GP2X Gph Linux Kernel Source?

[DJWillis]

that's true only if they does not use ANY library inside kernel, because the kernel library are released under GPL (not LGPL) so any program use it MUST have the GPL itself.
Nvidia and ATI write their driver not using any kernel library but from scratch i think.
If they do that, it's all ok

I'm quite worried about GPL violation in GP2X, but i think that they think about that stuff.

​

It is VERY possible to build a tainted module without using the GPL kernel source but let’s not jump the gun and get all wound up.

Give GPH a chance, the device is not even out at retail yet , trust me, if they don’t get it all together I will be right on there on GPH’s case but they are spread a little thin getting units out the door right now and like all things in life a little balance and perspective is a required.

 

[newmark]

i give a lot of chance to GPH, i buy 2 months before it's released, and as i said i think that GPH tought abouot license problem.
I'm not happy that there is DRM inside because i hate DRM ethical choose. but i will not use it and that's all

as i said the DRM driver have to be developed from scratch, not using any kernel library.

I hope that they release also the DRM drivers but this is not the reason because DRM is inside Gp2x.

So, free software is the only software i like, but that's not the only way, only mine

 

[Squidge]

I think we do need to badger GPH for the kernel source once the device is being sold, but for now I think we give them a little rest

There are far bigger companies using the Kernel source (and several other open-source GPL'd software) in a completely closed source manner, and some even charge for the code (one company quoted $7,500, and another $10,000 to obtain the kernel source code used in one of there products).

 

[newmark]

i'm sure they will do it.

but thoose company asking money for the kernel are violating the GPL, (maybe you can give me their name?) because you can ask money for source only if you does not give me the binary.
but if you release the binaries you have to permit people download gpl source code.

but here is a question. there is some license on DRM driver, i mean, some license requested by the DSM hardware firm?

i'm sorry if i seems ugly, or a troll i buy gp2x only for developing purpose, so i'm interested in license problems (my code is only gpl one).

 

[iignotus]

(one company quoted $7,500, and another $10,000 to obtain the kernel source code used in one of there products).

​

That is illegal. What companies are you talking about that have done this?

EDIT:

because you can ask money for source only if you does not give me the binary.

No, you can't. That is also illegal. You cannot charge money for the sourcecode of anything that is GPL'd. That is the point.

The only way you can sell GPL code is if you own the code, change the license, and never release that new code under the new license except to sell it.

 

[DJWillis]

i give a lot of chance to GPH, i buy 2 months before it's released, and as i said i think that GPH tought abouot license problem.
I'm not happy that there is DRM inside because i hate DRM ethical choose. but i will not use it and that's all

The GP32 has DRM, the Zaurus has DRM (they don’t shout about it but it is there, just not used much), you don't have to use it and it has totally no effect unless it is used to protect commercial software, how does DRM effect homebrew one bit?
If you don't like DRM don't buy commercial games that use it. It's your choice.

It’s not the type of DRM that could be used to block content like videos, music etc. but rather hardware assisted protection. Don’t worry about GPH ever doing a TapWave and requiring signed apps or anything so daft, it’s not implemented in that way.

I think unfortunately you are under an iTunes/Microsoft misconception about what DRM necessary is. Hell there are even several open-source DRM engine projects.
I have real issues with some DRM systems but not all. DRM after all is just a modern name for an age old problem of balancing fair use against copyright .

<rant>I think mouthing off in a forum is fine but I don't see you doing anything helpful and proactive to change the situation regards the kernel source.</rant>

 

[newmark]

I think unfortunately you are under an iTunes/Microsoft misconception about what DRM necessary is. Hell there are even several open-source DRM engine projects.
I have real issues with some DRM systems but not all. DRM after all is just a modern name for an age old problem of balancing fair use against copyright .

<rant>I think mouthing off in a forum is fine but I don't see you doing anything helpful and proactive to change the situation regards the kernel source.</rant>

​

open-source is not free software. DRM purpose is to close software know how, not for people who want earn money from their work (a lot of gpl developer sell their work).

I understand that GPH can in that way permit software house to develope their stuff under closed license (not free). copyright is maintened under GPL, you does not loose it.

and what do you mean changing kernel situation? license situation for me is the right one. Developing situation it's another story (i write some piece of software on linux kernel but i don't think is what you mean)

anyone is free, also to close their know how.

 

[iignotus]

open-source is not free software.

Yes, it most clearly is.

people who want earn money from their work (a lot of gpl developer sell their work).

And consequently release their source code.

 

[Squidge]

(one company quoted $7,500, and another $10,000 to obtain the kernel source code used in one of there products).

​

That is illegal. What companies are you talking about that have done this?

People who sell modified kernel source code:

Texax Instruments Semiconductors
Cadenux
Magic Eyes

etc...

People who just use a modified Linux kernel/etc in there products, but refuse to release source code:

Tritton Technologies
MacSense
Compex
Inventel
Sweex
Hauppauge
Liteon
GamePark Holdings

etc...

