72 replies to this topic

[Roodkapke]

DMM let VU+ and Xtrend get a great share of the market themselves by refusing to produce a HD 7025 successor.

They are responsibly, not OpenPLi or any other imagebuilder.

Their products are expensive and didn't offer any progress  in the past 5 years.

VU+ and Xtrend simply plugged a hole left open by DMM.

 

So stop bashing the wrong people, you're anger should be aimed at DMM, they're to blame.

[m0rphU]

Not really. If @WanWizard implies that DMM is stealing, he should at least be able to give some hints what he has in mind there That's all I'm saying. No DMM glorification or anythin.

Otherwise he'd just be falsely accusing Dream. But of course if you can show the opposite, I'd say DMM should give you credit for this and be ashamed.

[Pr2]

Hi,

 

According to this page:

 

http://openpli.org/wiki/comparison

 

You still support Dreamboxes. 

 

Some clean-up (or at least warning) needed I think... 

 

Pr2

[WanWizard]

@m0rphU,

 

I'm not blaming DMM, it's their business decision. If it's a good one, time will tell.

 

We have not abandonded DMM a long time ago, we tried to keep it up and running even after they closed the door on open source.

 

As for the "other manufacturers', they have made a business decision to re-use what is available as open source, which is smart, it saves them development time and cost. This is how it works, some business decisions are good, others are bad. There are plenty of manufacturers today that utilize open source these days, and there is nothing against that. We can be short about "imitating", we don't have any compasion with companies infriging on intellectual property, and we are very clear and open about that.

 

Enigma2 was originally licensed GPLv3, which makes it perfectly valid to re-use it as you see fit, as long as you abide by the license. So the "other manufacturers" did nothing wrong. If anything, changing the license of an existing codebase from GPL to a closed license is a very slippery slope, as GPL clearly states that any modifications to a GPL codebase MUST be released with a GPL license. And that includes DMM's 3.0 codebase, which absolutely isn't a newly written codebase, it's a modified version of the GPL Enigma2 version...

 

The list of features that were introduced in the more then 10 years we've been creating images is long and distinguished. When DMM's version was still open, sometimes cherry picks were obvious and attributed, sometimes rewritten in an obvious attempt to claim original code. Now we can't see the code anymore, but if stuff appears that "functionally" has been in an OpenPLi image for quite some time, is leaves you wondering...

[WanWizard]

According to this page: http://openpli.org/wiki/comparison You still support Dreamboxes. 

 

On that page, all Dreamboxes are marked as discontinued, and there is a footnote mentioning we don't support newer models.

[mirakels]

 

Not really. If @WanWizard implies that DMM is stealing, he should at least be able to give some hints what he has in mind there That's all I'm saying. No DMM glorification or anythin.

Otherwise he'd just be falsely accusing Dream. But of course if you can show the opposite, I'd say DMM should give you credit for this and be ashamed.

 

 

I just name one thing. Progress bars in the channellist.

Edited by mirakels, 28 October 2013 - 22:15.
use correct quote from m0rphU. (Thanks Meega)

[Meega]

Wrong quote???

Edited by WanWizard, 28 October 2013 - 22:13.
Corrected.

[Persian Prince]

As a openpli user that just bought a 800 v2 and 500 hd v2 I am in shock to see this but I understand the situation. Could you advise me what I can do? Are there other images that you can recommend that do support v2 boxes or should I just try to sell them and buy something else? Thanks

 

maybe you can test our public test images :

 

http://www.mediafire...500hdv2_nfi.zip

 

http://www.mediafire...800sev2_nfi.zip

 

we're using PLi's enigma2 but in our OE

[Haroon]

Who give a damn to DMM.

 

For the last five years, i have always been on openpli, no other image attracted me more than pli.

 

They were the first to implement 'Auto Language' and the 'Subtitle Settings' as they are now; on DMM images they were yellow or pink and that too on center of the screen with big fonts. 

 

Fully support pli decision. 

[pop_eye]

The descision is final.

 

Contrary to most other images, we have our own codebase, and don't use a standard DMM image.

 

To keep this codebase compatible with DMM, we need access to the DMM source code, and we need the two codebases not to deviate from each other too much. In the past, with Enigma1, this worked well. We merged pieces of DMM's code, DMM cherry picked new features from us. Now that DMM decided to close the source on Enigma2, this is no longer possible, so it became more and more complex to maintain compatibility. DMM still seem to borrow new features from us (which is against the license but since their source is closed we can't prove they do), and implements these features slightly different so there is no compatibility anymore.

 

DMM clearly doesn't want "their" code to be used on other hardware platforms, and they don't seem to want users of DMM hardware to use other images then their own. So they closed the door.

