewhere. The quip seems to be over the installer program in which something was claimed to have been copied without attribution to the copyright holders or provisions in the GPL for redistributing the source.

Both projects seem to be run by kids which is really evident if you caught any of the back and forth banter over the last couple of days. I'm not really sure why this makes the front page of slashdot. Maybe I borked some settings or something.

Re:Jesus Christ. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41426723)

Xbian and raspbmc are competing distributions of operating systems for the rasbery pi .(you can google rasbery pi).

Both projects seem to be run by kids which is really evident if you caught any of the back and forth banter over the last couple of days. I'm not really sure why this makes the front page of slashdot.

Don't you know Ras-Pi is the IN thing for Slashdot mod these days?
 
Any and every news about Ras-Pi you submit sure to make Slashdot's front page.
 

Re:Jesus Christ. (4, Interesting)

tibit (1762298) | about a year and a half ago | (#41426841)

While I don't think that projects run by kids are anything to scoff at just because they are run by kids, indeed there's some degree of immaturity shown in the response page on xbian.org. The response repeatedly shows that the author is wholly ignorant of how copyright laws work. Namely that the installer author is the only one responsible for compliance. Those xbian folk seem to have no clue that if they redistribute, it's on THEM to comply. I think evein I knew that back in the 90s, without otherwise having a clue about copyright law, from nothing more than reading the fine license (GPL) and associated narrative (FAQs, mailing list posts).

Re:Jesus Christ. (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#41430627)

Lets see if I get modded down again like I did last time I asked this...WTF is Xbian? What does it do, what is the difference between it and the other and WTF does the other do?

All I can figure out is it has something to do with Raspberry pi from the title, which is a niche product so this is niche software that runs on a niche product...is it REALLY so much to ask for to have a fricking "about" link in TFS?

Re:Jesus Christ. (2)

Billlagr (931034) | about a year and a half ago | (#41432649)

It's a modified Linux distro for the RP, but it sets up as a media center - "Raspbmc is a minimal Linux distribution based on Debian that brings XBMC to your Raspberry Pi. This device has an excellent form factor and enough power to handle media playback, making it an ideal component in a low HTPC setup, yet delivering the same XBMC experience that can be enjoyed on much more costly platforms" It/they are supposed to be simple, no-brainer installers that give you a ready to go media center without lots of faffing around. Xbian is a 'competing' distro.

Re:Jesus Christ. (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#41433449)

Thank you. I'm sure you got that from some about page and this IS the Internet, where they have these things called "hyperlinks". So would it REALLY have killed someone to put the parties names in hyperlinks that led to at least one fricking about page?

That said...WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE????? What? Why? Who in the hell thought it was a good idea to turn the fricking Pi, a device designed to be cheap above all, into a fricking MEDIA CENTER? Now robotics, UAVs, remote control systems of all sorts? yeah I can see that. But looking at these things you pretty much have to massage the fuck out of your media to make it run on the thing and even then its hit or miss...why? Why would you do that?

You want an actual FUNCTIONAL media center? here you go...E350 in a nice HTPC case [newegg.com] and there is even a free Linux HTPC build [openelec.tv] for it, couldn't be simpler. And unlike the Pi you won't spend weeks massaging the hell out of your formats, it'll play pretty much any format out of the box and only uses 18w under load and idles around 6w.

So no wonder I didn't know what this was, the thought of even attempting something so frankly pointless was simply beyond me. To use a /. car analogy this is like buying a car known for its hyper fuel efficiency and then using it to pull a boat. Sure you might get it to work for awhile but you are gonna spend more time working on the damned thing or dealing with problems than it is worth. media decoding and scaling is NOT a light task and a wimpy CPU like the Pi wasn't made for that task, not even close. Hell does it even have the broadcom decoder chip? Even if it does it'll be limited as hell for that role, it just makes no sense.

Re:Jesus Christ. (1)

Billlagr (931034) | about a year and a half ago | (#41433609)

Ah, I only knew because I happened to be doing a little research on media players on the weekend and happened across the project ;)

Re:Jesus Christ. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434269)

E350 seems to be noisy as hell compared to 100% silent RPi. "Massage the fuck out of my media", you say... Well, I've done nothing to my media and everything works. Sure, there was the time without an MPEG2 license but that has been already taken care of (with a whopping £2.40 extra cost). What about maintenance? Sure, there is the occasional update to a newer OpenELEC build, but with CEC working and an update script that can be handled with a push of a button on the TV's remote.. other than that, nothing.

