Posts: 441
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
15
Did a search but couldn't come up with much. Was wondering why Kodi doesn't decide to go the walled garden approach in regards to add-ons to fight piracy add-ons. Thus, reviewing add-ons and if deemed non piracy allowed in. I get this will limit 3rd party repositories, but it would definitely stop Kodi's name from being dragged through the mud.
Posts: 510
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation:
57
It’s free open source software, one freedom of FOSS is that anybody can do what they want with it, whether that’s the devs intended use of it or not. Also because of its open source nature, Team Kodi could close third party addons completely, but someone could easily fork it and put those restrictions back.
I’m probably going to get shot for this, unfortunately Kodi shows both the good stuff about Free Open Source Software (great community on here, people sharing support etc) as well as the bad stuff (people using it for piracy etc) but for me anyhow, those good things far outweigh the bad stuff.
Problem with it is when you look at the four freedoms of open source, you can easily see where some people have taken the proverbial to the extreme.
Server: Ubuntu Server 22TB HDD running SAMBA
Kodi: 4 Raspberry Pi 3 running Libreelec - on the main PC - running Linux Mint
My Setup thread |
Posts: 932
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation:
33
What about third party addons that are perfectly legitimate but aren't in the official repo? What about my freedom of choice? I got into FOSS because I was done with Microsoft, Apple and others telling me what I can and can't do with hardware that I have paid for.
HTPCs: 2 x Chromecast with Google TV
Audio: Pioneer VSX-819HK & S-HS 100 5.1 Speakers
Server: HP Compaq Pro 6300, 4GB RAM, 8.75TB, Bodhi Linux 5.x, NFS, MySQL
Posts: 12,706
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation:
129
spiff
Team-Kodi Member
Posts: 12,706
mandatory signing is not freedom. you walled garden maniacs can fork and apply whatever restrictions you want.
Posts: 394
Joined: Oct 2016
Reputation:
25
Its an interesting point. I think its debatable whether this is a violation of freedom 0.
Firefox requires extensions to be signed to stop users unwittingly getting bad/malware extensions installed. I see little difference from this Firefox (or anyother modern browser) trying to connect to a HSTS enabled website over http or with an invalid certificate. Firefox rightly says no sorry I you can't do that even though it could easily and this is an artificial restriction.
Trying to control any platform like this, makes me uneasy. Dont think I'm comfortable advocating things like this.
In the end if you give the users the tools and capability, dont compain what they build or use. Kodi, sadly is highly accociated with piracy. These pirates drag its name through the mud and they give nothing back. Thats why I would prefer to say this is my house and there are a few reasonable rules, if you dont like that then fine please fork and call your project something else.
Posts: 6,566
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation:
160
natethomas
Enjoying Retirement by Staying Busy
Posts: 6,566
2018-02-06, 00:37
(This post was last modified: 2018-02-06, 00:38 by natethomas.)
I'm not advocating signing addons, but I would like to register my disapproval of placing restrictions on Kodi development that go beyond the restrictions already put in place by the GPL. The GPL really only covers Freedoms 1-3. Therefore, the only restrictions I morally care about are those restrictions found in 1-3.
There are a lot of hazy reasons swirling around in my head for this, but ultimately I think what it comes down to for me is that Freedom 0 is so poorly defined that it feels unenforceable. Where is the line where a design decision makes something unfree? What if we include ffmpeg, but then fail to include all the extensions of content that ffmpeg can play because we're too lazy or just don't know about them, thereby limiting what people can do with the software. Have we limited their freedoms? That's happened in the past. What if we think picture viewing is too much of a hassle to maintain, so we disable it, but the underlying functionality remains? Have we limited freedom?
The beauty of the GPL is that it creates a bright line. "This definitely violates the GPL, and this definitely does not." As such, I'm fully willing to toe the line for the GPL and advocate for it. Freedom 0, on the other hand, is just so tenuous that I'm never going to bother worrying about it with Kodi decision making.
Again, I'm not advocating signing add-ons. In fact, I'm actively against doing so. But my reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with Freedom 0 and everything to do with supporting and maintaining our existing community.
Posts: 510
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation:
57
2018-02-06, 18:08
(This post was last modified: 2018-02-07, 03:32 by tjay260476.)
From what I see in the FOSS world freedoms 1-3 can be implemented in the GPL therefore most if not all FOSS stick to play here three and if violated can be seen as breaking the licence.
Freedom 0 is more of an ethical standpoint and as such (I am no lawyer but going by gut feeling) would be hard to define in a license or GPL for that matter.
Going back to the walled garden approach, from what I see so far is that Kodi makes its stance clear on the piracy front, as well as having to click on untrusted sources in settings as well as having the official repo. This in fairness is a good balance, and in some way is freedom 0, as some of the addons are not the intention of the original aim of the software, and as such the onus is on the end user, something that most end users seem to forget when using dodgy Addons or hacked software.
Server: Ubuntu Server 22TB HDD running SAMBA
Kodi: 4 Raspberry Pi 3 running Libreelec - on the main PC - running Linux Mint
My Setup thread |
) has already happened. The worst that could happen is they lose a good amount of people signing up to ask questions that a simple search and read would turn up. Re-reading this, it sounds kinda snarky, but that's not my intention.
