Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.
I’m disappointed

GPL and VoddlerPlayer.exe

Let me first state that I am a big fan of the idea behind Voddler.
And that I have no interest in ripping, removing commercials or anything else related to such stuff.

I have however a problem that I am having a hard time to solve. The problem is the following:
When Voddler first announced its presence to the world I was thrilled about it being based on xbmc as this is free software, released under GPL, and it seemed very likely that it would be possible to create plugin for Voddler in the original xbmc player by someone with the right technical skill. So, I patiently waited for the source code to be released and then finally it was. I downloaded the source code 2009-10-30 and started to snoop around to see what needed to be done to be able to play the movies inside the original xbmc player. It took me a couple of hours, then I realised that the source code that I had downloaded did not match the code behind the VoddlerPlayer.exe that I was running. The changes are probably not that big, but very essential and easy to spot if you were trying to do what I was doing. I notified Voddler about this on 2009-11-02 through a web-form on voddlers home page and at the same time I stated my interest in integrating voddler inside the original xbmc, requested the current source code and referred to the GPL license. Since then I have not received a single response from voddler, voddlers forum has been down since then, the client has been updated a couple of times but the downloadable source code is still the same.

I really want to be able to read the GPL'd source code, and as it is under GPL and I have the binary I should be entitled to do so. In fact, I should be entitled to read the source code for every binary version that I have ever had in my possession which is now a not so small number.

So, please Voddler solve my problem.
194 people have
this question
+1
Reply
next » « previous
  • I’m relived
    I have never said anything about ignoring others peoples work or the GPL.
    And why can't you start a business when everyone has got the rights of using code licensed under the GPL as long as they are using it the rights way and are following the license as in this case Voddler isnt and whats the big deal, sure we're all mad at them.

    I agree with you that they are doing a big misstake by ignoring the GPL and other peoples hard work but you still have to realize one thing and the right of using GPL is not based on if it is a private person or a business/company they all have the rights to use it as long as the terms of the licensed is followed.

    Voddler is breaking this and I think we all are agreed about that something has to
    be done not just for them for our part of it to. In general this would mean that releasing the code public could be like taking a big risk of being in all ways ill-used. So the fact that they arent releasing there source code is probibly due the fact that the movie industry is taking apart in this service and if any leak should
    appear they might lose there movie providers, that could lead to a Voddler disaster.

    As I in my bug report to Voddler described that I found a way to bypass the commercials. Thats what for now are keeping them alive and for the last if that should leak what do you think would happen when the companies thats pays Voddler for showing the commercials finds it out?

    word.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m irritated, frustrated, shocked
    It's completely irrelevant if a bug is revealed that can allow viewers to skip commercials. They should cease and decist by now due to how they treat programmers that share their code for the greater good of the community. They could fix it in minutes and issue an update if this was an open source project as it should be, or recode the VoddlerNet part and force an update for that one instead, but their economic gain is not an excuse and never will be.

    It's the same reason that I can't sell heroin on the streets. I'm not being a good and honest man just because I need the money (or think that I deserve it because I invested in the heroin). In my eyes this is even worse than selling drugs on a school, since they are aware of it, they don't seem to do anything to change it, and they try to quiet down anyone posting relevant information here.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m frustrated, confused, irritated
    I agree that this a disrespectful way of treating programmers and that is worse than selling drugs but still there is a point in not releasing it, for me its the way of keeping it safe. Altrough I don't like the way they are ignoring the GPL.

    Sure I will be mad at them until they are being honest to themselves and showing all the respect that all the programmers are ment to be earned. But they will in my opinion never release code that can in any way conflict with the final service there providing. Its just a to great risk of being harmed even if they are breaking licenses.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m funny I know
    And Marie said in the beginning of this thread
    "De delar av Voddlers spelare, samt innehållshantering, som ej påverkas av XBMC och GPL har vi dock inga skyldigheter att publicera."

    That means that don't have to release any code that doesnt have to do with XBMC or GPL so they maybe never will release all of the code. Voddler is just a modified copy of XBMC and all of the work that Voddler made thats not related with XBMC isnt under the GPL and doesnt need to be public. So am I correct if I say they don't have to public the code of there for example the streaming functions if they have done it themselves?
    • view 2 more comments
    • To be honest im young, but young doesnt mean inexperienced.