And from the tinkering perspective:
Would I try an E350. With the price well over $100? Hell no.
But would I try a Raspberry Pi with roughly 1/4 of the price of an E350? I already did.

Re:Jesus Christ. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#41436937)

Who in the hell thought it was a good idea to turn the fricking Pi, a device designed to be cheap above all, into a fricking MEDIA CENTER?

If it does the job, why not? I'm using a ten year old HP running kubuntu as a media center, and it works fine as one. Why spend a couple hundred bucks building something when you can do it for less than a hundred? There's no point in wasting money on unnecessarily overspeced hardware.

Re:Jesus Christ. (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year ago | (#41437767)

That said...WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE????? What? Why? Who in the hell thought it was a good idea to turn the fricking Pi, a device designed to be cheap above all, into a fricking MEDIA CENTER? Now robotics, UAVs, remote control systems of all sorts? yeah I can see that. But looking at these things you pretty much have to massage the fuck out of your media to make it run on the thing and even then its hit or miss...why? Why would you do that?

The purpose of the chip is primarily the GPU - it's got a very powerful GPU capable of 1080p video decoding and 3D accellerated graphics. Normally though, you'd pair this up with a processor on your board to have a complete system.

Broadcom decided putting on a relatively weak processor (ARM11) would for the vast majority of use cases be sufficient - say for a media center box (which is what the chip was intended for). The ARM would handle the UI and network bits and the care and feeding of the video processor which crunches the video out.

The chip is a high-end graphics chip first. Broadcom tacked on a simple ARM11 so customers could basically have a single-chip solution. I wouldn't be surprised to find that chip inside a Roku box, for example (or a WDTV, or other media player). Saves the cost of a second processor and ancillary hardware required to drive the graphics, thus making it much cheaper.

When the CPU only has to handle basic UI stuff (reading/writing filesystems, networking), a weak processor is just fine, especially if it can feed the grpahics side.

You could always use a more powerful processor with it if you wanted to make a more premium device (and disable the ARM11), but if you wanted a cheap device for media center use, this was it.

Re:Jesus Christ. (1)

lordbeejee (732882) | about a year ago | (#41434727)

*Click the link to the website in the summary
*Click FAQ
*Read:
What is XBian?
XBian is a fined tuned and optimized OS for the raspberry pi based on raspbian. It is focused on the popular XBMC software. So the perfect OS for your raspberry pi media center setup!

Youngins. (5, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#41426195)

Koenkk makes the case that his project has always complied with the GPL.

Many moons ago, when the internet was young and fresh, and wild UNIX admins roamed freely, there was a thing called Usenet, and on this thing called Usenet, was a relatively new problem called Spam. And much of this Spam came from a particular ISP. And as Usenet back in those days was a community-run entity, there was much discussion about how to resolve this problem. E-mails sent to the ISP were met with silence, or with "not our problem." And the Spam continued. One day, after there had been a much-heated debate, a vote was held, and it was declared the ISP (AT&T), would be given the ultimate punishment: The Usenet death sentence.

It was rarely carried out, and even the elders recall only a handful of times when an ISP had earned its place amongst the killfiles of the wild UNIX admins of old. And so the call went out: At midnight, the killfiles would be updated, and AT&T would be purged henceforth from the world of Usenet. And word of this spread, and yet the giant still slumbered, refusing to do anything. And it was seen that the death sentence was good, and so all waited for it to come to pass.

Suddenly, in the final minutes of the final hour, an e-mail appeared from the beligerant ISP! It read, simply, "We do not have a problem, and we are working as quickly as possible to fix it." And thus was it seen for the first time on the internet how corporations deal with these sorts of problems. And ever since, whensoever a cry went up in an internet community that called for the end of access for a corporation, thus has been the response... by tradition, only uttered in the final minutes, of the final hour.

Re:Youngins. (1, Funny)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#41426337)

Yea Brother. In the beginning the Usenet was a sweet and lovely thing. Yes there were occasional flamewars, but since it was tied to real email addresses acolytes couldn't be a colossal rectal orifices without ultimately suffering holy sanctions. The thing started out representing thought spaces for work, creation, then play, then strange things began to creep into the Usenet. Alt.sex spawned Alt.sex.small. furry. animals.bin... all sort and kinds ontological sewage backed up into the Usenet converting it from a gather place of ideas into an unwholesome sewer pipe. Spam was the primary engine of its decay, ultimately dumping filth into every good and legitimate channel as well as every off color threads. Spam has been the force behind the slaughter of many useful resources. I hope there is a special place in third level of hell for spammers, somewhere between politicians and use car salesmen.

