Hello,
We have ported linuxtv's cx23885+CAM en50221+Diseq to Windows OS (Vista,
XP, win7 tested). Results available under GPL and can be checkout from
git repository:
https://github.com/netup/netup-dvb-s2-ci-dual
Binary builds (ready to install) available in build directory. Currently
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Issa Gorissen flo...@usa.net wrote:
Hello,
We have ported linuxtv's cx23885+CAM en50221+Diseq to Windows OS (Vista,
XP, win7 tested). Results available under GPL and can be checkout from
git repository:
https://github.com/netup/netup-dvb-s2-ci-dual
Binary
Hello,
A GPL troll, as the Vicious Nokia Employee [that got] VLC Removed from Apple
App Store I cannot resist...
Le mercredi 30 novembre 2011 19:23:26 Devin Heitmueller, vous avez écrit :
Am I the only one who thinks this is a legally ambigious grey area?
Seems like this could be a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/02/2011 12:03 PM, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
Hello,
A GPL troll, as the Vicious Nokia Employee [that got] VLC Removed
from Apple App Store I cannot resist...
Le mercredi 30 novembre 2011 19:23:26 Devin Heitmueller, vous avez
écrit :
Am
Hi Andreas,
On Wednesday 30 November 2011 20:58:40 Andreas Oberritter wrote:
On 30.11.2011 20:33, Devin Heitmueller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks this is a legally ambigious grey area?
Seems like this could be a violation of
The point I'm trying to make: Someone made a presumably nice open source
port to a new platform and the first thing you're doing is to play the
GPL-has-been-violated-card, even though you're admitting that you don't
know whether any right is being violated or not. Please don't do that.
It's
Hello Laurent,
On 01.12.2011 20:42, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Hi Andreas,
On Wednesday 30 November 2011 20:58:40 Andreas Oberritter wrote:
On 30.11.2011 20:33, Devin Heitmueller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks this is a legally
Hello Steven,
On 01.12.2011 22:18, Steven Toth wrote:
The point I'm trying to make: Someone made a presumably nice open source
port to a new platform and the first thing you're doing is to play the
GPL-has-been-violated-card, even though you're admitting that you don't
know whether any right
Speaking as the maintainer and copyright owner I can say that it would
have been nice if someone had contacted me privately re the matter,
before hand. Not to assert any legal right, not for any approval,
simply as a courtesy and a perhaps a small 'Thank You'. NetUp could
have happily had my
Hello,
We have ported linuxtv's cx23885+CAM en50221+Diseq to Windows OS (Vista,
XP, win7 tested). Results available under GPL and can be checkout from
git repository:
https://github.com/netup/netup-dvb-s2-ci-dual
Binary builds (ready to install) available in build directory. Currently
NetUP
2011/11/30 Abylay Ospan aos...@netup.ru:
Hello,
We have ported linuxtv's cx23885+CAM en50221+Diseq to Windows OS (Vista, XP,
win7 tested). Results available under GPL and can be checkout from git
repository:
https://github.com/netup/netup-dvb-s2-ci-dual
Binary builds (ready to install)
On 30.11.2011 18:23, Devin Heitmueller wrote:
2011/11/30 Abylay Ospan aos...@netup.ru:
Hello,
We have ported linuxtv's cx23885+CAM en50221+Diseq to Windows OS (Vista, XP,
win7 tested). Results available under GPL and can be checkout from git
repository:
Nice!
How is the CI implementation? Can both CI's be used by both tuners? Or
is one CI bound to one tuner?
Walter
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 19:39:34 +0300, Abylay Ospan aos...@netup.ru wrote:
Hello,
We have ported linuxtv's cx23885+CAM en50221+Diseq to Windows OS (Vista,
XP, win7 tested).
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Andreas Oberritter o...@linuxtv.org wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks this is a legally ambigious grey area?
Seems like this could be a violation of the GPL as the driver code in
question links against a proprietary kernel.
Devin, please! Are you implying
On 30.11.2011 20:33, Devin Heitmueller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Andreas Oberritter o...@linuxtv.org wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks this is a legally ambigious grey area?
Seems like this could be a violation of the GPL as the driver code in
question links against a
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Andreas Oberritter o...@linuxtv.org wrote:
The point I'm trying to make: Someone made a presumably nice open source
port to a new platform and the first thing you're doing is to play the
GPL-has-been-violated-card, even though you're admitting that you don't
Hi Walter,
On 30.11.2011 21:46, Walter Van Eetvelt wrote:
Nice!
How is the CI implementation?
it's ok. Working fine under windows including MMI.
Professional CAM's (with multi-PID descramble) are tested.
Can both CI's be used by both tuners? Or
is one CI bound to one tuner?
First CI slot
Hi Devin,
Thanks for this idea. Need to investigate.
Currently we've made porting and released the results without any
license violations in mind ...
On 30.11.2011 20:23, Devin Heitmueller wrote:
2011/11/30 Abylay Ospanaos...@netup.ru:
Hello,
We have ported linuxtv's cx23885+CAM
18 matches
Mail list logo
