Supporters of “open-source”

[fophillips]

In the source code you claim to have licensed boxee under the GPLv2, but before downloading the software you place many restrictions on the software which contradict the GPL. In fact it prevents freedoms two and three from the 4 freedoms (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). Adding to the fact that this is in fact a derivative of XBMC this is in violation of their license.

Could you please make the situation clearer?

[Gamester17]

I could be wrong but I believe that Boxee are allowed to place those restrictions as long as they are a closed Alpha for invitees only, but when they release their first public release (which they said that their first Beta will be) then they must remove any NDA and allow the free redistrobution of the open source code, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle

:confused:

[belovedmonster]

According to Wikipedia:

XBMC as a whole is distributed under the GNU General Public License (with a few libraries used by XBMC licensed under the LGPL).

How is making a derivative of a GPL app not allowed? I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an open source licence expert but your suggestion that it's not allowed sounds wrong. Besides Boxee actively send code upstream to XBMC and have their blessing.

[belovedmonster]

Also, this pasted from the GNU FAQ
-----------------------------------------------
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.

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.
-----------------------------------------------

So as Gamester17 said, while they are still in a private alpha it doesn't require for the source code to be available. In signing up for an alpha you are effectively becoming a member of their organization and thus distribution counts as private and not public.

[fophillips]

How is making a derivative of a GPL app not allowed? I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an open source licence expert but your suggestion that it's not allowed sounds wrong. Besides Boxee actively send code upstream to XBMC and have their blessing.

It is allowed, but they cannot relicense the derivative under a non-compatible license which is what they are doing.

I am still not convinced they are allowed to relicense someone else’s copyrighted work, privately or not. They may not need to publicly release the source, but that is something different entirely.

[belovedmonster]

It is allowed, but they cannot relicense the derivative under a non-compatible license which is what they are doing.

How is GPL not compatible with GPL? :confused:

[fophillips]

How is GPL not compatible with GPL? :confused:

It isn’t released under the GPL, that is the whole point. Read the terms and conditions on the source code download page. They are positively non-free.

[belovedmonster]

It isn’t released under the GPL, that is the whole point. Read the terms and conditions on the source code download page. They are positively non-free.

As we have already established, they don't need to release the code under GPL because its privately distributed not publicly. No where on the terms and conditions page does it say that they releasing it under GPL, at least not in a way Firefox can find with Ctrl + F, so at the moment none of their restrictions are going against the GPL.

Once Boxee becomes publicly available then it must release code under GPL, in which case all the non free restrictions must be removed. (Which they will be anyways because they don't make sense when anyone can get an account and download the software).

Understand now?

GPL only comes into it when it is publicly available so they can't currently be breaking it.

[fophillips]

No where on the terms and conditions page does it say that they releasing it under GPL, at least not in a way Firefox can find with Ctrl + F, so at the moment none of their restrictions are going against the GPL.
The source code itself does and it is based off GPL’d software, so yes they do go against the GPL.



GPL only comes into it when it is publicly available so they can't currently be breaking it.

I don’t really know where you got that idea from, it is still distributed and the source code that is distributed to those people needs to be under the GPL wether it be public or not.

[belovedmonster]

I don’t really know where you got that idea from, it is still distributed and the source code that is distributed to those people needs to be under the GPL wether it be public or not.

Where have I gotten the idea from? From the official GNU website FAQ under the question "Do I have to release the source code?", the answer to which you yourself have also read because I pasted the entire answer in a reply above.

It clearly states that you only need to release the code under GPL when it is publicly available, not privately. Do the words "Private alpha" not suggest that perhaps this is a private distribution rather than public?

The GNU FAQ clearly states that you can distribute modified code freely within the same organisation. Yet ironically, the very thing you are complaining isnt free is the fact all alpha testers have to agree to become part of the Boxee organisation and agree to abide by Boxees rules while in that organisation.

