67 replies to this topic

[bacicciosat]

 

bacicciosat
 
Support xtrend/formiler is not planned?

They are paid to support only marusys vu+ products.

 

 

Untrue again.

This is really to much.

 

I am tired to be I'm tired of being offended in this board.

 

You PLI team should take care more about your members and thei attitute in your board.

We don't allow anybody to offence other team members or other team work in all our boards.

 

bye bye, please remove my accoun here.

[Vandyke]

So you deny that The Blackhole team are illegally refusing to release the source of their main BH image then ?.

[Rob van der Does]

There's no point in denying that. Everybody can see that BH, just the same as VTi, violates the GPL-licenses. So no offence can be taken out of such a statement....

 

But  I'm really pleased to see that they apparently have seen the light and released the sources of this PLi-based image.

[Matrix10]

 

bacicciosat
 
Support xtrend/formiler is not planned?

They are paid to support only marusys vu+ products.

 

 

 

And now you've really crossed all limits.

I hope that this will be sanctioned.

Because it is a direct attack on people.

I will monitor whether sanctions will follow.

This is something we would not have ever allowed in our forum.

 

Shame on you.

[Vandyke]

 

 

bacicciosat
 
Support xtrend/formiler is not planned?

They are paid to support only marusys vu+ products.

 

 

 

And now you've really crossed all limits.

I hope that this will be sanctioned.

Because it is a direct attack on people.

I will monitor whether sanctions will follow.

This is something we would not have ever allowed in our forum.

 

Shame on you.

 

 

 

You want to censor the entire internet ?. 

Edited by Vandyke, 27 May 2015 - 18:09.

[angelofsky1980]

I would like to point your view against more problematic facts.

 

Enigma2 WAS a Open Source Project developed by DM with two licenses:

1. DM maintain Enigma2 for their boxes and these ones are automatically licensed to use it

2. other people can use their sources on other hardware BUT these people have to follow GPL license and DM don't care about problems and other issues on different hardware BUT these forks can, via GPL, can be imported into main source tree...

 

Everyone can see in Enigma2 sources the usage of code subjected to GPL and if I'm not in error, if a piece of code is GPLized mean all the project must follow the same license.

 

Around September 2010, DM has changed license for Enigma2 project making it CLOSED SOURCE and cutting ut GPL part.

This isn't a violation of GPL License? It's quite strange that a GPL Project can be converted as CLOSED but probably I'm not the right person and a lot of lawyers can detail this strange license change.

 

We cannot check inside Enigma2 sources after September 2010 but I'm pretty sure some of the code released in the past as GPL for everyone is still here and, of course, around over GPL license ....

 

Probably the problem is outside Pli, BH and other teams not mentioned here but nobody want to see it.

It's too simple to talk "You must respect GPL" when GPL is violated every DAY from another company who think that the name "Enigma2" is their unique intellectual property (they looses in courthouse for that! ) and they uses, approx 99% sure, GPL code around the web for their commercial interests breaking GPL license.

 

GPL is GPL for ALL, not for the usual people.

Edited by angelofsky1980, 27 May 2015 - 18:13.

[Vandyke]

I would like to point your view against more problematic facts.

 

Enigma2 WAS a Open Source Project developed by DM with two licenses:

1. DM maintain Enigma2 for their boxes and these ones are automatically licensed to use it

2. other people can use their sources on other hardware BUT these people have to follow GPL license and DM don't care about problems and other issues on different hardware BUT these forks can, via GPL, can be imported into main source tree...

 

Everyone can see in Enigma2 sources the usage of code subjected to GPL and if I'm not in error, if a piece of code is GPLized mean all the project must follow the same license.

 

Around September 2010, DM has changed license for Enigma2 project making it CLOSED SOURCE and cutting ut GPL part.

This isn't a violation of GPL License? It's quite strange that a GPL Project can be converted as CLOSED but probably I'm not the right person and a lot of lawyers can detail this strange license change.

 

We cannot check inside Enigma2 sources after September 2010 but I'm pretty sure some of the code released in the past as GPL for everyone is still here and, of course, around over GPL license ....

 

Probably the problem is outside Pli, BH and other teams not mentioned here but nobody want to see it.

It's too simple to talk "You must respect GPL" when GPL is violated every DAY from another company who think that the name "Enigma2" is their unique intellectual property (they looses in courthouse for that! ) and they uses, approx 99% sure, GPL code around the web for their commercial interests breaking GPL license.

 

GPL is GPL for ALL, not for the usual people.

 

 

That does not explain why you refuse to release the source for the BH image.

[angelofsky1980]

 

I would like to point your view against more problematic facts.

