Gph/digisys Gpl Compliance W/ 1.3.0 Firmware

[icurafu]

ps – stop being a fucktard.

​

Smooth. Nothing like a bit of name calling to add weight to a viewpoint.

Despite not being a copyright holder my rights have still been violated.  I was falsely advertised too.  It may not have meant much to you, but to me the marketing bullet points of Open Source, GPL, and GNU/Linux were major selling points.  It was one of the primary reasons I bought the device in the first place.  Before anybody even ask, no I don’t want a damn refund.  I’ve bought 4 AA NiMH batteries for this damn thing, a high end battery charger, a 2gb SD card, a TV-Out cable, and a screen protector all of which I have no use for besides my GP2X.  Getting my money back for the console still screws me out of quite a bit of money for those accessories.  For me there is only one satisfactory solution the problem, GPL compliance.

​

Two questions :

Since GPL was a major selling point for you, why didn't you return it for a refund as soon as you recieved it and saw it failed to meet one or other of the relevant conditions before investing further in it ?

Given the moral high ground you are arguing from, how can the cost of a few bits and pieces outweigh the lofty principal you have been so mouthy about ?

Act on your convictions, send it back tomorrow. You know you will sleep better.

​

I have the same convictions, but I wont hand it back. But it'll be easy for me to switch boats if something better comes along that actaully belives in the GPL.

At the moment there is nothing like this.

 

[bjimba]

Nobody's IP was "stolen". How do you steal something that is being given away?

You are correct. It is technically not theft. It is technically copyright violation. The RIAA makes the same error when they speak of people "stealing" music.

What I mean is that there are maybe 8 hardcore developers that would either use the information in the code to create better apps, or modify the code to create new and better firmware.

Those screaming loudest about how GPH MUST release it NOW have no intention of using it or even downloading it. You are right though, in the end we will all benefit.

Just so you know -- the reason I want the source code is to modify it and extend the features of the GP2X. I don't know the motives of anyone else.

My impression is quite the opposite of yours. It seems to me that the people who are most dismissive of the GPL and violations of it have never written a line of code in their lives, or at the very least have never had the experience of releasing source code under an open-source license and then having someone use it without releasing the modified work. (Of course, I don't know this for a fact, any more than you know for a fact what you were asserting.)

 

[GeminiDomino]

I really don't see this as a non-issue. It is a consern for people outside the GP2X community as some of them have had their IP stolen. The amount of work to make a source release (if you've played by the rules) is absolutly minimal. If the source is ready enough to make a binary release, it's ready enough to make a source release. I don't think anybody is really asking for anything more or less than from this point forward every time GPH makes a binary firmware release, they also make a source release.

​

Nobody's IP was "stolen". How do you steal something that is being given away? It's not like they ripped off commercial software and started selling it as their own.

Wrong. They took the software WITHOUT fulfilling thier obligations in taking it. When you buy something, you're side of the bargain is to give the seller money. When you modify and distribute GPLed software, your side of the bargain is to release your changes. By not doing so, they aren't "borrowing" anything (where did you people come up with that idiotic analogy?), they're engaging in copyright infringement.

It's not even like they took free software and said they're keeping their extensive modifications secret forever.

They're not allowed to keep thier modifications secret AT ALL.

It's indignant, chest-thumping reactionism like this that turns people off to the GPL ideal. Yes, the GPL is a good idea, and it has rules for a reason. But the mature and rational approach to this whole thing would have been to give them time to create a stable final product to release, which was their stated intention from the beginning.

Someone who has little or no understanding of the GPL and who appears to be more than willing to shill for GPH and Dig whether or not they are right really has no place talking about "mature and rational" approaches to anything. The fact of the matter is that Linus, and everyone else who has submitted code to the Linux kernel, did so with the understanding and stipulation that it is NOT allowed to be used in the way GPH is using it.

At the absolute worst, GPH is guilty of borrowing with intent to return. Even that's a bit of a stretch, since this is FREE software we're talking about.

Here's that pointless analogy again. What GPH is guilty of is Copyright infringement.

READ the GPL.

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.

They are not accepting the license, and thus have no right to distribute Linux. Therefore, your claims that they are not doing anything wrong or that this software is "free" for them to do with as they please are patently false.

What angers me the most is how Craigx, DJWillis, and other "inside" folks have been treated. These are people who work their asses off for the love of open hardware. Sure, Craigx sells the things, but I'm sure he's not getting rich from it. It's really disheartening to have good guys like this shat upon by people who know nothing more about the situation than what they read in two misleading paragraphs on slashdot.