With a high chance of getting banned on this board - which in my opinion does not matter anyway - since I do not really matter to the topic at stake - as I perceive this

matter on a different stance - (coverup would be better word for it), let me just say that "their" code is actually "theirs" and not "yours". You are only hiding yourself

behind GPL requirements , the same as they did when they decided to close it. When you mention the following in sentence "our own code base" , do you really understand the meaning ? Yes, in my opinion two wrongs are not making a good decision in neither case. What you fail to comprehend is that all the benefits you have taken for granted were not innovated or created by you, but by DMM...and all others are ripping and enjoying the benefits. It is exactly here you blatantly refuse to give credit where is due and at least maintain the common sense which everyone is expecting from you. The definition is a bit wider - everyone in this case are DMM users. But no issue with this since that is the reason we have "fork" and continue away from the praying eyes. Whoever is closing the door on you are the users....and this will always be against you.

[mirakels]

pop_eye: and DMM == DBOX2?

[pop_eye]

pop_eye: and DMM == DBOX2?

if

DMM == DREAMBOX

else

OPENPLI == ?

[Persian Prince]

The descision is final.

 

Contrary to most other images, we have our own codebase, and don't use a standard DMM image.

 

To keep this codebase compatible with DMM, we need access to the DMM source code, and we need the two codebases not to deviate from each other too much. In the past, with Enigma1, this worked well. We merged pieces of DMM's code, DMM cherry picked new features from us. Now that DMM decided to close the source on Enigma2, this is no longer possible, so it became more and more complex to maintain compatibility. DMM still seem to borrow new features from us (which is against the license but since their source is closed we can't prove they do), and implements these features slightly different so there is no compatibility anymore.

 

DMM clearly doesn't want "their" code to be used on other hardware platforms, and they don't seem to want users of DMM hardware to use other images then their own. So they closed the door.

With a high chance of getting banned on this board - which in my opinion does not matter anyway - since I do not really matter to the topic at stake - as I perceive this

matter on a different stance - (coverup would be better word for it), let me just say that "their" code is actually "theirs" and not "yours". You are only hiding yourself

behind GPL requirements , the same as they did when they decided to close it. When you mention the following in sentence "our own code base" , do you really understand the meaning ? Yes, in my opinion two wrongs are not making a good decision in neither case. What you fail to comprehend is that all the benefits you have taken for granted were not innovated or created by you, but by DMM...and all others are ripping and enjoying the benefits. It is exactly here you blatantly refuse to give credit where is due and at least maintain the common sense which everyone is expecting from you. The definition is a bit wider - everyone in this case are DMM users. But no issue with this since that is the reason we have "fork" and continue away from the praying eyes. Whoever is closing the door on you are the users....and this will always be against you.

 

yet another joke

my suggestion : first go to school then talk

do you even know the history of DBox ? or you're just another DMM's pet ?

 

for your own sake grow up !

[WanWizard]

@pop_eye,

 

I'm afraid you mix-up ownership of a codebase with copyright.

 

If a codebase is published under GPL, you are allowed to fork it. At that point "their" codebase becomes "your" codebase, with which you can do what you want, within the boundaries of the GPL license. That doesn't say anything about copyright on the actual lines of code themselfs, that doesn't change when you fork.

 

The other advantage of having forks is that you can borrow code from each other. Many features in Enigma2 were introduced by PLi, and taken over by DMM. Sometimes with attribution (as required), sometimes not, sometimes code was rewritten to make it appear original. But at least there was some form of cooperation, and both parties benefitted. That worked for the original Enigma, and clearly DMM saw the benefit of that, otherwise they wouldn't have started with Enigma2 under GPL. Now it's one way, without attribution, and no way to check if copyright was violated since DMM refuses to make their code public.

 

And they must, the rules of GPL applies to their current version too, whether you see it as new release of the same code base or as derived work of the original codebase, in both cases that MUST have a GPL license too.

 

So you can call it whatever you want, if DMM never wanted other people to use the code, they shouldn't have chosen a GPL license for Enigma2 in the first place. But they did, and if that has turned out to be a bad business descision, so be it. They will have to live with that. It doesn't give them the right, even it they have all copyright (which they don't), to violate the GPL license.

[pop_eye]

yet another joke

my suggestion : first go to school then talk

do you even know the history of DBox ? or you're just another DMM's pet ?

 

for your own sake grow up !

yes I like jokes.

Especially the ones with copycats involved...

 

All that I see on this when I read you comments is: another cloner douchebag bragging rights for work he never done himself.

The sad part is that your complete mindset is done such way that you cannot resist spoiling others work.

Whatever , not here to change the world.

Do whatever you want..I see you are accepted for now.

[gorski]

Interesting: pop-eye, when he chooses to be critical, is very critical of DMM...

