angelofsky1980

Have you some 422 feeds avaiable?

I´ve heard it could do 4:2:2 mpeg4 feeds.

Anyone could try please?

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

A softcam not pays royalties for different CAS systems... so these kind of software who emulates a conditional access system are quite illegal too.

If you compile the CAM yourself, in the privacy of your own home, you're safe. At least, in European countries you cannot be charged (or sued) for patent infringement as an individual. Legislation in other countries is probably similar on that topic.

 

Thanks for this info.

Conax is royalty free, so a Conax-only oscam would be perfectly legal ...

Uhm .... do you have some docs about it? I don't understand why Vu+ has moved their default CAS from Conax to XCrypt some years ago if Conax CAS is free and they don't need to pay licenses to use.