You must not read slashdot often. I suggest you google "Sturgeon's Law" and keep in mind that it applies to everything, including online communities such as slashdot..



DISCLAIMER: I refuse to edit/develop GPL software, because I loathe the political agenda of the FSF. For those who wish for software to be truly "free" ("as in freedom", to quote the holy church fo Stallman), I suggest the "New BSD License" or the "MIT license." However, those who wrote and contributed to Linux DID choose to use the GPL, and their wishes should be honored.

 

[Chip]

Wrong. They took the software WITHOUT fulfilling thier obligations in taking it. When you buy something, you're side of the bargain is to give the seller money. When you modify and distribute GPLed software, your side of the bargain is to release your changes. By not doing so, they aren't "borrowing" anything (where did you people come up with that idiotic analogy?), they're engaging in copyright infringement.

...

Here's that pointless analogy again. What GPH is guilty of is Copyright infringement.

READ the GPL.

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.

They are not accepting the license, and thus have no right to distribute Linux. Therefore, your claims that they are not doing anything wrong or that this software is "free" for them to do with as they please are patently false.

​

Either you take something from somebody or you don't. The people who developed linux loose nothing if the source code is never released. They gain nothing if it is. Since the net gain is zero either way, why is everybody getting so excited? Either give something away or don't. Don't be such a lawyer about it.

Obviously I'm in favor of full disclosure of the firmware source. As I said, in the end, we will all benefit. GPL rules or not, it's just good for the system. My beef is with indignant, chest-thumping reactionism (I'm sticking by that description).

The spirit of the GPL was meant to prevent parties from profiting off of others hard work without giving back the modifications. GPH stated they had every intention of complying with that spirit. There was no reason to believe otherwise. Their official forum states repeatedly that the software is not yet finished. They planned to release the source when it is. Why is that so unacceptable? Why does that deserve nasty emails, name calling and eight pages of bickering on this forum?

Someone who has little or no understanding of the GPL and who appears to be more than willing to shill for GPH and Dig whether or not they are right really has no place talking about "mature and rational" approaches to anything. The fact of the matter is that Linus, and everyone else who has submitted code to the Linux kernel, did so with the understanding and stipulation that it is NOT allowed to be used in the way GPH is using it.

I don't shill for anybody. I'm sticking up for GPH because they make a product that I believe in and they have been unjustly attacked. They're the little guy, like linux used to be. I think that open hardware like the GP2X is EXACTLY what linux was intended for. Some cheerful-helpers are too busy nitpicking the rules to see it.

You must not read slashdot often. I suggest you google "Sturgeon's Law" and keep in mind that it applies to everything, including online communities such as slashdot..

In that you are correct. I don't read slashdot (or digg, or the register) that often. I've heard of sturgeon's law, and I think it vastly underestimates the scope of shit in the online world.

 

[PSyMastR]

GPL 4 the win.

 

[DaveC]

I really don't see this as a non-issue. It is a consern for people outside the GP2X community as some of them have had their IP stolen. The amount of work to make a source release (if you've played by the rules) is absolutly minimal. If the source is ready enough to make a binary release, it's ready enough to make a source release. I don't think anybody is really asking for anything more or less than from this point forward every time GPH makes a binary firmware release, they also make a source release.

​

The point was that the GPL zealots went mental when they heard of this just to go mental, whether it effects them or not. Most of them didn't even know what the hell a GP2X is. Everyone keeps saying the IP was stolen, it is illegal, they are thieves rah rah rah, crush kill destroy. It is like they just like to bitch about something. None of the whiners even have any code that was "stolen" in the GP2X. They point out that some poor sucker in Denmark that may have wrote a piece of code that turns a pixel on and off in linux was violated. I hope that poor sucker can sleep now knowing that his piece of code is now in an obscure Korean gameboy called a GP2X and they DIDN'T RELEASE THE SOURCE!!!!! OMFG it is the end of the world!!! The sun will go nova and the earth will split in half like an egg!! were DOOOOMEDDD!! For all the GPL freaks know he wouldn't even give two shits, and if he does let HIM bitch about it. You would probably find that most wouldn't care all that much. It is not as if the GP2X linux is going to be rolled back into some PC mega distro or something. It would be useless for 99% of the linux world.