      I have never said that breaking the GPL was something we should accept, Voddler is breaking a license which they should HAVE to follow. As I mentioned before GPL is GPL and has to be followed.

      And why am I trolling im speculating around the GPL and Voddler?
    • I am sorry, Tobias. Point taken, then. You realize they will have to release the source or stop infringing.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m giving up
    VoddlerNet is a separate application that communicates with the GUI client using an API. The GUI client contains the GPL code and the whole binary's source code, including every script etc needed to build it, is to be released to comply with GPL. What they do with VoddlerNet is their own issue, and that's why there's not excuse to their behaviour. The code release couldn't even be built by experienced programmers, thus it's a pure scam.

    Looks like they're trying to buy time to get more investors. I don't know if the investors realize what they're doing. They're sponsoring a rogue company.

    This is more and more starting to sound like one of those companies that wants a bunch of investors, presents an idea that sounds too good to be true, and then the owners etc disappears with the money that has been pumped into the company.
    Just wait and see. Voddler probably won't exist for long now. One big scam was probably all they needed.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • @tobias

    "I have never said anything about ignoring others peoples work or the GPL.
    And why can't you start a business when everyone has got the rights of using code licensed under the GPL as long as they are using it the rights way and are following the license as in this case Voddler isnt and whats the big deal, sure we're all mad at them."

    So what if someone skip the commercial or brake the voddler license
    it's not worse than voddler breaking the gpl licence.
    What's the big deal?
    Just becouse it's a large company makes it's less criminal to steal?
    We should just accept and get mad?
    But when the persons behind the tpb just had a search enging for torrents they should be thrown into jail.
    Yes it's so unfair if Goliat should lose some profit
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 1
    @Tobias: That is just Voddlers excuse for not releasing everything that they should release.

    This is my guess how things are. The problem Voddler have is that they did what a lot of people here are suggesting. They did VoddlerNet and they created VoddlerPlayer which was just a small modification of XBMC that they could release. Because VoddlerPlayer and VoddlerNet talked to each other unencrypted someone wrote a program that made it possible to download movies this summer. Voddler fixed that problem by starting to encrypt the movies that was sent to VoddlerPlayer. And then the problems started. Now they don't want to release the code because all encryption stuff is in VoddlerPlayer and they don't want to release that.

    So to solve this problem Voddler then choose to ignore GPL by instead of releasing everything that they are required to by the GPL license they choose to release something that looked like you could create a VoddlerPlayer but in no way was. My guess is that they tried to released the code in the state it was before they added the decryption stuff this summer. But they even failed with that because the code that they release are impossible to build.

    And now someone just reversed engineered the code that Voddler didn't want to release and Voddler are in the same place as they would follow the GPL license and release the decryption stuff from the beginning or if they choose not to encrypt at all.
    • view 2 more comments
    • Points taken, both of you.

      Their plan is too keep it this way, hoping it passes under the radar, while they build a new frontend using Flash or Silverlight. A quick way to build the platform, and cheap, if the thing blows over and doesn't get too much attention.
    • Let's not hope they use neither flash or silverlight , heard some rumors about adobeAir
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m tired, angry, frustrated, mad, sad, confused
    Voddler will take this nowere.. They are ignoring this and will continue doing this unless someone is taking actions. They are just providing us with minimal source code thats almost as the official XBMC source release. I think I speak for everyone when I say Voddler is breaking the GPL when they arent releasing there source code and WE ARE TIRED OF IT!

    Im out of here...
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I tell you were the problem is.

    First of all people are angry because a company is earning money on something that is not legally theirs to have.

    Secondly they have really fucked up and they try covering it up by keeping silent to the public about it even though they have been caught with there pants down.

    ...and lastly with this said they don't communicate at all and ironically don't even try to describe the problem they are facing or have to the public so we can try see it with so called Voddler "eyes".

