Porting SageTV to run on D-Link DSM-520 - Page 9

JUC · #**161** 09-25-2006, 12:57 PM

I agree with Blade on that one---enforceing GPL's is not the intent behind the Act---but--if it provides a little hook or an additional claim against companies then even better.

Also--i emailed gpl-violations.org and told them our story. Linked them to this thread too. We'll see where that ends up.

I also emailed Dlink again asking nicely about any updates. I'm expecting a generic 'not yet' reply and plan on sending another email to their General Counsel and also the products manager stating how I hoped given the recent decision in Germany that Dlink would be taking these GPL violations more seriously and see where that gets me......maybe time to play hardball??
JUC

JUC · #**162** 09-25-2006, 03:18 PM

Update: Ok--i've been in contact today with people over at gpl-violations.org. Looks like good timing on our part. Here is the recent reply I received from them (and I already forwarded along my email correspondence). We'll see where this goes.
JUC

"ok, thanks for your information. I've just ordered a test purchase of
the device. If there is any code in the device I hold rights on,
they'll get a warning notice (and potentially) a claim for a contractual
penalty because they'd be in violation of a declaration to cease and
desist.

It's totally unacceptible for them to _know_ about this matter while
still distributing the device.

Please let me know whom you informed at D-Link, at at which time they
have received your information on this issue. Thanks in advance"

hemicuda · #**163** 09-25-2006, 04:59 PM

I know of massive amounts of perfectly good hardware and parts that have fallen into the trash hoppers due to SOX. what a friggin waste (sorry for the pun). Now said company has to order parts etc nearly every time there's a repair action instead of just pulling "spares" off the truck. Costly in capital and man-hours. Looks good to the bean-counters come inventory time, but it's a real headache for field techs like me.

blade · #**164** 09-25-2006, 07:43 PM

Here is Wasabi's response to the FSF reaction to their whitepaper.

Both sides are really trying to oversimplify SOX to back up their side and some of what they're claiming is not exactly true. It appears many of the people involved in the discussions have very little understanding of accounting and auditing. From an accounting standpoint it appears the FSF paper was written by folks with a much stronger understanding of accounting and how SOX is supposed to be applied.

blade · #**165** 09-25-2006, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jds23

I am just curious as to how SOX is related to all this hardware being thrown away..? Do you by chance know the details of how this all came to be? Lawsuits, etc?

I would like to know as well.

hemicuda · #**166** 09-25-2006, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jds23

I am not sure I understand, but if it is true that SOX somehow is responsible for "parts" being thrown in the trash.... I obviously don't know the full extent of what you are referring to, but it is kind of strange that SOX (from what I know of it) would be responsible, since it covers IP with respect to the GNU GPL. I assume these were hardware devices with some flavor of linux on them that were not legal with releasing their code, correct? ... I am just curious as to how SOX is related to all this hardware being thrown away..?

Not really anything to do w/ GPL AFAIK. What I heard it in reference to was inventory items "stored" on company utility vehicles and various "closets" around the office. Things like if they didn't have a way to "return items to inventory" they had to be thrown away. It had something to do with how repairs were charged to accounts. I was never fully in the loop about it since the Co I work for subcontracted for them. Sorry to confuse things so, but I'm certain they were talking about SOX or some form of it.

blade · #**167** 09-25-2006, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hemicuda

Not really anything to do w/ GPL AFAIK. What I heard it in reference to was inventory items "stored" on company utility vehicles and various "closets" around the office. Things like if they didn't have a way to "return items to inventory" they had to be thrown away. It had something to do with how repairs were charged to accounts. I was never fully in the loop about it since the Co I work for subcontracted for them. Sorry to confuse things so, but I'm certain they were talking about SOX or some form of it.

I believe what they're talking about would have already been required. SOX basically makes the CEO, CFO, etc.. more accountable for what the company does. Without being involved with the company there is no way to know for certain what was going on. My guess is the guys at the top decided to be safe rather than sorry and started cracking down on weak internal controls. It is easy to let things slide when you know it won't come back to bite you personally. The thought of facing jail time or fines tend to make people take a more serious stance on following the rules.

I think this is where people get confused. They see it as break a rule and you're in violation of SOX. They don't realize it isn't that simple.

Most likely there was no need to throw out the scrap parts unless they determined that tracking them would be more costly than disposing of them. It is possible the amounts would have been immaterial anyway. The reason they would need to be tracked is to deter theft or fraud. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how an employee, management, etc... could take advantage of inventory that was unaccounted for.

Garmin · #**168** 10-12-2006, 01:02 AM

I guess you guys have this link

http://tsd.dlink.com.tw/ModelDocu.as...d&sno=BCFEJHKJ

Whats missing ?

