No way to contact owner? No mailing list? about boxeeremote

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hey, sorry. There's no mailing list, though I see this, and my address is on 
the entry for 
contacting the owner in the Android market. I haven't had much time to work on 
this in 
the past few months, but if you have specific changes, I can take a look. I 
gave another 
developer a copy of the jar key but I couldn't figure out how to transfer 
ownership of 
the market entry.

Original comment by [email protected] on 16 Nov 2009 at 4:52

[GoogleCodeExporter]

No problem, darn, that was the only place i didn't check for your email.  There 
were
2 things i had in mind.  one was to include the graphics that this guy made:
http://code.google.com/p/boxeeremote/issues/detail?id=10

As well as see if i can get seek working like he seemed to and center the 
buttons.

Another was to check out what changes this guy did:
http://code.google.com/p/boxee-xbmc-remote/

And add improvements he made to create a better build.  I also just wanted to 
mess
around with the app and see what i could do to improve it.  I'm not very 
experienced
with developing for android but i wouldn't release anything without your 
consent.

Original comment by [email protected] on 16 Nov 2009 at 7:57

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I downloaded the code for the copy\fork, and attached a screenshot of the fork 
running in the emulator. 

At a glance, the fork added a handful of buttons to support some more of 
Boxee's 
functionality. They appear to work, although I did not test them in depth. He 
also 
tweaked the "Now Playing" code. There might be more changes that I forgot to 
mention. You can find details in the file patch.patch.

I also compared Revision 2 of the fork with R62 of our original project. R62 
was the 
current version ("HEAD") when the fork was created. Revision 2 of the fork 
includes 
that code, plus a few changes, all in one shot. There was no log message for 
Revision 
2.

Here is some more info on how the patch and comparison report files were 
generated.

report.html:
    I loaded up the WinMerge application, and selected the appropriate folders 
(original R62 and the fork). I set the Left window to be the original, Right 
window to 
be the Fork. I set WinMerge to ignore \bin, \gen, and all \.svn folders. I also 
set it to 
show only differences, and generated the report by clicking "Tools"->"Generate 
Report"

patch.patch:
    I checked out the original BoxeeRemote R62 to a folder. I then manually copied 
over all the files that had been listed in Report.html. I used TortoiseSVN to 
create a 
patch, including all files (versioned and unversioned)

Original comment by [email protected] on 23 Feb 2010 at 11:59

Attachments:

• [fork screenshot.png](https://storage.googleapis.com/google-code-attachments/boxeeremote/issue-14/comment-3/fork screenshot.png)
• patch.patch
• report.html

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I should mention a concern about licensing. The original project is licensed 
Apache 
v2. The license of the fork as listed on code.google.com is GPL v3. However, in 
the 
source of the fork, the LICENSE and NOTICE files have been left intact as 
Apache 
v2. We might have to ask brandon15811 for clarification on what license his 
code 
actually is.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe GPLv3 projects can incorporate Apache v2 code, 
but 
not the other way around. The combined code becomes GPL v3 software. I'm fuzzy 
on the details in the case where brandon15811 would give us permission to copy, 
through re-licensing or some other means. In that case would it be okay to copy 
his 
code?

Check out http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html

Original comment by [email protected] on 24 Feb 2010 at 12:13

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I have asked brandon15811 the question about the license here:
http://code.google.com/p/boxee-xbmc-remote/issues/detail?id=2

Original comment by [email protected] on 24 Feb 2010 at 3:00

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Brandon15811 has said that the license of the fork is Apache v2. That basically 
makes 
licensing concerns a non-issue as far as I understand it.

Original comment by [email protected] on 26 Feb 2010 at 11:57