Anyways enjoy have to get back to main project got to crush some bugs
For what it's worth, I can confirm that I am one of those members who are using some of @gszulc's other projects. He's legit.
2 Likes
I remember him saying he was going to start charging for the solution you're probably using. Has he done that?
Nope
Do you still plan to?
Idk yet but if I do be cheap spent lots of time on it works great and keep adding providers. But need to fix some bugs 1st and I think my users deserve better then to pay something while they are finding small bugs. I know bugs will always be there but I Dont feel right to charge.
1 Like
Unfortunately, @gszulc, I'm not in a good location for OTA. I have tried but I ended up returning my HDHomeRun.
Otherwise, I would have been one of the first testers for this project.
1 Like
All good bother 
I mean, honestly, if someone were to charge for something as an add-on for anything in this community, I think that would be pretty scummy.
You have no idea how many hours I've spent building free software with my own money just to benefit others. And I think anyone who does that would just be shameful. That's just my personal opinion and personal ethics, but I would hope that individual would just be ostracized and their code would not be used.
I implore anyone writing code for anything related to channels to just give it away and let others benefit and just make the community better.
Also, by chance, are we referring to that DirecTV DRM bypass from like almost a year ago that was removed from the community and moved to like Telegram or something? I'm not sure if I'm misremembering something, but I'm just curious if that's what is being referred to here is what could be charged for. I don't have a good memory of it. I just figured I'd ask. I could be misremembering completely, so I'm not putting blame on anyone. I'm just genuinely curious.
Why? The Channels DVR developers require a monthly fee. Just curious.
Channels DVR is the main product that all of these tools are built around.
I don't think it's right to charge for software that relies on commercial software in a sea of open source software. If someone does that, I would probably just try to rewrite their code, clean room, replace it just out of spite because I think it's so ugly.
There's nothing wrong with this discussion, just a reminder to everyone to keep it civil. There are some reasonable issues to discuss, just keep the Community Guidelines in mind.
2 Likes
Isn't Channels DVR dependent on services provided by other developers?
1 Like
Also, let's keep it on-topic.
1 Like
I think Channels DVR is a commercial product that's been around for 10+ years, and that's just not part of the question. It's a sea of open source solutions that are completely optional. It's not dependent on those services because there are first party solutions, and it's only enhanced by third party solutions, which I think is the beauty of this community, is that all of us have come together to find wonderful third party solutions to make channels even better than it is bare bones.
All I was saying is, I implore developers to not charge for their add-ons for channels because I think it's wrong. And I don't get why there needs to be an argument about that. I think it should be just something that most abide by, and those who don't abide by it shouldn't be rewarded for that. And that's my opinion. I'm going to leave it at that.
Fair enough.
1 Like
Nope it's not and that project was open-source.
1 Like
No worries, I was just misremembering something else then.
That was a fun one tho learned alot
1 Like