    I tell you this "Ignorans is the beginning of terror" and terror most likely will be reversed engineering.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m excited
    Voddler is a lost cause. I am pretty damn sure the Voddler guys are keeping a close eye on this thread, they just don't know how to respond to it. The american video companies will do the work for us, as they are scared shit of getting sued for GPL infringement, or being associated with such things on their home turf (the US). The GPL is a reality in the US., the Voddler holding company is aswell. Warner Bros. is pulling out their online presence (see Spotify), see others to follow. Samsung and Best Buy are doing time in the New York courts for GPL infringements as we speak.

    Just shoot a breeze with some swedish Cheeze Doodles, sit back and watch the show, seeing the (known to scandinavians only) Voddler take the big plunge. Without Hollywood backup they are nada. I am seeing forward to watching the show.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • From today's newsletter from Voddler:

    "Voddler was exposed to an attempted security breach. The Voddler Client, the media-player, was attacked and we take seriously to all offences towards Voddler, our members and the content. Therefore we have decided to close the service until the new website is launched. With the new Flash media-player, under construction since autumn 2009, to be released in March the decision was easy to make."

    Now that they change parts of the platform maybe they finally can release the real source and not the fake one...
    • view 4 more comments
    • Well, we can't be absolutely sure about avoiding DRM, considering that both Apple and Nokia have placed dark Sith Lords...eh, I mean representatives...on the HTML5 Working Group :)

      I mean, just look at the Apple and Nokia retardedness in the whole "< video >" spectacle.
    • Firefox will not and can not add DRM stuff. So then it would only be about 50-75% of the browsers supporting the DRM stuff if all other browsers include it. And I don't think that Google will add DRM stuff in Chrome.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I wasn't serious about DRM in HTML5. Wasn't that kind of obvious looking at my phrasing and smiley?

    I was however serious when implying that Apple and Nokia are ruining progress on the HTML5 work by their largely unfounded fear of submarine patents and patent trolls in the Theora codec...and their classic monetary greed and desire of vendor lock-in by wanting to utilize proprietary codecs instead.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m frustrated
    Voddler not answering and not releasing the GPL:ed software makes me believe that they are taking a run for it.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • "The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization."
    • view 6 more comments
    • This is from the GPL FAQ. And as discussed earlier, they have released it. If you are contending the fact that they have released it, I suppose you'll have a hard time denying all of the thousand of people who have gotten copies of the modified client. I have personally downloaded and installed several versions of the client.

      The relevance of this particular fragment is quite low and only adds further confusion in this thread.
    • This paragraph is originally from the GPL FAQ:

      http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.h...

      However, Christoffer does not include the entire text. It goes on to say the following:

      "But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

      Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you."

      The GPL is crystal clear on the issue; if you give me a program under the GPL license, you must also give me the source code that was used to compile that program, if I ask for it.

      Voddler has not done so.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • This reply was removed on 2010-02-28.
    see the change log
  • @Fredrik
    Well that is a truth with modification because Voddler has released the source code for the player. The issue is that that the public can't compile it or make it work and that's were we all disagree. The dicussion on this thread is much about that Voodler shall release a working source code so anyone can compile and run Voddler with it and Voddler says that they only have to release the code for the player but not a working one so people can use it to run Voddler.

    As far as I have seen there are no links or facts that points that Voddler has to provide a running source code only that they have to provide the source code. So I think that's were the disagreement is and where we need to dig in a bit more to provide some more clarification. So if anyone has a link were that is written PLS post it then we have all the facts that is needed so people like Christoffer can't make noob statements like he did above.
    • view 2 more comments
    • I do think in the beginning of this disucssion that there was some confusion among some that the VoddlerNet was also subject to the GPL, which I believe it's not. As far as the client not being affected by XMBC is also nonsense. Voddler has already acknowledged that the client is in fact subject to the GPL when releasing part of the source code. The issue at hand is the interpretation made that parts of the client is not subject to the GPL because of well. Has anyone really gotten an explanation about why parts of the client would not be subject to GPL?
    • Voddler deliberately drags VoddlerNet.exe in to the discussion, often by referring to VoddlerNet.exe and VoddlerPlayer.exe as "the client" as a whole.

      Thereby, I assume, hoping to mix up the unreleased parts of VoddlerPlayer.exe with VoddlerNet.exe, where the former must be released and the latter does not.

