Search results

Please note, I'm not screaming here or elsewhere in this thread or on the board. I'm trying to argue rationally with some of the things you say here. Would you like to give some examples of people being "flamed" in this thread. I've read the whole thing and so far your post is the most...

I think this is a good question and there are (edit) at least two two answers: (1) They must release the source because they effectively agreed to do this when they released the GP2X's firmware in binary form. (2) Even if I don't hack on the source code personally (frankly, I'm not clever...

Sadly, craigix is in the same situation as "they" are if magiceyes say "no". If the source can't be distributed, he doesn't have a licence to distribute the operating system on the GP2X so he can't sell them without breaching the GPL. Of course he's in that situation now and has been since the...

Probably too late to contribute now, but I would certainly buy at least one commercial title. I don't care about DRM I never pirate [I]anything[/]. Oh, and I'm a linux user but I'm not cheap! I don't pay for software on Linux because I've not yet found anything that I need to buy. But I used to...

Of course, everybody should take more time to think before writing emails or forum posts, but you can't blame bjimba or other people here for what random Slashdotters do, can you?

I don't think you have thought this through, as it applies equally well with Microsoft (or other proprietary) software. I 'd love to see you try to make the argument against MS's lawyers. "But one more copy won't hurt! Why are you persecuting me?". Good luck with that. The little section above...

I just wanted to point out that I agree completely with your approach, bjimba. I thought your blog post was reasonable, as was the story submission to Slashdot. This is 100% on-topic here and 100% on-topic at Slashdot. Andrew

Everyone has a right to a view, you know. I don't condone people hurling abuse at GPH and craigix, but there's no reason why people should not debate the issue here and on Slashdot and indeed anywhere on the internet. And there's another issue which relates to GPLed software and not to MS or...

If a manufacturer wants to use Windows CE, they will have to consider licensing first before release. There is no difference between the GPL and WinCE in this sense, why on earth do you think there is? In fact, what do you think the consequence would have been if GPH had tried to do to Microsoft...

You are the one using the term "conspiracy" (up until this post, you are the only person in the thread who has used the term) and I don't even know why you are talking about this in these terms. To everyone who understands the GPL, this situation is obvious and amazingly simple. Please try not...

Could I politely suggest that you calm down? First of all, if the situation is FUBAR, it is not the fault fo bjimba. The fault lies with those who have been distributing GPLed code without making the source available. You can't seriously be suggesting that this should not be discussed outside of...

An equally plausible interpretation of last week's events is that the furore over the Slashdot article finally forced the Koreans to get serious about the GPL. Which of these two interpretations is correct? I don't think it's helpful if people are getting abusive messages, but the fact that...

I think it's great! It's not that hard, surely? Perhaps you're not really the sort of person who should be an early adopter of a product like the GP2X?

There has been a very large discussion about this (see Slashdot once more). Towards the end of that discussion, someone (search for muncher666 in the thread) stated that they had been told that the sources for 1.3.0 would be made available next week. We're now waiting to see if they turn up.

Fortunately, this is less of a problem than you might think. Here is the Free Software Foundation's Eben Moglen on the issue: Taken from Enforcing the GNU GPL.

SCO's entire case is about their contract with IBM. They dropped the GPL crap about a year ago. I did address your point about the timescale. The GPL is a legally watertight licence - what you call "vagueness" clearly meets the standards of the lawyers who drew it up. You have to ask yourself...

But this "vagueness", as you put it has been approved by lawyers. Clearly it's an acceptable legal document - you say yourself that it has not been tested in court and I posted a link to Eben Moglen's explanation of why the GPL has not been tested in court: because nobody dares to try it on. You...

Sorry, but this is nonsense on two counts: (1) Eben Moglen is on record as saying that the GPL doesn't get tested in court because it is water proof. He makes a very convincing case for this which is based on the fact that with the GPL you have more rights than for typical copyright licences...

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. GPLed code is copyrighted. Just read the GPL.