 

Enigma2 WAS a Open Source Project developed by DM with two licenses:

1. DM maintain Enigma2 for their boxes and these ones are automatically licensed to use it

2. other people can use their sources on other hardware BUT these people have to follow GPL license and DM don't care about problems and other issues on different hardware BUT these forks can, via GPL, can be imported into main source tree...

 

Everyone can see in Enigma2 sources the usage of code subjected to GPL and if I'm not in error, if a piece of code is GPLized mean all the project must follow the same license.

 

Around September 2010, DM has changed license for Enigma2 project making it CLOSED SOURCE and cutting ut GPL part.

This isn't a violation of GPL License? It's quite strange that a GPL Project can be converted as CLOSED but probably I'm not the right person and a lot of lawyers can detail this strange license change.

 

We cannot check inside Enigma2 sources after September 2010 but I'm pretty sure some of the code released in the past as GPL for everyone is still here and, of course, around over GPL license ....

 

Probably the problem is outside Pli, BH and other teams not mentioned here but nobody want to see it.

It's too simple to talk "You must respect GPL" when GPL is violated every DAY from another company who think that the name "Enigma2" is their unique intellectual property (they looses in courthouse for that! ) and they uses, approx 99% sure, GPL code around the web for their commercial interests breaking GPL license.

 

GPL is GPL for ALL, not for the usual people.

 

 

That does not explain why you refuse to release the source for the BH image.

 

 

I'm not in the position to explain what you want to know but show my point of view.

Edited by angelofsky1980, 27 May 2015 - 18:23.

[malakudi]

Around September 2010, DM has changed license for Enigma2 project making it CLOSED SOURCE and cutting ut GPL part.

This isn't a violation of GPL License? It's quite strange that a GPL Project can be converted as CLOSED but probably I'm not the right person and a lot of lawyers can detail this strange license change.

 

 

No it is not. The license allows them to continue closed source. The last GPL version is still GPL and cannot be closed. People that contributed on this double license scheme knew this could happen from the beginning.

Code that VU+ used on their "dvbapp" is derived from this last GPL version. Improvements/additions that were made by VTI and/or Blackhole on this codebase is still GPL. Since you distribute BINARIES of this GPL code, you need to have a way to deliver the sources to anyone might ask them. You are not required to make them available online, you are not required to give them for free. You can charge media and shipment costs. You could burn them on a CD or print them in a book. But you have to be able to deliver the changes to anyone that is asking. That is how GPL works.

 

I want to ask though people complaining, what are those changes/features seen in original Blackhole that you would like to become public? I remember (haven't used Blackhole for quite some time) that Angelofsky has made some work to bring additional DVB-T sticks supported. I also remember having this multiboot-multiple worlds kind of image - don't know if it is still supported. What else (that is not already present on the new OpenBlackhole) you would like to be released?

 

edit: @bacicciosat: Moderators might haven't seen this topic yet. You can report an offending post, it is in the bottom right corner. Vandyke is not OpenPLi.

Edited by malakudi, 27 May 2015 - 18:36.

[angelofsky1980]

 

Around September 2010, DM has changed license for Enigma2 project making it CLOSED SOURCE and cutting ut GPL part.

This isn't a violation of GPL License? It's quite strange that a GPL Project can be converted as CLOSED but probably I'm not the right person and a lot of lawyers can detail this strange license change.

 

 

No it is not. The license allows them to continue closed source. The last GPL version is still GPL and cannot be closed. People that contributed on this double license scheme new this could happen from the beginning.

Code that VU+ used on their "dvbapp" is derived from this last GPL version. Improvements/additions that were made by VTI and/or Blackhole on this codebase is still GPL. Since you distribute BINARIES of this GPL code, you need to have a way to deliver the sources to anyone might ask them. You are not required to make them available online, you are not required to give them for free. You can charge media and shipment costs. But you have to be able to deliver the changes to anyone that is asking. That is how GPL works.

 

I want to ask though people complaining, what are those changes/features seen in original Blackhole that you would like to become public? I remember (haven't used Blackhole for quite some time) that Angelofsky has made some work to bring additional DVB-T sticks supported. I also remember having this multiboot-multiple worlds kind of image - don't know if it is still supported. What else (that is not already present on the new OpenBlackhole) you would like to be released?

 

 

Ok about dual Enigma2 license and the fu**ing base that DM had the possibility to close completely a branch and therefore break any kind of GPL code it wants because they releases only the binary.

 

People should be motivated to move around another GUI (developed in full GPL for example) to remove Enigma2 from the world and leave it to DM so they can do what they want with his little toy ... they have gained a lot of code from all people around the world and they can do what they want ... and it's not correct from my POV.

