Ins236 wrote: > 1. Under what terms/license is daphile released? > > Daphile credits all open source packages it uses, but the terms under > which the daphile webinterface is released are not very clear. I don't > find it anywhere on the daphile site. > The absence of a license means that default copyright laws apply. This means that developer retains all rights to his/her source code and that nobody else may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from his/her work.
Ins236 wrote: > > > 2. Is daphile a derived work? > > The website mentions "Daphile is based on the open source Squeezebox > Server, SqueezePlay and Linux.". Playing with a recent beta, daphile > incorporates an LMS gui in it's own webinterface (using LMS 7.9) and a > recent squeezelite 1.8. So it needs LMS as server and squeezelite as > player and also recycles the LMS webinterface in his own GUI. So to have > a working daphile program that can play music, it needs existing open > source packages to function. > > Daphile contains some derived works and all that are covered under GPL (or similar terms) are available with sources+patches at: http://www.daphile.com/gpl-src/ Ins236 wrote: > > > 3. Several discussions on other forums state that the daphile source is > closed/proprietary, but I can read all shell scripts? > > The program that makes up the webinterface (several bash scripts) are > plaintext, no compiled proprietary binaries? So the source is already > open for anyone to read. > > Daphile contains some proprietary programs (Linux binaries and scripts). See my comment above on copyright / license question. Ins236 wrote: > > > 4. Why close down a linux distro to restrict modifications? > > I had to download the beta to be able to SSH into daphile, as the stable > versions do not have a console or SSH enabled. I could also use a > recovery CD to add a console/SSHD to the stable version. > This is very annoying. Vortexbox and almost all other distributions that > contain LMS or squeezelite (like picoreplayer) allow SSH and it is not a > good OSS practice to build something on OSS and then close it down to > prevent modifictations. > > It's a design choice. It's of course a trade-off between easy to install and maintain versus flexibility. Some technical solutions differ quite a lot from many other Linux distros which make it not suitable for user modifications. Also the target audience for Daphile has been always rather the audiophiles (even with limited computer skills) than technically savvy Linux experts. Ins236 wrote: > > > Combining (2) and (3) I assume under the GPL, this can be classified as > a derived work, which makes Daphile also OSS. > > Furthermore, I found this: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem I just don't share your view on this. The system can definitely use GPL components without being completely GPL by itself. Kimmo www.daphile.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ kipeta's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=51816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=99132 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
