ARM PowerVR SGX: Full 3D driver source code available (leaked)

[b_o_b]

was it really necessary to remove the link? are we not able to chose for ourselves? -.-

There are quite clever web search engines nowadays. 

 

[rohezal]

I sometimes ask a search engine about about a xda developer from munich named jumoog and github.

 

[ghostpatch]

People are just careful. Piratebay was also sued even though they were only providing (a kind of) links, not hosting anything questionable themselves.

You fear the forum would be taken down without beeing asked to remove the link first? Then yes, we should comply and censor ourselves...

well, I just don't like someone deciding for me, what I can and what I can't have access to, or whats good and whats bad for me and so on..

There are quite clever web search engines nowadays.

thats not my point

 

[Glyph Reader]

People are just careful. Piratebay was also sued even though they were only providing (a kind of) links, not hosting anything questionable themselves.

You fear the forum would be taken down without beeing asked to remove the link first? Then yes, we should comply and censor ourselves...

well, I just don't like someone deciding for me, what I can and what I can't have access to, or whats good and whats bad for me and so on..

There are quite clever web search engines nowadays.

thats not my point

We aren't limiting access though.  Because the link is of a shady nature (leaked propiatary code), it has been merely removed from this place.  You can still easily find it, and that is your choice.  Personally, I am glad that it was removed --- if I looked at it even for a bit, I would be 'unclean' so to speak. 

-Glyph Reader

 

[Granitehead]

if I looked at it even for a bit, I would be 'unclean' so to speak.

So you are writing us a free driver? Nice, thank you.

 

[fusion_power]

I guess it would be really hard to find out if an open source driver uses "questionable" content if the source was only used as "inspiration". ^^  Could be also clever to make an free but not "open source" driver so they first need to decompile the driver to find similarities. And because decompiling seems to be a very hard task (otherwise the world would be full of good open source clones of closed source drivers), this should be pretty unlikely.  

 

[EvilDragon]

The problem is: There are commands you send to the hardware to make it work.

These commands can be found by trial and error - or using the leaked code.

The first way is legal, the second isn't. However, IMGTech could easily suspect you used the leaked code if you find out the commands and use them for an open driver.

This is not a kind of software, where you could get the inspiration and rewrite it with own and completely different code - it's a fixed set of commands that only work when used correctly.

 

[rohezal]

IMG Tech Released its Shader Compiler Assembler RGX series:

http://libv.livejournal.com/26972.html

This means it is trivial to go from

MULT R0 R1 R2

to

0x02000102

EDIT Part could maybe splitted in an Offtopic post.

I think this is stupid. I can code stuff in ASM for a micro controller fast with a good documentary. Or I can spend years to reverse engineer this stuff. And waste lots of time which could improve my life or the life of other peopler.

Yes it is a different league, but the principle is the same. Just because it is law, it doesn't mean it is right to do or to not do things. Indias cancer patients died without some western medicine. The west didn't provide enough medinice for India and the price was just ridicoulus. India decided to produce it, itself for 1% of the price and give 10% share of the each sold medicine to the western pharmacy companies.

It was against International Law, but India said: "Fuck you" and saved thousands and thousands of lifes. And it was the right decision. If you don't use knowledge because of the ideology of other people, you slow down and limit yourself and others. Don't do that.

They could legalize this leak (at least the parts they own) and everyone would be happy. But it would be some trouble for them, if there is stuff documented in it, which is owned by  other companies, which is under NDA.

 

[WizardStan]

well, I just don't like someone deciding for me

No one has made any decision for you, you are free to do whatever you want. The mods made a decision for themselves in respect of EvilDragon and the future of the board. None of your rights have been violated.

 

[Glyph Reader]

if I looked at it even for a bit, I would be 'unclean' so to speak.

So you are writing us a free driver? Nice, thank you.

Haha, sadly, no, I am not writing a free driver.  However, I do plan to enter the industry, and I don't want it on my conscious. 

-Glyph Reader

 

[ghostpatch]

No one has made any decision for you, you are free to do whatever you want. The mods made a decision for themselves in respect of EvilDragon and the future of the board. None of your rights have been violated.

It's not about rights. Its about editing something somebody posted (dependig on how you look at it, it is a form of censorship), because of the little voices in your head telling you thats a no no

Sharing and passing knowladge is the foundation of humanity. Nobody could do anything without the knowlegde getterd and shared from billions of people before. I'm not against copy right and patenting stuff, but it needs a serious reformation!  ; )

We don't even own our own body! most of the human genome is already patented *rofl*

I don't see why I should play along nicely

Personally, I am glad that it was removed --- if I looked at it even for a bit, I would be 'unclean' so to speak.

again, you can sleep without a worry at night UNTIL the next possible copyright infringement arises *DANGER* *DANGER* 

 

[WizardStan]

It's not about rights. Its about editing something somebody posted (dependig on how you look at it, it is a form of censorship)

No depending on how you look at it, it is absolutely a form of censorship.

because of the little voices in your head telling you thats a no no

Or because of the very real legal troubles that it could land EvilDragon in. This isn't a moral or ethical problem, it's legal.