 

About other points mentioned:

- additional DVB USB drivers: there is nothing secret. It's a porting of latest LinuxTV.org drivers. Nothing created from scratch. Will they be included into OBH? I think no to maintain full Pli compatibility layer. If we includes some patches to support some more sticks in addition to Vu+ kernels 3.9.6 and 3.13.5, they will be published into our OBH git but it's still too early to talk about DVB USB devices: some users have already made some reports and shows me what is missing and what I need to add to OBH image.

- about features: I'm not the right person to ask. My main tasks are around USB devices supports.

Edited by angelofsky1980, 27 May 2015 - 18:43.

[Rob van der Does]

I want to ask though people complaining, what are those changes/features seen in original Blackhole that you would like to become public?

I have no idea; I simply refuse to use a 'closed' image.

[hemertje]

To ALL,

 

respect others here and our forum rules!

 

If you have problems with others discuss it by PM

 

http://forums.openpl...tion=rules&f=55

[mirakels]

Ok, so some group decides to release sources but instead of welcoming that (well some do), many start complaining about other things of the same group/authors still(?) being closed.

I can understand one will become pissed off by that.

Why not (1) fully praise them for releasing some code and then (2) maybe politely ask them to open up more...

 

But instead of (2) it may be even better to bug other teams or plugin developers to also open up their source.

 

Please keep in mind that since the early days the images were open source, but most alternative image builders kept their sources close. Even the PLi team did that before it became really openPli. We always promised to release sources and we did, but most of the time we delayed that so our features were appreciated by the user as being a PLi development. Those were the times, teams would 'steal' code and quickly release an image before the original authors could.

At one point we decided that this was ridiculous so we opened our enigma2 code and couldn't care less what other teams would do with it.

(but off coarse hoping that more cooperation would take place).

 

Bacicciosat please don't go away. Don't be offended by those that are not in the know. You ask to punish them, but that will not help a bit. We tried to deal with that in the past but it just doesn't work. The best way is to count to ten and ignore the post (and poster if needed). Responding to it will make things worse.

We found that other forum members probably will dealwith the could-be-trolls.

So instead of saying goodbye, lets cooperate on development. That's what we all image builders like to do, don't we?

[bacicciosat]

Bacicciosat please don't go away. Don't be offended by those that are not in the know. You ask to punish them, but that will not help a bit. We tried to deal with that in the past but it just doesn't work. The best way is to count to ten and ignore the post (and poster if needed). Responding to it will make things worse.

We found that other forum members probably will dealwith the could-be-trolls.

So instead of saying goodbye, lets cooperate on development. That's what we all image builders like to do, don't we?

 

Dear mirakles,

i ask only to be not offenced every time i post in this board.

About the story i always remember the beginning of Pli team, the posts of hemerje on Sat Industry, the first patch that Pli sent in OE dmm, the frustration because of dmm developers not cooperation.

 

About cooperation,  all people that have seen here the born of OpenWebIf know that i am for cooperation and demostrated it in all the ways.

 

Again, about sources, the Black Hole sources are going into Open Black Hole public gits but if there are parts not yet public that you have interest to know i will send to you any source you need.

 

And finally if you like to play with us and cooperate togheter i can provide to you the write access to Open Black Hole git and will be happy to work togheter.

 

 

Meo.

[hemertje]

Meo, that where indeed good times, i remember them well helping each other here and there

 

A big thank you from me to you!

Keep fun hobbying....

[bacicciosat]

Hemertje

There is so much work behind the scenes to setup and mantain a great team like Pli.

I know what it means, and we all have to thank you.

[littlesat]

Silently I'm still hoping one of your skinners is willing to create a splendy skin which runs on openpli

Edited by littlesat, 28 May 2015 - 06:46.

[rtzhjgg0]

...abot PLi & BH: with appropriate tool you can multiboot all actual images (including OpenBlackHole) with OpenPLi on flash

Attached Files

•  openBH_on_gutosie.jpg   36.19KB   13 downloads

[bacicciosat]

...abot PLi & BH: with appropriate tool you can multiboot all actual images (including OpenBlackHole) with OpenPLi on flash

 

Uhmm are you sure that gles animations and xbmc in OpenBlackHole are working with this solution ?

I suppose that this multiboot load drivers and kernel from flash so i am not sure it is all working.

[pieterg]

If I remember correctly, with this particular 'multiboot' solution the kernel partition is overwritten every time you switch to a different image?

 

So no mixup between different kernel/driver versions (but not so healthy for your flash, obviously...)