Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
Boxee GPLv3 violation alleged
Here's a web site with a
lengthy sermon on how D-Link's Boxee Box device is allegedly violating
the GPL. Such violations are not generally noteworthy, but this one, if
true, is interesting in that it involves GPLv3-licensed software and a
user's ability to install new versions. Companies which sell locked-down
devices usually go well out of their way to avoid GPLv3-licensed software;
it seems that one package (GPG) may have slipped through in this case.
We may be about to see the first (known) attempt to enforce the new
provisions in GPLv3.
(Log in to post comments)
Boxee GPLv3 violation alleged Posted Apr 18, 2011 21:40 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] It sounds like they made a mistake. They would have to remove the GPL3 software and document their compliance regarding any GPL2 software in the system. Not the end of the world.
Boxee GPLv3 violation alleged Posted Apr 19, 2011 17:08 UTC (Tue) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] One commenter says he checked the software, and found no GPLv3 (only GPLv2) stuff. So they would be in the clear.
Boxee GPLv3 violation alleged Posted Apr 19, 2011 22:37 UTC (Tue) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]
I did not find this commenter very credible. What about gpgv which is clearly GPL3+ ? Maybe he only checked the source code but not the actual binary.
Boxee GPLv3 violation alleged Posted May 6, 2011 5:03 UTC (Fri) by Kamilion (subscriber, #42576) [Link]
Funny, since the boxee box also contains the GNU coreutils version 7.4, which are *also* GPL3+! good ol' chown saves the day!
AND they're in the factory restore image, so even after a firmware update; the factory restore that still resides in the unit contains them. Fun stuff!
See you in court, Boxee. I'll stick with my AMD Brazos nettop -- no proprietary drivers needed! (But fglrx *IS* there if I *want* it.)
Boxee GPLv3 violation alleged Posted Apr 18, 2011 22:14 UTC (Mon) by welinder (guest, #4699) [Link]
It's a lot worse than that.
Boxee's Linux (and presumably other) versions consist of a large pile of GPL'd sources (based on xbmc) which they link to a binary-only library.
Boxee GPLv3 violation alleged Posted Apr 21, 2011 18:22 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Said binary-only library is arguably a "library customarily distributed with the system" for GP purposes...
Boxee GPLv3 violation alleged Posted Apr 21, 2011 18:39 UTC (Thu) by dark (subscriber, #8483) [Link] That wouldn't help Boxee though, since "that component itself accompanies the executable" -- the exception to the exception. It would only help third parties who distribute software for that system.
Boxee GPLv3 violation alleged Posted Apr 18, 2011 23:43 UTC (Mon) by jonsmirl (guest, #7874) [Link]
gpgv2 is a user space app. It may be possible to update it even though the kernel is locked down. For example you might be able to place a new copy on the path overriding the old one.
Boxee is in a hard place. The studios won't license content unless the code is locked down (DRM). So if they unlock the code, we lose access to all of the content which renders the box worthless.
Boxee GPLv3 violation alleged Posted Apr 19, 2011 0:45 UTC (Tue) by PaulWay (✭ supporter ✭, #45600) [Link]
> The studios won't license content unless the code is locked down (DRM). So if they unlock the code, we lose access to all of the content which renders the box worthless.
There may be elements of truth in the underlying conditions behind that statement but the whole thing is much less true than the studios would like us to believe.
The media corporations would like us to believe that they are the sole gatekeepers for all your content, and that everyone wants to only see their content. This is patently not true - not only is there a thriving independent artist scene but it's increasingly getting quality acts. Sure, the media corporations control a lot of stuff, and they advertise it heavily, but in reality we can live without it and find other sources for our entertainment.
Apple has proved that people will buy stuff if it's DRM-free, and there's good money to be made in it. Apple might be the gatekeeper, but the genie is escaping the bottle.
While Boxee may not see it as their mission to free the entertainment industry, assuming they're locking down their box in order to bow to the media corporations is less substantiated.
Have fun,
Paul
Boxee is in wrong position... Posted Apr 19, 2011 3:18 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Well, Apple (or Google) may talk about hundred of millions of users - quite convincing argument. Does not mean studios will accept DRM-free deal, but it does mean they will be much less picky: every day they deal is not signed means real money are lost. Boxee is niche player. If studios will not like it they'll just refuse to sign a deal - and that's that.
Boxee GPLv3 violation alleged Posted Apr 20, 2011 1:38 UTC (Wed) by jonsmirl (guest, #7874) [Link]
The fly in the ointment is the Netflix player. People obviously want it. But Boxee didn't sign the deals with the studios, Netflix did. The Netflix player uses a lot of DRM and there are likely penalties to be paid to the studios if the DRM is broken and the content freed.
Boxee is publishing all the source they can, I don't see any reason to beat them up. They are far more Linux friendly than other vendors.
Any way, the Boxee box is ugly. Go buy a BeagleBoard if you want to run your own code. It's cheaper too.
Boxee GPLv3 violation alleged Posted Apr 20, 2011 9:07 UTC (Wed) by daniels (subscriber, #16193) [Link]
> Any way, the Boxee box is ugly. Go buy a BeagleBoard if you want to run your own code. It's cheaper too.
Er, if your problem is aesthetics, a BeagleBoard isn't going to help you there ...
Boxee GPLv3 violation alleged Posted Apr 20, 2011 8:12 UTC (Wed) by pbonzini (subscriber, #60935) [Link]
> It may be possible to update it even though the kernel is locked down. For
> example you might be able to place a new copy on the path overriding the > old one.
They still need to provide installation instructions about how to do so.
Boxee GPLv3 violation alleged Posted Apr 19, 2011 0:37 UTC (Tue) by PaulWay (✭ supporter ✭, #45600) [Link]
Funny how the negative publicity by being closed and locking things down outweighs their positive publicity of "hey, this thing will be totally open!"
Meraki, Boxee, Tivo, etc... it's not likely to stop any time soon.
Funny how companies see this as 'risk management' or 'protecting profits' and don't see how they're shooting themselves in the foot. I wonder how many of these failed businesses just blame open source for not being the cornucopia of free code, unencumbered by obligation, they thought it was, instead of realising that it is their desire for control that scotches the whole thing from the beginning.
Don't worry, USA - we have the same level of clue-deficit in the rest of the world.
Have fun,
Paul
Boxee GPLv3 violation alleged Posted Apr 22, 2011 22:45 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Funny how companies see this as 'risk management' or 'protecting profits' and don't see how they're shooting themselves in the foot. While it's clear that not making the box closed hurts the business, it's not at all clear to me that making it open wouldn't hurt it more. For example, it would make major movie studios unwilling to license the movies the customers want; it could damage customer satisfaction with poor quality modifications; it could choke off the market for add-on products (which wouldn't be compatible with the modified box). There's no shortage of opinion that such damage to the business in insignificant, but I don't see evidence. It seems quite plausible to me that closed is the smart way to go.
Boxee GPLv3 violation alleged Posted Jun 5, 2011 1:31 UTC (Sun) by joriki (guest, #75442) [Link]
>> Don't worry, USA - we have the same level of clue-deficit in the rest of the world.
Haha, for a moment I felt some comfort in that. Just for a moment.
|
|||||||||||||