JUC · #**169** 10-12-2006, 04:09 AM

Hey all--quick update. No good news unfortunately. Dlink has finally stuck their head in the sand and is saying the souces are complete. From the link above--it looks like they updated some stuff twice last month. They are claiming everything is in there except some wireless stuff but I had Demo check and the Sigma/Redonsic video sources are still missing apparently. I think contact with Dlink has finally halted. I sent a pretty nasty/demanding email to their general councel and one of their managers last week pointing them to the recent Dlink decision in europe. Guess they won't be responding. I still have some hope for gpl-violations.org and i'll keep following up on that front. Unfortunately, i don't see this moving much anymore through Dlink. The only good news is that the Sources are more complete than when we started (i'm sure prompted by our request) but its just not enough.
On a side note--i have repeatedly asked Jeff if I should continue working on and pursuing this on the side and at first he said absolutely. I asked George again a few days ago and got brushed off. So i'm not really sure how things are going on a sage branded HD extender. I would be a little upset if one came out anytime soon because that would mean they let me (us) just stand by wasting our time....but on the other hand how upset could i be with an HD extender?...at that point it wouldn't really matter.
Ok-so-i'll keep plugging along with gpl-violations.org and keep sending sporadic emails to Dlink. Let me know if you can think of any other ideas or other avenues we might try.
Thanks for everyone's help,
Juc

briands · #**170** 10-12-2006, 06:55 AM

Well if the legal channel has hit a roadblock, maybe we could try a different route. In many businesses, the sales team can have some influence if it will bring in a sale. Maybe we should find a sales contact to talk about a volume buy IF they comply with the source code requirement. I don't know what kind of sales volume they have, but I'd guess a 100 piece buy would not be enough... 1000 might pique their interest.

BobPhoenix · #**171** 10-12-2006, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by briands

Well if the legal channel has hit a roadblock, maybe we could try a different route. In many businesses, the sales team can have some influence if it will bring in a sale. Maybe we should find a sales contact to talk about a volume buy IF they comply with the source code requirement. I don't know what kind of sales volume they have, but I'd guess a 100 piece buy would not be enough... 1000 might pique their interest.

Put me down for another one (I already own one DSM-520) but will not buy another unless a SageTV Client becomes possible. I will most likely get rid of the one I have if Sage goes to a different HD extender because of the "No source" on this one. DLink can also count on me boycotting all other products they produce as well - not that I buy alot but they will get no word of mouth sales from me either.

BobP.

insomniac · #**172** 10-12-2006, 09:27 AM

Id buy 2 if they worked as a sage client.

kricker · #**173** 10-12-2006, 10:37 AM

I'd buy at least one.

JUC · #**174** 10-12-2006, 11:47 AM

i'd buy 2 too!

ybrew · #**175** 10-12-2006, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JUC

On a side note--i have repeatedly asked Jeff if I should continue working on and pursuing this on the side and at first he said absolutely. I asked George again a few days ago and got brushed off. So i'm not really sure how things are going on a sage branded HD extender. I would be a little upset if one came out anytime soon because that would mean they let me (us) just stand by wasting our time....but on the other hand how upset could i be with an HD extender?...at that point it wouldn't really matter.
Ok-so-i'll keep plugging along with gpl-violations.org and keep sending sporadic emails to Dlink. Let me know if you can think of any other ideas or other avenues we might try.
Thanks for everyone's help,
Juc

I too wouldn't be upset with Sage if they had a sage branded hd extender.

but if there's anything we can do to help with DLink, let us know.

Edit - and I'd buy 2 if they worked as Sage clients. Possibly a 3rd in the future, but 2 for sure.

willgill · #**176** 10-12-2006, 12:22 PM

I wouldn't be upset with a Sage branded HD extender, especially if it supported 802.11 pre-N. I know you've done a LOT of work on this JUC and your efforts aren't going unnoticed by many a lurker here. We all owe you a lot (and maybe a cold one).

ybrew · #**177** 10-12-2006, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willgill

I wouldn't be upset with a Sage branded HD extender, especially if it supported 802.11 pre-N. I know you've done a LOT of work on this JUC and your efforts aren't going unnoticed by many a lurker here. We all owe you a lot (and maybe a cold one).

good luck with that. I wouldn't hold my breath on wireless hd.

JUC · #**178** 10-12-2006, 04:43 PM

well--sage has been saying they are working on an HD extender for a while now so i guess its not out of the question--and would be very welcomed!!!! I don't even have HD available right now where I am but its still exciting to think about it

willgill · #**179** 10-12-2006, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ybrew

good luck with that. I wouldn't hold my breath on wireless hd.

Why is that? Already Pre-recorded HDTV TS streams pretty well without conversion from my HTPC via Linksys 802.11 pre-N adapter to a Cisco Aironet 802.11 G access point. They're linked at 54Mbps. It missed a frame or or two about every 2 minutes. You have to watch fairly closely to catch it.

At 802.11 N speeds, HDTV is easily achievable.

briands · #**180** 10-26-2006, 02:44 PM

JUC... any updates?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)