      And, no, nobody's been given any explanation on why Voddler thinks that they can remove certain parts of the source code needed to build VoddlerPlayer.exe. And that's because no such explanation exists, which is stated repeatedly in this thread. IF a good explanation existed, wouldn't Voddler have provided it by now?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • @Per
    You are completely right my bad I meant off course the complete source code and not running.

    Per's statement is clearly described under GPL violations: http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcec...
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • Really, the GPL ignorance has to stop.

    Everything needed to build the same VoddlerPlayer.exe that Voddler distributes, must be published. This thread contains more than enough references to prove that. Over and over again.

    Voddler's claim, that some parts of that source code can be left out, is nonsense. They provide no reference to back this up, because none exists. The claim that Marie makes in this thread, is not true and only confuses anyone trying to understand what is going on.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • It is pretty clear to me when you read Voddlers blog post that Voddler never was going to release the source code. The hack didn't do anything except releasing the part of the code that Voddler needed to according to GPL and when that code was out Voddler closed down. And Voddler specifically mention that one reason they close down is because of the attack on the content (I'm not going to try to understand how you can attack content).

    It pretty strange that Voddler thinks that multi billion movie companies needs there copyright protected but the copyright that the XBMC developers have they can just ignore.

    My guess is that the problem is that their contracts with the movie companies it say that they need to protect the movies. And because of that they can't release the code. So they choose between ignore the GPL-license and removing the DRM protected (which releasing the source code really is). And if they removed the protecting they would probably lose all movies which would mean that they wouldn't earn any money. So they just ignored the GPL-license and probably hoped that no one would see it.

    It just show that these companies don't care about copyright at all even if they say it all the time. So when choosing between protecting the XBMC developers copyright and earning money they just choose the money. It is scary that a company can ignore the GPL-license and earn money on it but when someone download a movie illegal these companies thinks that they should go to jail.

    I just hope that Voddler now do the right thing (but I don't count on it) and for me that would be that they release all the modifications that they have done to XBMC as a diff or available in GIT or something like that. But also that they give XBMC a large sum of money because they ignored GPL and earned money because of it.
    • view 3 more comments
    • This comment was removed on 2010-03-02.
      see the change log
    • This comment was removed on 2010-03-02.
      see the change log
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I don't want to be in the shoes of the guy that choose to use XBMC in the first place. I wonder how many development hours they wasted on the XBMC client.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m sad
    According to http://twitter.com/noahinternet/statu... Voddler also ignores the BSD-license for components used in VoddlerNet. When will this stop Voddler? When will you stop ignoring GPL and BSD licenses?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m frustrated
    1
    For everyone in Sweden: Now is a good time to tell people coming to this meeting* that they should question Voddler's seriosity.

    http://bit.ly/cVrXaN has information on how to contact the other parties coming to the meeting (they should be told to keep Voddler out of the loop until they show that they respect IP and work of others).

    * http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/view/pre...
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m disgusted and frustrated
    Voddler should be reported to FSF (Free Software Foundation) for violating the GPL.
    Voddler should also be sued to bankruptcy and/or hacked to bankruptcy.

    Open source community should make an example of Voddler.

    I'm disgusted by how Voddler tries to slime their way out of this license violation.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m frustrated
    The best thing Voddler can do now is to close this thread and hope everyone will forget... I have started to spread the word on social medias like Facebook and twitter about their criminal act. Everyone should do the same!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I took some screen-shots right now!

    EDIT: edited my text...
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • The forum is truncated, apparently due to large volume. I found this thread about Getsatisfaction explaining this:

    http://getsatisfaction.com/getsatisfa...

    Apparently, you can still get to the answers using this RSS feed (just change the page number to get to the next/previous page):

    http://api.getsatisfaction.com/topics...
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m disappointed
    This is handle very bad. If you cant release the modified source code you shouldn't use GPLed software/source. Then ignoring the BSD license is very strange, just add a freaking license with the app. From http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bs...

    "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."

