[00:44] <bazhang> isnt popcorntime pretty much a warez only program
[00:46] <seednode> yes
[04:14] <phunyguy> all in favor of stevendale permaban say "AYE".
[05:07] <elky> oh boy what now?
[05:36] <elky> the pinging people?
[08:07] <ikonia> phunyguy: just get rid of him, he's another one who adds no value
[11:09] <Myrtti> maybe I need to tone down my snark. Sorry.
[11:09] <ikonia> I don't think so
[14:32] <phunyguy> elky, yeah the constant join and ping
[16:18] <Myrtti> I wonder if I still remember how to do factoid edits
[16:22] <Myrtti> there, fixed
[17:29] <Pici> woo
[20:22] <k1l_> dax: he is right. ethOS is not giving out the sourcecode. so they are violating the gpl there.
[20:23] <dax> did you buy it and then contact them and ask for source?
[20:23] <dax> they don't need to proactively make it available to non-customers
[20:23] <dax> anyways, the email I gave him is the correct place to report it assuming they are in fact not distributing source at all
[20:24] <k1l_> afaik they need to give it out even if you dont pay for it. that is all the sense behind the gpl.
[20:25] <genii> I'm sure someone at Canonical will figure it out. Their lawyers always seem ready to leap out of the bushes.
[20:26] <dax> k1l_: oh, sorry, yes, you're correct about that
[20:27] <dax> so, i wonder if they make "a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code" to people who buy and download it ;)
[20:27] <dax> in general, cryptocurrency people are idiotic enough that i highly doubt they did, but who knows. and yeah, it's big-C's problem really
[20:28] <dax> (does FSF even do GPL enforcement for coreutils and other GNU stuff these days?)
[21:57] <hggdh> dax: used to, until recently (at least). There was a site where they would show violations of the GPL, and results
[21:59] <hggdh> yes. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.en.html and http://gpl-violations.org/
[22:00] <hggdh> and I remember FSF being active on violations (for a somewhat undefined "active")
[22:01] <dax> is the latter actually an FSF project?
[22:01] <dax> or, like, actually FSF affiliated
[22:03] <dax> b/c the compliance work i've seen recently seems to mostly be FSFE and Conservancy
[22:04] <hggdh> I remember Harald's work from a few years ago. He/They helped a lot (mostly in Germany)
[22:05] <hggdh> but -- just checked -- and the mailing list host seems to be down
[22:06] <hggdh> so... since you have to have the copyright owner complaining... GPL violations are iffy. For the FSF packages, they do follow up
[22:06] <hggdh> for others... <shrug/> perhaps Canonical, Red Hat