aapje89
Still here...
niceSquidge posted on Dec 6 2005 at 11:16 AM said:
by the way, do you use total commander?
Last edited by a moderator:
Gp2x Linux Source Release
- Thread starter DJWillis
- Start date
by the way, do you use total commander?
Squidge
Certified Guru
Of course Total Commander is like, the best file manager out there for Windows. I remember back when Microsoft was threatening to sue them because they had originally called it "Windows Commander".
Total Commander is like, the best file manager out there for Windows. I remember back when Microsoft was threatening to sue them because they had originally called it "Windows Commander".aapje89
Still here...
hehe, my dad is also using it for a long long time.Squidge posted on Dec 6 2005 at 02:35 PM said:Of course
Last edited by a moderator:
Talyz
Member
That would mean removing all the advantages of Linux as well as making the user of HH unable to run GP2X Linux programs. wouldn't it :blink: ? Would it be a possibility to intergrate Linux into HH; real <_< open source? Just wondering...Squidge posted on Dec 6 2005 at 11:16 AM said:
Last edited by a moderator:
unlucky
Chop sticks Chop sticks Chops sticks
i think the choice is like a pc boot loader choose to go into linux or HH. Also HH can already be run from with in linux it just seems a bit pointless to load up linux just to get rid of it.......
codesmith
Member
One other thing to consider is ease of development. Right now, with SDL I can use all my developer tools I have in Windows to write my game, debug it under visual studio running on a 320x240 window and have gp2x-specific code (eg the key bindings) in #ifdef blocks, with a very high level of confidence in the code "just working" once I put it in an SD card and run it on the 2x - any platform-specific bugs should be fairly standard (endianness issues, etc). This applies to XCode on the Mac, and your favourite OSS tools on Linux. Unless we have HH-SDL or a GP2X device emulator (or there's a straightforward mapping from HH to SDL), we're back to printfs over the serial port for debugging core game functionality. Yuck. This alone would make me stick with Linux regardless of any advantages HH gave me.unlucky posted on Dec 6 2005 at 07:17 AM said:
Last edited by a moderator:
antime
Still Fresh
The released sources include a SD driver (in drivers/mmcsd), but the code is marked "Not GPL, Proprietary License". Anyone know what's up with that? What are the actual license terms?
Squidge
Certified Guru
Well, considering the SD driver is bundled and compiled with a load of GPL software, it is technically GPL itself, because as far as I know, you can't include some of your own source code in another GPL project and change the license terms - it must be under the original license. Otherwise you would be tainting the original license, which is not allowed.
If the SD driver were a module, then it could have it's own license via the MODULE_LICENSE tag, but since it's built and integrated with the kernel...
If the SD driver were a module, then it could have it's own license via the MODULE_LICENSE tag, but since it's built and integrated with the kernel...
Ravnos
Asleep in Samsara
Squidge posted on Dec 9 2005 at 03:42 AM said:
So in other words "feel free to use it in your own GPLed projects because they fucked up"?
Last edited by a moderator:
Squidge
Certified Guru
Why would ANYONE want to use GPH code in there own projects? That's would just be insane...
antime
Still Fresh
The GPL says that distributing GPL-licensed software together with non-GPL software does not mean that the whole thing is then covered by the GPL. How and when the driver (which builds into a module, the "Not GPL" part was from the MODULE_LICENSE tag) is built doesn't seem relevant from the GPL's point of view.
I suppose the only way to be sure is to ask Dignsys.
I suppose the only way to be sure is to ask Dignsys.
Ravnos
Asleep in Samsara
antime posted on Dec 9 2005 at 02:41 PM said:
No, but the GPL says that you can't mix GPLed and non-GPLed source code together unless you're placing it all under the GPL. If that "Not GPL" SD driver is not a module but part of the kernel source, then it's either covered or it has to be taken out altogether and placed in a module.
Of course, I haven't actually looked at the source so all this may be irrelevant. I have no use for it, but I'm glad that it's out there.
Last edited by a moderator:
antime
Still Fresh
The question is if storing the driver sources in a separate directory counts as aggregation or not. IMO it would, since they are clearly separated from the rest of the code, but the aggregation clause is a hotly debated subject. The actual driver code does not contain GPL-licensed code as far as I can tell.Ravnos posted on Dec 10 2005 at 01:10 AM said:
Anyway, I sent an email to Dignsys, I'll let you know their reply.
Last edited by a moderator:
codesmith
Member
That seems wrong to me, it basically seems to be saying that either all the code has to be GPL or the parts that are not must be a binary distribution. I know the GPL has some kooky aspects to it, but that seems to be going against the spirit of it (ie "show me the source")Ravnos posted on Dec 9 2005 at 04:10 PM said:
Last edited by a moderator:
