(Legal) status of the VIX-image?

[Rob van der Does]

I am wondering what the (legal?) status of the latest VIX-images is.
The basis of this image is the enormous amount of work done by PLi by using their 2.0 image. That indeed is allowed, while it is open source, being regulated by the GNL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html). No problem so far.

But I noticed that the VIX-image seems to be closed source: even the *.py's are not disclosed and not available anywhere!

Could someone please explain how a closed source image, based on open source work, fits within the GNL-regulations? And apart from that: how does it relate to normal civil politeness?

[digidude]

i would imagine, that as its built upon the openPLi source, that anything actually added by the Vix team, would be made public at their discression. They have given full credit to the open PLi image, and could probably give access to the source, minus the Vix stuff, if they had to

[Sicilian]

The ViX Team do not and will not get involved in any kind of public debate regarding this.

What I will say is that IF we are breaking any-kind of GPL licence agreement so are most of the current Dreambox, Clarke-Tech, developers.

I'm closing this thread as we are not holding a public discussion / debate on this matter.