I am not saying the source should not be released. I think it should but I just wish the zealots would have a little patients, not be so inflexible about the timeline, and do a little asking around before going off half cocked

 

[Winterkid]

Seems to me both sides have already dug into the sand and are going to hold their ground on this issue... Further debate is fairly pointless, no matter what ideas anyone is trying to convey to the other side. Some people here are for the GPL being enforced now, some people here are for waiting a while longer for full compliance.

It's been discussed to death, and can only serve to divide the GP2X community further. Anyone who posts in this thread any more of the SAME points is only looking to continue the fighting and probably also wasting their breath and time. If you haven't managed to sway anyone's opinion by now, you probably wont.

 

[Dingo_aus]

Mainly at Chip:

I'd like to see GPH bundle unlicensed WinCE with the GP2X and see how long before "zealots" of another sort arrive.


To those defending GPH, and their agents Digisys, over the lateness in supplying the firmware source - would you be against Microsoft attacking GPH for not paying for WinCE licenses if that was the case?

 

[evening2005]

Either you take something from somebody or you don't. The people who developed linux loose nothing if the source code is never released. They gain nothing if it is. Since the net gain is zero either way, why is everybody getting so excited? Either give something away or don't. Don't be such a lawyer about it.

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.

Obviously I'm in favor of full disclosure of the firmware source. As I said, in the end, we will all benefit. GPL rules or not, it's just good for the system. My beef is with indignant, chest-thumping reactionism (I'm sticking by that description).

The little section above is especially funny in the light of the little section below:

The spirit of the GPL was meant to prevent parties from profiting off of others hard work without giving back the modifications.

... Do you really believe that? Do you have any conception at all of why Richard Stallman started the Free Software movement? No offence, but it looks to me as if you are insulting people on this board despite the fact that you know nothing about what you are insulting people about.

GPH stated they had every intention of complying with that spirit. There was no reason to believe otherwise. Their official forum states repeatedly that the software is not yet finished. They planned to release the source when it is. Why is that so unacceptable? Why does that deserve nasty emails, name calling and eight pages of bickering on this forum?

Now you're equating "bickering" on this forum with "nasty emails" and "name calling"? You do realise that in the context of this debate, you are a name-caller, don't you?

In any case, the spirit of the GPL is that a user of software will always have available the source code for that software. That is the point of the GPL and there is no room for interpretation in that. GPH have distributed software based on the GPL and have failed, for more than two months, to proviide a single source code release. The one they did distribute didn't correspond to any firmware version, so that doesn't count.

 

[DijiTao]

I'm just doing my part to try to educate people on the problem. Seems like I got a few replies on my last post, I'll do my best to answer all points.

DigiTao, about being lied to, sorry to be a downer, but chances are, you've been lied to at least 2 or 3 times in some way in the last week, at some point. The human race as a whole isn't the most honest.

Correct but irrelevant.

I think saying the IP of the GPL has been "stolen" is a bit strong.

I agree, stolen isn't the correct word. What GPH has done is a crime, but not theft.

When something is stolen, it's taken without permission. The GPL itself gives it's consent from what I understand, but not all the conditions have been met. If anything, the IP you're talking about has been "borrowed" and just not "returned" in good condition.

Incorrect. While GPL'd code can be received and used at no cost, there is a cost to give it away. That cost is very cleared outlined in the terms of the licensee. The terms of the licensee are very easy to comply with and that makes GPH's non-compliance all the more a mystery.

Smooth. Nothing like a bit of name calling to add weight to a viewpoint.

Please see “Pot calling the kettle black ” @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_idiom...nglish_language

Since GPL was a major selling point for you, why didn't you return it for a refund as soon as you recieved it and saw it failed to meet one or other of the relevant conditions before investing further in it ?

I had pre-ordered the GP2X, Screen Protector, and TV-Out Cable well before it's release, my 2Gb SD card was purchased once my GP2X shipped since I knew you couldn't do much without one. We have been told several times now since the release of the GP2X that GPH will come into compliance with the GPL, and I do believe they will eventually comply given the alternative. It is however only educating GPH on that alternative that they will act.

Given the moral high ground you are arguing from, how can the cost of a few bits and pieces outweigh the lofty principal you have been so mouthy about ?

2Gb SD cards aren't cheap, and as stated, I believe that they will have to come into compliance one way or the other. However, the approach of “Let's do/say nothing and just hope GPH comes into GPL compliance” doesn't seem “effective”.

Nobody's IP was "stolen". How do you steal something that is being given away?

Already answered that above.

