Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jcstryker 3012 days ago
Unfortunate that this has been going on for over 4 months, with not even platitudes, just "we are discussing it internally".

Emby markets itself as an open source competitor to Plex, however the binaries they distribute are not reproducible using the code published in the repository. Despite multiple requests for the build scripts for the dotnet core version of Emby, the core developer Luke states "we are currently not publishing the build process for it, but don't worry, we will be doing .net core-based packages for all of the popular distros."[0]

The GPL requires the release of not just source code, but build scripts and supporting materials, outlined here in the SFLC's "A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance", sections 3.3, 3.4, 4.2.3. [1]

The core development team has been made aware of this, but is still refusing to make the build scripts available for the currently distributed version of Emby. Neither have they relicensed the project, despite all current contributions being covered under a CLA. This constitutes a willful and deliberate violation of the GPLv2.

[0] https://emby.media/community/index.php?/topic/51614-instruct...

[1] https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-gu...

1 comments

> Emby markets itself as an open source competitor to Plex

Which, so long as they provide downstream with the permissions in the open source license they offer, is correct. Whether they are violating upstream open source licenses is an almost entirely separate concern, relevant only in that it could conceivably lose them the right to continue to offer their software at all, under open source or other terms.

How is it free software if I am unable to produce a build from the the source code that is made available. This clearly violates freedoms 0 and 1.

From the SFLC Guide:

"The Corresponding Source definition – both in GPLv2 and GPLv3 – has not been typically read to include the compiler itself, but rather things like makefiles, build scripts, and packaging scripts."

These are not provided with the source code, and they claim the distributed binaries are licensed under the GPL. How is this correct if they do not satisfy the 4 freedoms?