 

[iignotus]

I believe that's because they don't ever release their binaries for free. A lot of them are microdevice companies.

 

[Squidge]

They sell there device, which runs the modified Linux kernel.

Some have firmware updates, which are, in effect, a compiled kernel + other pieces.

What else do you need? They are using open-source GPL software in a commercial device, selling that device, offer the binary of the kernel, but refuse to release the source code. Some even say "The source code is our intellectual property". How can it be there IP when they didn't even write 95% of it?

 

[Ravnos]

EDIT:

because you can ask money for source only if you does not give me the binary.

No, you can't. That is also illegal. You cannot charge money for the sourcecode of anything that is GPL'd. That is the point.

Unfortunately, you're both incorrect. First off, the GPL only requires you to distribute source to people who receive a binary copy of your software. That there are tons of projects that release this source freely to everyone is nice but not necessary. The source also does not need to come bundled with the binary, but it must be made available upon request. That is to say, GPH doesn't need to give us the source with our GP2Xs, but if one of us who gets one asks for it they have to provide it.

The GPL also does allow you to charge money for the source code, but only the cost of the media you're using to provide it. The GPL was written before the internet was widespread, and certainly before broadband was as popular as it is. This meant that if people requested the source code you could charge them for the cost of the CD or floppy or whatever that you put it on, but no more. This $10,000 business is certainly in violation of the GPL, but if they were to say "$5 for a source CD including shipping" it would certainly be within the letter of the law regarding the GPL.

 

[iignotus]

"Initially, Torvalds released Linux under a license which forbade any commercial exploitation. This was soon changed to the GNU General Public License (version 2 exclusively). This license allows distribution and even sale of possibly modified versions of Linux but requires that all those copies be released under the same license and be accompanied by source code."

All I can do is talk about what I see. There must be some level of business involved with these companies that I have not been informed of. All things that I read say that if you release the binaries of a program that is linked with GPL code, you must release all code to that binary under the same license.

Please explain to me how you can own something as your own IP when, like you said, you did not write it.

 

[iignotus]

First off, the GPL only requires you to distribute source to people who receive a binary copy of your software.

I know that; I never said otherwise. I said that you can't charge for the sourcecode.

The source also does not need to come bundled with the binary, but it must be made available upon request.

And the source must be made completely free. You cannot make any profit from releasing the source; e.g, you cannot walk up to someone and sell a CD of the source of a GPL project for $10, you must reimburse all extraneous and unreasonable costs that it takes to get the source as per the GPL (things such as media and shipping are not unreasonable).

The GPL also does allow you to charge money for the source code, but only the cost of the media you're using to provide it.

Which is not the same thing as charging for the code. They are completely different.

This $10,000 business is certainly in violation of the GPL, but if they were to say "$5 for a source CD including shipping" it would certainly be within the letter of the law regarding the GPL.

Correct, but this is still very different than charging for the *actual* source itself.

 

[Ravnos]

"Initially, Torvalds released Linux under a license which forbade any commercial exploitation. This was soon changed to the GNU General Public License (version 2 exclusively). This license allows distribution and even sale of possibly modified versions of Linux but requires that all those copies be released under the same license and be accompanied by source code."

All I can do is talk about what I see. There must be some level of business involved with these companies that I have not been informed of. All things that I read say that if you release the binaries of a program that is linked with GPL code, you must release all code to that binary under the same license.

Please explain to me how you can own something as your own IP when, like you said, you did not write it.

​

Was this directed at me? Because I didn't say anything that contradicted this, I was just explaining the license.

EDIT: Nope, I posted before the second response.

 

[newmark]

GPL license talk about the need of releasing source code with the binaries. If i ask for code (and i have the binaries) they must give me that.

if they don't release the binaries nobody can ask for code. (that's obvious)

but nobody can release a binary without give you a way to have the source code.

(old GPL tell that you have to give the code on the SAME place. i don't know about last release).

So this firm MUST release their source code without any additional fee (media and shipment only)

 

[Ravnos]

If anyone needs it for further reference, a copy of the current version of the GPL can be found at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html

 

[Digitalrat]

So GPH uses the modified usb-driver on the gp2x? Does that mean that they don't even support the DRM-chip? Oo Or did they add this and made the driver closed source? Aren't you able to use any commercial games anymore if you use a different driver? (did squidge made one?)
*

Sorry, that makes as much sense as lecturing me in Esperanto wink.gif.

We are talking about the SD card driver, nothing to do with the USB.

GPH support DRM in a commercial, closed source, environment that is available to commercial releases if they sort a deal with GPH.

Any SD drivers made by the community for raw hardware use will not effect any commercial games that run under Linux regardless of how GPH set this up.

I was a bit stressed writing that and wrote usb instead of SD. I thought that the new SD-card-driver made by the community was for Linux. (for example to get more speed) Someone said that DRM won't be available in an opensource-driver and GPH uses a modified opensource-driver, right?