It's not like they ripped off commercial software and started selling it as their own.

Actually it is.

It's not even like they took free software and said they're keeping their extensive modifications secret forever.

Every time they've said they would remedy this situation they have fallen quite short of doing so. If GPH were to publish a road map to GPL compliance, and that road map included many individual goals with specific dates on which they would be meet, and then we saw them actually sticking to it – then you would have a point. As of this moment, my confidence that GPH has even read the GPL is fairly low.

It's indignant, chest-thumping reactionism like this that turns people off to the GPL ideal. Yes, the GPL is a good idea, and it has rules for a reason.

If an individual or company doesn't like the terms of the GPL they shouldn't use GPL'd licensed software. There are plenty of great alternative programs with far less restricting licensees. GPH would have been far more comfortable with a BSD style licensee. In fact – get this, I don't even think the GPL is that great a licensee, I actually think the LGPL is better in many respects, but that's another long rant in and of itself.

But the mature and rational approach to this whole thing would have been to give them time to create a stable final product to release, which was their stated intention from the beginning.

Releasing the source code – in whatever state it's in, however unstable, buggy or whatever it is, right now – should be absolutely trivial to do. However, as I've said over and over again, as long as GPH doesn't make another binary release, until they are ready to also make a source release, there really isn't much to bitch about.

At the absolute worst, GPH is guilty of borrowing with intent to return. Even that's a bit of a stretch, since this is FREE software we're talking about.

You really should read the GPL, it's a simple document:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
Calling GPL software FREE really misses a lot of the point.

What angers me the most is how Craigx, DJWillis, and other "inside" folks have been treated. These are people who work their asses off for the love of open hardware. Sure, Craigx sells the things, but I'm sure he's not getting rich from it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I have nothing but respect for DJWillis. With Craigx I don't know what to think. I believe he really is doing a lot to try to fix this situation, but continuing to sell the GP2X right now given the licensee issue just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. At the very least, I wish he would change his website to reflect the situation. A Tux inside picture right now is just plain wrong.

It's really disheartening to have good guys like this shat upon by people who know nothing more about the situation than what they read in two misleading paragraphs on slashdot.

It's also disheartening to have people come to conclusions on how the GPL works based on a couple of misleading statements made in these forums. I'm trying to spread some education on the matter but it's difficult.

What I mean is that there are maybe 8 hardcore developers that would either use the information in the code to create better apps, or modify the code to create new and better firmware.

I really would like to play with the firmware. I'm certainly not a hardcore developer who's going to come up with anything great, but I'm not totally clueless either. Professionally, I'm a “Programmer Analyst” who spends a great deal of time in QA. When I do develop it's usually just making small fixes so the people with more talent can focus on the big problems, I don't see why this would be any different.

Those screaming loudest about how GPH MUST release it NOW have no intention of using it or even downloading it. You are right though, in the end we will all benefit.

If by that you mean the Slashdot readers who don't have a GP2X, and never intended to get one, then you've almost got a point. However, consider that if it wasn't for people throwing a fit any time anybody broke the GPL, infractions would just be all the more common. Is it such a stretch to believe that by allowing any one piece of GPL'd software to be infringed on is to make the GPL licensee itself weaker? Yes, believing that with a passion is being a zealot – but there is some logic to it all the same.

DISCLAIMER: I refuse to edit/develop GPL software, because I loathe the political agenda of the FSF. For those who wish for software to be truly "free" ("as in freedom", to quote the holy church fo Stallman), I suggest the "New BSD License" or the "MIT license." However, those who wrote and contributed to Linux DID choose to use the GPL, and their wishes should be honored.

If I really wanted to do some ranting I'd start up a GPL vs. LGPL vs. BSD debate... But your right on the money when it comes to honoring those who choose the GPL.


There's more I could reply to – but this is more than enough typing for me.

 

[Mr.Jabberwocky]

Given the moral high ground you are arguing from, how can the cost of a few bits and pieces outweigh the lofty principal you have been so mouthy about ?

2Gb SD cards aren't cheap, and as stated, I believe that they will have to come into compliance one way or the other. However, the approach of “Let's do/say nothing and just hope GPH comes into GPL compliance” doesn't seem “effective”.

As you earlier stated that craigix should give up his livlihood over this, that you should now put the price of an sd card before your convictions, makes me wonder how deeply held your convictions are, and why you have been so vocal in this matter.