I can't comment on the contents of the source code because I've not downloaded it and I have no need to download it. But in principle Boxee do not need to release under GPL because this is a private thing. You seem to think that just because it's online and free it is automatically a public thing. It is not. It is private.

[fophillips]

Where have I gotten the idea from? From the official GNU website FAQ under the question "Do I have to release the source code?", the answer to which you yourself have also read because I pasted the entire answer in a reply above.

It clearly states that you only need to release the code under GPL when it is publicly available, not privately. Do the words "Private alpha" not suggest that perhaps this is a private distribution rather than public?

No it does not. It states you do not have to release your modifications publicly, and I am not claiming you have to. What you do need to do however is distribute it under the GPL at all times privately or publicly. The GPL doesn’t suddenly cease to exist because you are selective about who you distribute to. What you quoted makes no comment on how you are allowed to distribute it privately and I see no clause in the GPL text which allows private distribution not under the GPL.



6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

Can you please take the time to research what you talk about before spreading lies?

[belovedmonster]

Can you please take the time to research what you talk about before spreading lies?

Lol. At worst I am mistaken. Saying I am spreading lies seems like flame bait to me. Feel free to tell me why I am wrong and I'll gladly listen and learn, but don't make this descend into a quote war or something personal.

I have been reading the GNU FAQ some more and the logic doesn't make sense to me. It says that an organisation doesn't have to release its code publicly as I have been saying, but then it also seems to suggest (as you do) that all the internal versions must still be released under GPL without restrictions.

As I say, this makes absolutely no sense to me, because how as an employer can I keep my modified code from going public if I still have to release the internal version under GPL at all times, and in doing so have no ability to restrict use of that code under the rules of GPL.

It's like saying I don't have to release my modified source code publicly, but that I have no power to stop it being released publicly.

Tell me what I'm missing here! I wouldn't want to spread any more lies ;)

[fophillips]

I have been reading the GNU FAQ some more and the logic doesn't make sense to me. It says that an organisation doesn't have to release its code publicly as I have been saying, but then it also seems to suggest (as you do) that all the internal versions must still be released under GPL without restrictions.
It means that if you make a modification you are not obliged to release the modification unless you distribute the modified program. For example, if I downloaded program X and I made change Y, I do not need to tell anyone about Y unless I release X with Y included.


As I say, this makes absolutely no sense to me, because how as an employer can I keep my modified code from going public if I still have to release the internal version under GPL at all times, and in doing so have no ability to restrict use of that code under the rules of GPL.
You can’t keep it from going public, that is the point of the GPL.



It's like saying I don't have to release my modified source code publicly, but that I have no power to stop it being released publicly.
That’s right, you don’t have to release it publicly, but you need to allow anyone else who you might distribute it to to be able to release it publicly.

[belovedmonster]

Further studying of the FAQ has presented me with the answer to my own question.

Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement?

Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract to develop changes and agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA.

You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, but agree not to release them to anyone else unless the client says ok. In this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA, or under any additional restrictions.

The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your version. In this scenario, the client will probably choose not to exercise that right, but does have the right.

[fophillips]

Distribution is only one of the ways the ToS contradict the GPL.

[fophillips]

Okay I receieved an email from the boxee team and they said it was purely a mistake which they will rectify within a couple of days.

[tsella]

gentlemen, i thank you for the most interesting of discussions. all make good points, and it is an enjoyable read (though i know many would disagree with me).

as i've assured @fophillips via email, this is more a matter of over zealous lawyering and us being more focused on code (and code contribution!) than properly reviewing the license we have posted, than any ill-willed attempt.

i hope that since we have provided the code (btw: even though we only need to provide it to whom we distribute the software to, i.e. alpha users, we oblige every code request with simple invitation to our alpha), and despite the license wording, people understand we are committed to f/oss and gpl.

we will ratify our license within a couple of days, and i thank @fophillips for informing us the license has issues.