Hacker News Reader

Comment by justinsaccount | Hacker News Reader

xpenology is illegal pirated software.

AFAIK is just a bootloader that let you install DSM which is based on GPL software (DSM is basically a Linux distro), so it's a gray area, regardless of what Synology says.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/dsgpl/files/Synology%20NAS%...

There are also threads on various FSF mailing lists calling out Synology for GPL violations.

Of course you don't get to use Synology services like quickconnect, but that's understandable.

It's not a gray area.

It's not free software. You didn't pay for it. you don't have a license to use it.

If synology is violating the gpl that means that they have issues to fix, it doesn't change what xpenology is.

There are other projects that are actually free software like FreeNAS.

You do have a license to use any software that Synology uses which is licensed to them under the GPL and shipped by them to a customer.

That's not "an issue they have to fix" nor is it a grey area; it's the essence of the GPL license terms.

Right. You have a license to use bash, or glibc, and anything else that synology uses. What you do not have a license to do is copy their entire product and run it on other hardware. This is not complicated. It's like pirating OS X and installing it on a hackingtosh. Just because apple uses some gpl and bsd licensed software doesn't mean you can just copy the entire thing.

The "issue that they have to fix" is that they haven't provided updated sources.. dunno, haven't checked on it in a while .

If every part of their entire product is GPL-licensed, then you do have that license. If there are portions which are not GPL-licensed, then you would need to secure a license for those portions.

I don't have an opinion on whether there is non-GPL software in a base install of Synology software using the XPenology bootloader as I haven't researched it. My opinion is confined to "copy their entire product" is not a determining factor with respect to GPL licensing. (IANAL.)

Their entire product is NOT gpl licensed. The xpenology people flat out lie about this and point to that sourceforge project which is just the gpl bits. The parts they are copying and installing are not free software

The xpenology people claim it is an "open source alternative" to synology. It is not. They are lying. They are just hacking at it until it runs unlicensed on non synology hardware.

Is OS X free software? If you hack up an open source bootloader that lets OS X run on non apple hardware does that magically make OS X free and open source?

This is not complicated. If you are using xpenology you are pirating software. If you are relying on xpenology to store important data you are a fucking idiot.

> If you are relying on xpenology to store important data you are a fucking idiot.

Well, may a lightning strike me if this isn't a textbook example of red herring!

I feel I owe you a response, having written the original comment.

First of all, you are not bringing any proof to the table, except your opinions.

You may be right, you may be not, but mentioning "important data" in the context of "the perfect media server" makes me think that you arguments are not very convincing after all.

What's so important in a media server?

Everyone of us who sets up a media server already owns the entire library, in digital or analog format, of media content that is going to be played from the server, so there is no problem if something gets lost, we can rebuild it, we have the technology, we can make it better than it was. Right? Right!

It would be ironic if we were arguing about how much GPL code there is in Synology DSM to use it to watch or listen to content downloaded illegally, wouldn't it?

Anyway, even though it is illegal (I own hundreds of DVDs, but I am not allowed to rip them and play them from my computer), I do it anyway.

Lets not forget about 09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-??-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0

Having said that.

The Synology record on GPL violations is abysmal (just search for "Synology" on trac.ffmpeg.org or serviio forum or samba.org mailing list archive, if you don't believe me) I think using a bootloader to install the base Synology system (most of DSM is under the GPL, unfortunately for them that's how that license works) _only on x86_ (Synology runs on many other platforms) and then install Jellyfin or Plex (if Jellyfin doesn't work) and never use the Synology proprietary software again is fair use. It's a Linux distribution after all, there is nothing inherently illegal in running it.

I know about FreeNAS, but as a media server is too much work and some things do not work (Jellyfin for example) or are not as simple to set up.

iXsystems and Synology make money from selling HW.

In your example XPenology is a bootloader that lets you install Darwin on non Apple X86 HW or a better example would be iOS jailbreaking, which has been considered "not illegal" and never been tested in court (because Apple knows that losing that battle would be very bad for them).

p.s.: Anyway, using a NAS without setting up proper replication and backups to store "very important data" it's equally idiotic.

p.p.s.: you could ask, so why don't simply install Linux? And you would be right. IMO in the context of "the perfect media server" for people that do not know how to setup a Linux media server, but have a spare Dell Optiplex, it's a viable alternative and the risk are basically zero or, to be completely honest, less than watching TV show and movies illegally.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com