Presumably because it was not explained to you by wikipedia, you and others had failed to grasp that DJWillis and others were dealing with the matter. From their account they were days away from a resolution and your amateur interference has 'shot this process to pieces'. I have nothing against the GPL. My only point has been that the slashdot farce was damaging rather than productive. What stops this debate dieing, as it should have as soon as DJWillis explained how unhelpful it had been, are people like you who refuse to believe they are anything else but the heroes of the hour. I truly don't believe the 'GPL advocates' have added anything but bad feelings to the matter.

​

 

[timbobsteve]

Hey everyone.... just wanted to bring your attention back from the cliff-edge of hatred, and point out something really kool.

Everyone go and get your 2X and sit it on your lap. Now look down at your lap. Do you see it.... if you don't... look harder... you have a really sweet piece of machinery, that, even with its faults, encourages consumers to think and to create. You have this really kool little black gadget that has you feeling so pationate.

GPH will come around. They have to.. one way or another... so lets just chill out and embrace all the coolness that is the GP2X console.

Smile... we have 2X's

 

[Mikey242]

Hey everyone.... just wanted to bring your attention back from the cliff-edge of hatred, and point out something really kool.

Everyone go and get your 2X and sit it on your lap. Now look down at your lap. Do you see it.... if you don't... look harder... you have a really sweet piece of machinery, that, even with its faults, encourages consumers to think and to create. You have this really kool little black gadget that has you feeling so pationate.

GPH will come around. They have to.. one way or another... so lets just chill out and embrace all the coolness that is the GP2X console.

Smile... we have 2X's

​

Word

 

[Mr.Jabberwocky]

GPH will come around. They have to.. one way or another... so lets just chill out and embrace all the coolness that is the GP2X console.

Smile... we have 2X's

​

Well put. I'm off to create something for ED's archive.

 

[DijiTao]

GPH will come around. They have to.. one way or another... so lets just chill out and embrace all the coolness that is the GP2X console.

Hopefully.

 

[racoon]

Hey everyone.... just wanted to bring your attention back from the cliff-edge of hatred, and point out something really kool.

Everyone go and get your 2X and sit it on your lap. Now look down at your lap. Do you see it.... if you don't... look harder... you have a really sweet piece of machinery, that, even with its faults, encourages consumers to think and to create. You have this really kool little black gadget that has you feeling so pationate.

GPH will come around. They have to.. one way or another... so lets just chill out and embrace all the coolness that is the GP2X console.

Smile... we have 2X's

​

 

[subin]

GPH will come around. They have to.. one way or another... so lets just chill out and embrace all the coolness that is the GP2X console.

Smile... we have 2X's

​

Well put.

​

yeah. plus, i enjoyed staring at my lap.

... h34r:

 

[DijiTao]

We’ll it’s Monday and still no 1.3.0 firmware, not that I really expected it to be release last week anyways. I just want to clear up a few issues, and hopefully everybody’s calmed down since last week.

I don’t see myself as the “hero of the hour” or even as getting anything done to actually resolve this situation. I believe an angry mob can sometimes help in negotiations, but I really don’t think GPH/Dig care anymore. So I’m just a guy who’s upset because I didn’t get what was advertised when I bought my GP2X. I also have a lot of respect for people who programmer for free in there spare time and release code under some kind of open source licensee. It upsets me when someone comes along and then doesn’t honor that licensee.

My post have had a couple of purposes:
1- Express my resent for GPH/Dig’s behavior
2- Educate people about how the GPL works
3- Attempt to win the debate with anyone who tries to defend GPH/Dig’s behavior

So that’s pretty much it. I don’t see myself as having some kind of holier then thou attitude about the whole thing. It’s not like I’ve never broken copyright law myself. I guess the moral ethical distinction is I’ve never profited off it, but whether or not that really matters is an entirely different debate. So no, I don’t have some incredibly deeply head convictions. I just feel dumb for supporting a company that doesn’t comply with the GPL. I just want this to be resolve so we can all move on and forget about this. I didn’t want a fight, I just wanted GPL compliance. Why that’s so hard to get I don’t really know.

I think there are still a couple of valid questions yet to be answered -

Did the Slashdot generated attention to the GPL violations of the GP2X help or hurt the situation?