Re:Youngins. (1)

jd (1658) | about a year and a half ago | (#41426775)

My understanding is that Satan discards spammer souls as unfit for Hell, and they langush instead in the Bog of Eternal Stench.

Re:Youngins. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41427043)

With a Dogs nose that never wavers in it's smellability!

Re:Youngins. (4, Interesting)

jd (1658) | about a year and a half ago | (#41426755)

Actually, USENET was middle-aged when those Utah lawyers posted the first mainstream spam. (And the more serious crime was their publishing a book on how to exploit the Internet to harvest personal data and spam them.)

AT&T should have been terminated, not just by USENET but by the MBone and maybe even some of their Tier 1 peers. Not just until they did something, but permanently. Some crimes should not be forgiven, and AT&T's actions then have cost the world on aggregate since that time (bandwidth ain't cheap, neither is storage) far more than the market value of AT&T. This was anticipated and widely expected to be the outcome of AT&T's negligence. Sometimes, the best option is to cut your losses and run, and AT&T was definitely a loss.

Today, such action would serve little purpose. Spam, which is essentially economic cyberwarfare, has become too widespread. You can't dig it up by the roots, there are too many of them. It will require action on a far larger scale. System admins, network admins and ISP admins alike will have to become the largest gang of herbicidal maniacs ever gathered in one virtual spot. Exterminating botnets, the ultimate weed, will require a change in attitudes. Provider agreements must make spamming grounds for terminating Internet access. System admins must monitor their systems more rigorously for evidence of compromise. Network admins must stop assuming they can just get away with a trivial spam filter then ignore the problem. Spam is a reduction of service, rather than a denial of it, but then in a DDOS, so is each individual component of that attack. Network admins wouldn't be caught dead regarding components of a DDOS as something they can just ignore. Same's true here.

Re:Youngins. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41426925)

Well, there is still a certain Italian ISP that is permanently on my email blacklist because they never did anything about the SPAM that was sent via them.
I really think all email providers should support that you can set blacklists that reply with a error message when a certain group of servers tries to deliver mails.
Over time, that would force all email providers to either react promptly to SPAM problems or not be able to serve most of their customer's mails.

Re:Youngins. (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about a year and a half ago | (#41427385)

Actually, USENET was middle-aged when those Utah lawyers posted the first mainstream spam.

Ah someone who would know what the hell I was talking about if I attempted to share that story.

It was before I hit the Usenet myself, I was in a lawyers waiting room of all places where I read of it.
It was Time or Newsweek (1985?) that had a rather large article about the husband wife lawyer team
that dared spam the Usenet. How the Usenet got together and kicked (DDOSed) them off the Internet.

I do remember a time before Spam, the use of ones real email address, and an address
so others could finger me. I also recall passing on the first upload of Mosaic for the Amiga.
thinking it was just another fancy term program - who knew.

I also remember having the same type of disagreement these two are having. I'm just glad it
was a long time ago and never hit the front page of /. :}

Re:Youngins. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41426975)

UDP was threatened several times, always successfully, and always against ISP's who refused to act against the most egregious, documented, and demonstrably illegal abuse. As an old spam hunter, I don't remember one against AT&T. I vaguely remember the one against UUnet, which is not the same company. And lord, do I remember netcom.com, which doesn't show up on the Wikipedia entry for Usenet Death Penalty, probably because they saved themselves at the last possible moment by tweaking their NNTP servers to include the ISP of the posting host. (They were hosting a lot of forged cancel messages for discussions on alt.religion.scientology in the mid 90's, and a lot of bulk spew designed to keep people from reading anything from Scientology critics. I bet that one made the lawyers nervous!!)

Re:Youngins. (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | about a year and a half ago | (#41429199)

One day, after there had been a much-heated debate, a vote was held, and it was declared the ISP (AT&T), would be given the ultimate punishment: The Usenet death sentence.

It is Usenet Death Penalty, or UDP. And I remember the UUnet vote, and the Compuserv vote, but not ATT. (Also some odd little ISP in Michigan, if I remember right. That one went through, and is not mentioned anywhere for some reason.) Anyway, tinc. :)

Oh, hey, that's for the update! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41426199)

Umm, wut?

Complication of making a distribution (4, Interesting)

Bruce Perens (3872) | about a year and a half ago | (#41426223)

Making a distribution is more complicated than just making it work technically. There's a substantial amount of work in making sure that you're complying with all of the licenses, both in software that you just distribute, and the software that you write but combine with other people's work.