 

And then, at other times, his dark side kicks in and DMM is God....

 

Pop-eye, the Devil's advocate...

Edited by gorski, 31 October 2013 - 15:31.

[ims]

Pop-eye still did not understand, that GPL or GPL2 cannot anybody make private. Same for CC, imho...

[pop_eye]

@pop_eye,

 

I'm afraid you mix-up ownership of a codebase with copyright.

 

If a codebase is published under GPL, you are allowed to fork it. At that point "their" codebase becomes "your" codebase, with which you can do what you want, within the boundaries of the GPL license. That doesn't say anything about copyright on the actual lines of code themselfs, that doesn't change when you fork.

 

The other advantage of having forks is that you can borrow code from each other. Many features in Enigma2 were introduced by PLi, and taken over by DMM. Sometimes with attribution (as required), sometimes not, sometimes code was rewritten to make it appear original. But at least there was some form of cooperation, and both parties benefitted. That worked for the original Enigma, and clearly DMM saw the benefit of that, otherwise they wouldn't have started with Enigma2 under GPL. Now it's one way, without attribution, and no way to check if copyright was violated since DMM refuses to make their code public.

 

And they must, the rules of GPL applies to their current version too, whether you see it as new release of the same code base or as derived work of the original codebase, in both cases that MUST have a GPL license too.

 

So you can call it whatever you want, if DMM never wanted other people to use the code, they shouldn't have chosen a GPL license for Enigma2 in the first place. But they did, and if that has turned out to be a bad business descision, so be it. They will have to live with that. It doesn't give them the right, even it they have all copyright (which they don't), to violate the GPL license.

 

I am not calling anything.

 

You have this in your repository:

 

http://sourceforge.n...b/gdi/accel.cpp

 

/*

Interface to the Dreambox dm800/dm8000 proprietary accel interface.

*/

 

Please tell me how this is relating to opensource software since you are clearly using this for all the supported boxes

and you are not considering its source ?

 

Do you want me to scrutinize all your sources ? Countless examples.

 

Now...let me be devils advocate.

 

DMM was made this software to sell dreamboxes. Do you agree ?

 

What are you selling ? Still not replied to my early message...

 

Please tell, and I will mind my own business

Edited by pop_eye, 31 October 2013 - 15:36.

[Persian Prince]

@pop_eye,

 

I'm afraid you mix-up ownership of a codebase with copyright.

 

If a codebase is published under GPL, you are allowed to fork it. At that point "their" codebase becomes "your" codebase, with which you can do what you want, within the boundaries of the GPL license. That doesn't say anything about copyright on the actual lines of code themselfs, that doesn't change when you fork.

 

The other advantage of having forks is that you can borrow code from each other. Many features in Enigma2 were introduced by PLi, and taken over by DMM. Sometimes with attribution (as required), sometimes not, sometimes code was rewritten to make it appear original. But at least there was some form of cooperation, and both parties benefitted. That worked for the original Enigma, and clearly DMM saw the benefit of that, otherwise they wouldn't have started with Enigma2 under GPL. Now it's one way, without attribution, and no way to check if copyright was violated since DMM refuses to make their code public.

 

And they must, the rules of GPL applies to their current version too, whether you see it as new release of the same code base or as derived work of the original codebase, in both cases that MUST have a GPL license too.

 

So you can call it whatever you want, if DMM never wanted other people to use the code, they shouldn't have chosen a GPL license for Enigma2 in the first place. But they did, and if that has turned out to be a bad business descision, so be it. They will have to live with that. It doesn't give them the right, even it they have all copyright (which they don't), to violate the GPL license.

 

I am not calling anything.

 

You have this in your repository:

 

http://sourceforge.n...b/gdi/accel.cpp

 

/*

Interface to the Dreambox dm800/dm8000 proprietary accel interface.

*/

 

Please tell me how this is relating to opensource software since you are clearly using this for all the supported boxes

and you are not considering its source ?

 

Do you want me to scrutinize all your sources ? Countless examples.

 

Now...let me be devils advocate.

 

DMM was made this software to sell dreamboxes. Do you agree ?

 

What are you selling ? Still not replied to my early message...

 

Please tell, and I will mind my own business

 

OMG !

did you take a look at http://sourceforge.n...ci/master/tree/ and the license files ?

 

you know fork is not something for eating spaghetti it's a git thing !

Edited by Persian Prince, 31 October 2013 - 15:39.

[pop_eye]

OMG !

did you take a look at http://sourceforge.n...ci/master/tree/ and the license files ?

 

you know fork is not something for eating spaghetti it's a git thing !

I know what fork means. And ownership. This is what I said..GPL is used for coverup.

Facts for facts..not stories.