    Voddler action is making baby Jesus cry AND killing kittens, worst case scenario. How many others copyright holders is Voddler screwing over?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • This reply was removed on 2010-03-04.
    see the change log
  • I just realized that it might be interesting for the non-Swedish speaking audience to read this article, where tech mag IDG interviewed representatives for XBMC as well as Voddler:

    http://translate.google.com/translate...

    Specifically, this part:


    Voddler rejects the criticism and claims that the code they have published is adequate to follow the license.

    – It's possible to compile a player from the code we have published. It can not play our content but it can play other media files, says Ellinor Lejman, head of Public Relations at Voddler.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

    • Maybe, but no one has written about it here. Part of the problem is that it is the owners of the copyright who must pursue this, the FSF can only help out if the copyright holder asks them:

      "The more of these details that you have, the easier it is for the copyright holder to pursue the matter.

      Once you have collected the details, you should send a precise report to the copyright holder of the packages that are being misused. The copyright holder is the one who is legally authorized to take action to enforce the license.

      If the copyright holder is the Free Software Foundation, please send the report to . It's important that we be able to write back to you to get more information about the violation or product. So, if you use an anonymous remailer, please provide a return path of some sort. If you'd like to encrypt your correspondence, just send a brief mail saying so, and we'll make appropriate arrangements.

      Note that the GPL, and other copyleft licenses, are copyright licenses. This means that only the copyright holders are empowered to act against violations. The FSF acts on all GPL violations reported on FSF copyrighted code, and we offer assistance to any other copyright holder who wishes to do the same.

      But, we cannot act on our own if we do not hold copyright. Thus, be sure to find out who the copyright holders of the software are before reporting a violation."
    • Maybe, but no one has written about it here. Part of the problem is that it is the owners of the copyright who must pursue this, the FSF can only help out if the copyright holder asks them:

      "The more of these details that you have, the easier it is for the copyright holder to pursue the matter.

      Once you have collected the details, you should send a precise report to the copyright holder of the packages that are being misused. The copyright holder is the one who is legally authorized to take action to enforce the license.

      If the copyright holder is the Free Software Foundation, please send the report to . It's important that we be able to write back to you to get more information about the violation or product. So, if you use an anonymous remailer, please provide a return path of some sort. If you'd like to encrypt your correspondence, just send a brief mail saying so, and we'll make appropriate arrangements.

      Note that the GPL, and other copyleft licenses, are copyright licenses. This means that only the copyright holders are empowered to act against violations. The FSF acts on all GPL violations reported on FSF copyrighted code, and we offer assistance to any other copyright holder who wishes to do the same.

      But, we cannot act on our own if we do not hold copyright. Thus, be sure to find out who the copyright holders of the software are before reporting a violation."
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m confident and excited with an evil twist
    Oh look at this juicy piece of good news:
    Link: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/ne...

    So who wants to join in suing Voddler for copyright infringement ?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I want to point out that the release of the new Adobe Air-based client in no way resolves this GPL issue.

    Voddler have distributed a binary for which they have not distributed the corresponding source code. The fact that they are no longer distributing said binary does not clear them from this responsibility.

    The question still stands; where is the source code for all the different versions of VoddlerPlayer.exe that you (voddler) distributed under the GPL license? You are still in violatin of the GPL.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • The code released here: http://www.voddler.com/help/topic/272... looks like at least a lot more then before. For example there is decryption stuff in xbmc/FileSystem/FileCurl.cpp which wasn't there before.

    I haven't looked at it much and Voddler must be the worst ever releasing code. Instead of making one nice patch they have just zipped everthing together an uploaded it to the server. So it is 900MB of data including SVN-folders. But I have imported the last released code into git before so if I get some time I would probably be able to make a diff from this to what they released before and a diff compared to normal XBMC. To understand what Voddler have done.

    I still think Voddler should pay the XBMC-developers for using their code without following the license. Ignoring GPL for about 1 year to earn money on it and then release the code when they don't need it anymore I think is really really bad.

    And I hope everyone remember that Voddler choose to lie and ignoring the license for about 1 year to earn as much money as possible with as little effort as possible.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • Tycker verkligen inte den här tråden ska få somna än.
    Som jag tolkat det så använder Voddler fortfarande sin klient och är fega kräk som inte ens vågar kommentera ärendet med sanning.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

next » « previous