So far, the communications I see on this issue don't come from people who appear to understand all of what they're required to do. And the licenses used by these folks on their own work aren't even close to Open Source.

I think this community needs to go back to the Debian core it started with, and add to that whatever optimizations and installers are necessary without the crayon licenses.

Re:Complication of making a distribution (1)

Arker (91948) | about a year and a half ago | (#41426303)

Agreed, except I started from a Slackware core and still don't really see the point in all that extra unnecessary complexity Debian forces down the throat. Although it can be handy on a remote install I will grant... ;)

But Koenkk is just sad here, claiming he doesnt have to host source because he hasnt changed them. He lost that dispute at least 20 years ago, he just doesnt know it yet.

Re:Complication of making a distribution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41426489)

and where does it tell you that the source must be available as a download?
By request is fine, it is in the GPL.

Re:Complication of making a distribution (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41426767)

It has to be just as easy to request as the binaries, and it _was_ requested by the rasbmc guy.

The response of "i dunno" is not acceptable.

Re:Complication of making a distribution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41426711)

Debian does not force anyone to do anything, please do not insult us, thanks.

If you have particular issues with Debian, the way to get them fixed is to report bugs, not to rant on Slashdot :)

http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting

Re:Complication of making a distribution (1)

ardor (673957) | about a year and a half ago | (#41427115)

They do however enforce their strict view on non-free stuff. Just run ffmpeg -codecs on a Debian machine, then on an Arch one, for example. Note the absence of libmp3lame, libx264, aac ... in the Debian version. libmp3lame and libx264 are GPLed , and ffmpeg has custom-made support for AAC. h264, mp3, and AAC however are subject to royalties (and software patents, but what isn't these days). That is why Debian leaves them out.

Re:Complication of making a distribution (1)

Arker (91948) | about a year and a half ago | (#41429311)

I wasnt insulting Debian, the second-oldest and one of the most respected distributions around. I do use it fairly often. I disagree with the underlying philosophy behind much of the system design (making the system reliant on a complicated database in order to track dependencies is creating a potentially massive problem to avoid very minor ones) but that doesnt mean that I see a 'bug' to report - Debian is a great distro. Just not my favourite. That's not a rant, or an attempt to report a bug, just a statement of fact with a little explanation.

Now, if you want to hear a rant about bugs, let's talk about Firefox. They have show stopper bugs that have been sitting ignored in bugzilla for 10 years now! [mozilla.org]

Re:Complication of making a distribution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41426933)

Maybe you should try reading the GPL, because you are the one who is wrong. There is a special clause for "non-commercial distribution", 3c). Problem in case of Debian is that they use 3a), not 3b), so in that specific case you probably can't make use of it.
I believe that GPLv3 extended this "non-commercial" option though, but I don't have a copy at hand.

Re:Complication of making a distribution (1)

Arker (91948) | about a year and a half ago | (#41429439)

You can only use 3c if you received the binaries under 3b and pass them along verbatim, which isnt the case, so it just doesnt apply. It leaves him with choice of 3a or 3b if he wants to distribute legally. Since he's been distributing illegally, he's already in breach of the license, and at this point in time has no legal right to distribute any of it, without first receiving forgiveness from the copyright holders. {include stddsclmr.h IANAL.h}

Re:Complication of making a distribution (1)

maswan (106561) | about a year and a half ago | (#41426853)

Yes, it is called Raspbian, which is Debian with a recompile for the target and some installer tweaks and hooks for pulling in the necessary non-free stuff from raspberrypi.org which comes from the pi being a closed platform.

Xbian, RaspBMC, etc take Raspbian and then make a custom install based on a package presets and some scripts for automagic setup for those that think Debian is "too complicated". And apparently lots of drama.

Re:Complication of making a distribution (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41427345)

Yes, it is called Raspbian, which is Debian with a recompile for the target and some installer tweaks and hooks for pulling in the necessary non-free stuff from raspberrypi.org which comes from the pi being a closed platform.

And NO TESTING. I upgraded to the new firmware which enabled turbo mode. Then my raspi locked up. Then my SD card was corrupted, I fsck'd it on my PC but alas, init was destroyed. Now I have no raspbian install any more. So I installed XBian as I had already downloaded the image, but then I discovered that was the day they took it down. So I installed raspbmc and it doesn't have the driver I need (usbtouchscreen - seriously, there's practically no drivers built with these systems!) and RC5 is being delayed for this turbo issue, so there's little to no point to be screwing with it for the next few days until they make a release.