I don't see why I should play along nicely

Because you have to pick and choose your battles. Murder is against the law, you don't oppose that do you? But you're against certain patent and copyright laws (of which you are grossly misinformed if you think the human genome is patented, but I digress), so you play nice where you must and fight back where you can.
But all of this is irrelevant, pure distraction. Nothing you just said actually addresses what you originally said and what I was responding to. You talked about "decisions" being made, as if you had some inalienable right to see illegal content and it is necessarily your duty and yours alone to refrain (or not) from partaking in that illegal content. If that isn't the case then what exact decision are you upset that you no longer have?

 

[Askarus]

Problem is just what Letalis Sonus linked to, you can't just use it and you need to proof your "reverse engineering" wasn't just looking at that source. Luc Verhaegen seems to think it would be okay if one person wrote documentation about the graphics chip using the leaked source and another wrote a driver using that documentation. I'm not sure even this would be legal.

Probably yes - see Clean room design

But in the usual clean room process you reverse engineer the information for you documentation, which is legal. But the leaked source (and some documentation included with the source) is possibly illegal to have at all, so I would expect you couldn't admit to use it, you would need to claim you got your information from reverse engineering.

I still don't get it?

Why do you have to prove you didn't use the leaked code?

Don't they have to prove you used it?

Doesn't the one who accuses an other one have to prove his words?

 

[Saber]

It's not about rights. Its about editing something somebody posted (dependig on how you look at it, it is a form of censorship)

No depending on how you look at it, it is absolutely a form of censorship.

because of the little voices in your head telling you thats a no no

Or because of the very real legal troubles that it could land EvilDragon in. This isn't a moral or ethical problem, it's legal.

I don't see why I should play along nicely

Because you have to pick and choose your battles. Murder is against the law, you don't oppose that do you? But you're against certain patent and copyright laws (of which you are grossly misinformed if you think the human genome is patented, but I digress), so you play nice where you must and fight back where you can.

But all of this is irrelevant, pure distraction. Nothing you just said actually addresses what you originally said and what I was responding to. You talked about "decisions" being made, as if you had some inalienable right to see illegal content and it is necessarily your duty and yours alone to refrain (or not) from partaking in that illegal content. If that isn't the case then what exact decision are you upset that you no longer have?

I think instead of selling Everdrives, ED should sell soapboxes. He'd make a killin' with all the lecturing people tend to do at one another around here. As long as the forum is kept "unsoiled", I couldn't care less what they, the individual, does on the web. 

 

[Granitehead]

I still don't get it?


Why do you have to prove you didn't use the leaked code?


Don't they have to prove you used it?


Doesn't the one who accuses an other one have to prove his words?

That's the theory. In practice in this case it's possibly more the other way round and although I'd expect you'd stand a fair chance of winning, I wouldn't expect anyone to spend a huge, huge amount of time and risk losing.

 

[Letalis Sonus]

If the code looks similar, you're screwed no matter where it came from - their proof is the similarity. You simply can't prove that you wrote it entirely by yourself without being influenced by the leaked code because it was accessible for everyone. And that's the big problem: when 2 things are supposed to do the same, there will always be some similarities on how things are done.

In 2006 the ReactOS project did a complete code audit to search for possibly illegal code. Microsoft did provide the Windows source code to some universities for educational purposes (which resulted e.g. in a non-public port of WinXP to Xen), so there were quite a lot of contributors who potentially could have had a look at the original source code.

 

[dgame]

If you go back to the jumoog/GFX_Linux_DDK Github he has taken down the code and identified the source of the leak as being LG 'OpenSource Code Distribution' LGP920(Optimus 3D)_Android_ICS_V30a

Text of take-down notice at jumoog/GFX_Linux_DDK Github:

I removed this code because Luc Verhaegen threats me via email:

"I suggest that you remove this from github right now and you better pray
that nobody else cloned this or gets wind of this. If this story does
hit a newssite, I will place the blame squarely on you and explain how
you did the most shortsighted and damaging thing possible, and after the
storm settles, there will be no employer left who would want to hire
you.

Well done."

Luc Verhaegen 

if you need this files just goto 
<snip>
and download LGP920(Optimus 3D)_Android_ICS_V30a

 

[dgame]

...And by looking through the Android source code it appears LG released it under "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991."

The README in the GFX_Linux_DDK states:

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
               Version 2, June 1991

...

The NOTICE in the GFX_Linux_DDK folder states:

    Texas Instruments OMAP Platform Software
    © Copyright 2011 Texas Instruments Incorporated. All Rights Reserved.
    © Copyright 2002-2011 by Imagination Technologies Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

    Use of this software is controlled by the terms and conditions found
    in the license agreement under which this software has been supplied.

...

So did LG release the GFX_Linux_DDK under GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2?

 

[notaz]

No they did not, they have no right to relicense that code.

 

[WizardStan]

That would kind of protect jumoog I think, assuming it's true. He didn't just release proprietary leaked code, he uploaded what he (arguably) genuinely believed was GNU licensed code, and it's LG more in the wrong.

Not sure if it would completely absolve him of any legal ramifications but at least on a personal level I'd grant him some leeway.