I believe that’s impossible to know, although upon further reflection of GPH/Dig’s behavior I find it unlikely that it did much of anything. My reasoning for such a statement is fairly simple, for quite sometime now it’s been obvious that GPH/Dig have been engaged in a campaign of stalling. That hasn’t changed, and last weeks missed firmware / source release was just another example of that. I fully realize that Craig & DJWillis both claimed to be very close to getting this resolved before the slashdotters shot everything to hell, but I see several logical problems with that being the case. First, why would a group of pissed off GPL zealots motivate GPH/Dig to further delay GPL compliance? If GPH/Dig truly were just about ready to release the source and they got an avalanche of pissed off emails, why wouldn’t they just go ahead and release the source to shut up the criticism, and come across as looking as an Open Source friendly company? Secondly how long has GPH/Dig been saying that compliance was just around the corner? How many times have they used any excuses they could possibly find to be the reason for the source not being released yet? Doesn’t it seem far more likely that the GPL Zealot response is nothing more than yet another excuse from GPH/Dig as to why things are delayed rather than an actual reason? Thirdly, the Slashdot generated attention if nothing else got the attention of actual people with standing whose copyrights have been infringed, and how can that possibly be a bad thing? Yes, that gets the legal ball rolling, but said legal ball might just be the best motivation. Keep in mind that compliance has always been the goal of the FSF and not compensation.

Did the negative attitude of some members of the “open source community” screw up any chance of cooperation between the community and GPH/Dig in regards to having a system for getting community made changes to the firmware included in the official firmware release?

Most likely, yes. It would be quite understandable if there were some hard feelings on the GPH/Dig side towards “the open source community”. I believe this is the real downer of this whole situation, and where the real damage was done.

What should have been done differently?

Ideally GPH/Dig should have treated the GPL with the same respect they’ve shown Microsoft’s WMV licensee, which is to say carefully consider it before blinding charging forward. Barring that fantasy, the next thing that should have happened would have been a better flow of information between GPH/Dig and the public as to what they were doing to come into GPL compliance and when that would happen. I don’t think we should have had such a shit storm if there was a dialog of when compliance would happen, with specific dates and goals. For example, the first goal would have just been including a copy of the GPL with every GP2X. The second goal might be compliance on U-Boot and Mplayer, since these should be tied up with proprietary code. The final goal should have been compliance on the Linux kernel, since it’s understandable that some proprietary code might have slipped in the needed to be removed before the kernel could be released. Another guilty party in all of this was the vendors/resellers. They really should have looked into licensee compliance before selling the GP2X. When Craig was in Korea meeting with GPH, “what’s your plan for releasing the GPL’d source code” should have been a question that was asked. We the consumer should have been a bit more educated on the matter as well. I shouldn’t have pre-order, and sunk money into accessories before I knew more about the unit. I got caught up in the excitement, and just didn’t even think about the GPL issue until it was too late.

 

[Muncher666]

Did the Slashdot generated attention to the GPL violations of the GP2X help or hurt the situation?

I believe that’s impossible to know, although upon further reflection of GPH/Dig’s behavior I find it unlikely that it did much of anything. My reasoning for such a statement is fairly simple, for quite sometime now it’s been obvious that GPH/Dig have been engaged in a campaign of stalling. That hasn’t changed, and last weeks missed firmware / source release was just another example of that. I fully realize that Craig & DJWillis both claimed to be very close to getting this resolved before the slashdotters shot everything to hell, but I see several logical problems with that being the case. First, why would a group of pissed off GPL zealots motivate GPH/Dig to further delay GPL compliance? If GPH/Dig truly were just about ready to release the source and they got an avalanche of pissed off emails, why wouldn’t they just go ahead and release the source to shut up the criticism, and come across as looking as an Open Source friendly company? Secondly how long has GPH/Dig been saying that compliance was just around the corner? How many times have they used any excuses they could possibly find to be the reason for the source not being released yet? Doesn’t it seem far more likely that the GPL Zealot response is nothing more than yet another excuse from GPH/Dig as to why things are delayed rather than an actual reason? Thirdly, the Slashdot generated attention if nothing else got the attention of actual people with standing whose copyrights have been infringed, and how can that possibly be a bad thing? Yes, that gets the legal ball rolling, but said legal ball might just be the best motivation. Keep in mind that compliance has always been the goal of the FSF and not compensation.

​

I beg to differ - before the slashdot furore became paramount, I was getting prompt replies from Dignsys, but now they just won't answer anyone's emails. And I've yet to see an example of GPH doing anything against the proverbial grain - it seems to be primarily Dignsys's fuckup.

Allan.

 

[DijiTao]

Wasn't your last exchange with them over them not having the webspace to host the source? Then the reply was ED donating some space, and nobody has heard back since correct?