Do the massive firmware binary blob and the graphics binary blob present any problem for the raspi being an officially-supported platform in Debian, should they choose to? Because if not, I would suggest to anyone considering playing with Raspberry Pi that doesn't already have one that they not do so until that happens. So far only the kernel and boot loader seem to be receiving a serious effort, and there's a serious bug in the new firmware.

Re:Complication of making a distribution (1)

maswan (106561) | about a year and a half ago | (#41427803)

The turbo mode stuff together with the kernel and firmware all come from the same raspberrypi.org repository. Raspbian is really the Debian:y environment around this.

If you want to run Debian, you can do that too (at a performance penalty since you need to use the soft float version, armhf is targeted for a newer version of ARM than is in the Raspberry Pis). You still need the same non-free blobs to do anything graphical etc though.

Re:Complication of making a distribution (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41427889)

The turbo mode stuff together with the kernel and firmware all come from the same raspberrypi.org repository. Raspbian is really the Debian:y environment around this.

Right, raspbian is the combination of that stuff and the Debian:y environment. Remember, that stuff is distributed with raspbian, and when you update raspbian, that stuff gets updated. Therefore, they should be testing it before they decide to distribute it. This is why I'm not going to dick with Raspbian again any time soon. Problem is, the alternative is raspbmc, or xbian :p Or OpenELEC, but if I never have to see OpenEmbedded again it will be too soon. I never did manage to get Familiar with GPE built for my iPaq, the build just broke in a new and exciting way every time I tried, sometimes related directly to OE and sometimes just a package that was checked in that wouldn't build.

Re:Complication of making a distribution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41428211)

I have upgraded two Raspberry Pi's with the the Adafruit version of the raspbian distribution (Occidentalis v0.2) with no problems so YMMV.
  The overclocking kicks ass !

Re:Complication of making a distribution (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#41428297)

strange, my rasp is working in turbo mode at 1ghz just fine.

I have not seen sd card corrupt yet (thank $deity).

I still don't fully trust usb on this board, yet, but I've been able to download some source and build from it (example: net-snmp from source, from ./configure to make all was about 2 hours).

that was a pretty good acid test and it completed and ran when done.

the software for the pi needs more work but its getting pretty usable each week that goes by.

Re:Complication of making a distribution (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41428377)

I have not seen sd card corrupt yet (thank $deity).

raspbmc has been delayed for this bug
My raspbian install was destroyed by this bug
I would overclock rather than use turbo until it is addressed
I do have some thermal epoxy on order so I can heat sink my core...

Re:Complication of making a distribution (1)

Douglas Goodall (992917) | about a year and a half ago | (#41444879)

You shouldn't trust the USB on this card. It manifests in various ways. On my pi, it causes random keystrokes to be auto-repeated hundreds of times. Just try deleting one line of a source file in vi and you will see your source code vanish like magic. The USB trouble also touches the network interface, since it is the connection between the ethernet and the CPU. in my opinion, the pi is unusable, and a gigantic rip-off. They shipped many thousands of these things, knowing full well about the USB problem, which is a hardware problem primarily. Although they would like to fix this in software, so far no joy there.

Re:Complication of making a distribution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41428739)

It's squeeze or wheezy, I forget which ATM but the latest of the two, compiled targeting arm 6 hard float VFP rather than the default soft float.

xbian.org seems to be Javascript-only. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41426325)

I dont' see. I don't care.

As far a I am concerned, they may just disappear.

ugh (0)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year and a half ago | (#41426383)

more nerd sissy fights

no one even knew what this was before they started their PMS, and no one cares today

source code must be provided (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41426407)

For GPL and LGPL licenses the source code must be provided by the _distributor_, it doesn't matter whether you modified it or not.

Re:source code must be provided (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41426623)

why was that modded down? read the license, it is correct.

malware (2)

citizenr (871508) | about a year and a half ago | (#41426561)

All I got from that reply was :

"We dont have source code for the installer, we dont know whats in it ergo we are not breaking any licenses. Maybe theres a pot of gold inside, or a MALWARE and a botnet , we dont know, we dont care, we only distribute this binary lalalaa"

Re:malware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41426753)

That's really all you got from it? That's pretty pathetic.

Re:malware (1)

tibit (1762298) | about a year and a half ago | (#41426851)

Well, that's exactly what it says, if you remove the uncalled for verbosity. It reads like something someone in early grade school would write...

