openPLI <--> enigma
m-null
3 jul 2012
Dear all,
am just new in this forum.
I'd like to better understand the meaning / position of openPLI.
How is it related to Enigma2 by Dream Multimedia?
As I heard that Enigma2 is closed source now, i was wondering how all this stuff is related to each other.
Can someone here help me with some explenations?
Is openPLI based on enigma2?
Hope to get some interesting things to learn!
best regards!
null
am just new in this forum.
I'd like to better understand the meaning / position of openPLI.
How is it related to Enigma2 by Dream Multimedia?
As I heard that Enigma2 is closed source now, i was wondering how all this stuff is related to each other.
Can someone here help me with some explenations?
Is openPLI based on enigma2?
Hope to get some interesting things to learn!
best regards!
null
dAF2000
3 jul 2012
Welcome on our forum.
Of course we are working on Enigma2 but that's only a part of what we do. We are also working on many "low level" features which you normally wouldn't see in the user interface.
As you said, Enigma2 is closed source now. But our software is based on the latest open Enigma2 sources. Dream Multimedia will develop features in "their" Enigma2 and we will develop features in "our" Enigma2. Eventually both Enigma2 versions will not be exactly the same.
Of course we are working on Enigma2 but that's only a part of what we do. We are also working on many "low level" features which you normally wouldn't see in the user interface.
As you said, Enigma2 is closed source now. But our software is based on the latest open Enigma2 sources. Dream Multimedia will develop features in "their" Enigma2 and we will develop features in "our" Enigma2. Eventually both Enigma2 versions will not be exactly the same.
Rob van der Does
3 jul 2012
If I understood correctly, they differ already quite a lot for quite some time, because of the own PLi-developments. Correct?....Eventually both Enigma2 versions will not be exactly the same.
dAF2000
3 jul 2012
I didn't flash an official Dream image for years nor I checked the differences. But I assume they will differ in some aspects depending on the box type of course.If I understood correctly, they differ already quite a lot for quite some time, because of the own PLi-developments. Correct?
....Eventually both Enigma2 versions will not be exactly the same.
m-null
4 jul 2012
So using the enigma2 source is ok, so far? even if it is now closed source?
It is really a bit confusing...
It is really a bit confusing...
pieterg
4 jul 2012
Our enigma2 is open source, and will remain open source.
You can use it under the GPLv2 license.
Veranderd door pieterg, 4 juli 2012 - 08:57
You can use it under the GPLv2 license.
Veranderd door pieterg, 4 juli 2012 - 08:57
m-null
4 jul 2012
Sure it is.
But Dream Multimedia did prohibit the advertisement of enigma2. Didn't they prohibit any other use of it?
But Dream Multimedia did prohibit the advertisement of enigma2. Didn't they prohibit any other use of it?
WanWizard
4 jul 2012
They actually didn't. They tried, but lost the court case.
Enigma2 used to be dual licensed, both GPLv2 and their own DMM license. We forked the GPLv2 version, which makes ours (and probably all others out there) automatically GPLv2 licenced too.
Enigma2 used to be dual licensed, both GPLv2 and their own DMM license. We forked the GPLv2 version, which makes ours (and probably all others out there) automatically GPLv2 licenced too.
Rob van der Does
4 jul 2012
They sure did; a bit disappointing they didn't advertise that lost case in the same strong words as they did with the original (provisional) court-verdict (and even didn't advertise it at all as far as I've seen)They actually didn't. They tried, but lost the court case.
m-null
6 jul 2012
This means in other words: Dream Multimedia prohibit their own original one?
But the branches of the old versions are still available?
But the branches of the old versions are still available?
WanWizard
6 jul 2012
Correct.
Up to what DMM calls Enigma 2.x they worked from the public repo (so keeping the GPL version and their internal version in sync), as of Enigma 3.x they no longer do that, and keep it propriatary in an attempt to block "compatible" vendors. They even tried to take these "compatible" vendors to court to block the use of the "Enigma" name, but the court rules in favour of the "compatible" vendors, stating it's the name of an open source product not owned by DMM.
We forked the GPL long before that, but used to cherry-pick updates every now and then. Which kept some features in sync with DMM's development. Which obviously is no longer possible, so both versions will drift apart.
Given the updates they have released, I have a sneaking suspicion that they still watch our repo and cherry-pick fixes from us (which is illegal because of the GPL license), but as their source is not publicly available, there is no way of proving that.
Up to what DMM calls Enigma 2.x they worked from the public repo (so keeping the GPL version and their internal version in sync), as of Enigma 3.x they no longer do that, and keep it propriatary in an attempt to block "compatible" vendors. They even tried to take these "compatible" vendors to court to block the use of the "Enigma" name, but the court rules in favour of the "compatible" vendors, stating it's the name of an open source product not owned by DMM.
We forked the GPL long before that, but used to cherry-pick updates every now and then. Which kept some features in sync with DMM's development. Which obviously is no longer possible, so both versions will drift apart.
Given the updates they have released, I have a sneaking suspicion that they still watch our repo and cherry-pick fixes from us (which is illegal because of the GPL license), but as their source is not publicly available, there is no way of proving that.
m-null
30 jul 2012
So because you forked the GPL long before that, would it be possible to sell a Linux STB with openPLI pre-installed? But why does nobody do this?
WanWizard
30 jul 2012
Afaik the ET's run OpenPLi as their official image.
Most people (manufacturers and image builders alike) have their own customized source (based on OpenPLi or not), mainly to hack the code without bothering to publish their changes (which is required by the GPL license).
Most people (manufacturers and image builders alike) have their own customized source (based on OpenPLi or not), mainly to hack the code without bothering to publish their changes (which is required by the GPL license).
LaarsCamot
19 dec 2014
So because you forked the GPL long before that, would it be possible to sell a Linux STB with openPLI pre-installed? But why does nobody do this?
The problem is the secondstage and some drivers are still a DMM property.