Yes someone owns GPL code (2)

kawabago (551139) | about a year and a half ago | (#41426569)

No you can't just take it and use it any way you like. Your obligations are fully spelled out in the license so there is absolutely no excuse for Koenkk not complying, particularly after being reminded of the obligation. His actions say all there is to say. If he keeps talking, he'll just make it worse.

Re:Yes someone owns GPL code (2)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#41426691)

The installer is not released under the gpl. That is where the supposed code dispute came from. It's a bit difficult to follow as they keep changing posts and crap. But my understanding was that because they used the same USB library that is freely available in some tool kit under a non-gpl license to format flashdrives, that one team assumed they stole their code, changed some file names and the splash image and passed it off as their own. They are now claiming that was a mistake.

Re:Yes someone owns GPL code (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41427363)

The installer is not released under the gpl

What is the installer's license? The installer is not even mentioned in the license statement.

Re:Yes someone owns GPL code (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41428933)

"The following components of Raspbmc are licensed under this agreement: ... Any other Raspbmc scripts, such as build scripts and helper scripts which are not sourced from an alternative source."

It is very clear what this means. Any source code of which Nazarko is the sole copyright holder is covered by this license.

Re:Yes someone owns GPL code (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41429115)

"The following components of Raspbmc are licensed under this agreement: ... Any other Raspbmc scripts, such as build scripts and helper scripts which are not sourced from an alternative source."

It is very clear what this means. Any source code of which Nazarko is the sole copyright holder is covered by this license.

It is very clear what this means. The installer in question [raspbmc.com] is a binary. Any scripts that it loads may be covered by this license, but the binary is not. Further, it is clear that "source code" is not mentioned in the text which you pasted.

Again, the agreement in question does not address the issue of the license of the installer at all. Does anyone (as a coward with no name, you are not anyone, so no more from you thanks) actually know what license covers the installer? This license agreement never mentions it by name or by allusion.

No changes were made; + pointing to source now!!!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41426635)

This isn't news. They have fixed the "problem". If they had made any changes and distributed the binary without source this might be a problem. They didn't make changes though and pointing to the source is little different than handing it on a platter from there own web site. If you are really that obsessed with getting it from them because technically maybe it requires them to put it on there own servers you have a serious problem.

This is in no way a free software issue. It's nitpicking over the details. The only thing that might have made this an issue is if they got the source code from a party which does not distribute it publicly and then linked to it. For instance I believe Oracle has done such things. If you took that source which only you have access to as it is required under the GPL, compiled it, and shipped the binary. You can't then go point to a site that the user doesn't have access to. There are permissions within the license which allow you to charge a reasonable fee for production of the source. They did need to indicate somewhere to be technically compliant that the source code was available on request. Actually having the source code published is NOT required.

Re:No changes were made; + pointing to source now! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41426721)

The problem is that if the third party stops providing the source and you didn't download a copy, then you are fucked. Of course in the case of Debian, there is the wayback machine where you can get almost any package from most of Debian's history:

http://snapshot.debian.org/

Re:No changes were made; + pointing to source now! (2, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41428187)

If you are really that obsessed with getting it from them because technically maybe it requires them to put it on there own servers you have a serious problem.

Well, GNU has a serious problem with people not putting it on their own servers [gnu.org] .

The only thing that might have made this an issue is if they got the source code from a party which does not distribute it publicly and then linked to it.

Wrong, and also wrong. See above link.

Actually having the source code published is NOT required.

And, wrong again. But don't take my word for it, follow my link above and let the FSF explain it to you in a FAQ that you should read before making such idiotic statements, whoever you are besides a coward.

Overrated? (0)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41428417)

Well, know I know why you posted your idiotic drivel as an AC... so you could abuse your modpoints

Another 10 years from now.. (1)

sky770 (2731643) | about a year and a half ago | (#41427305)

With the tradition of world's biggest mobile and electronic companies suing each other over patents.
Another 10 years from now, this will be remembered as the day when the same tradition came to Open Source Software *sigh*.

Re:Another 10 years from now.. (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about a year and a half ago | (#41427431)

Another 10 years from now, this will be remembered as the day when the same tradition came to Open Source Software *sigh*.

Why this day and not the previous days when BSD and GPL licensing dramas occur between the BSD and Linux communities?

Re:Another 10 years from now.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41427831)

Why? Well, Because I'm old enough now that I can only really remember the current day for its duration. Tomorrow will be the day to remember later.

Re:Another 10 years from now.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41427447)

Where's the Nostradamus mod option when you need it?

Posting anonymously because I moderated this thread already.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...