Gpl & Source Code - Constructive Suggestions

[barak_pearlmutter]

Yesterday I got a handful of brand new GP2X units. These appear to contain software under the GNU GPL, including but not limited to the Linux kernel. A CDROM was enclosed in the box, but to my surprise it contained no source code, and instead contained more GPLed software (eg Quake, Quake2) also without source code. There was no written offer of source code.

This is breaking the terms of the GNU GPL. That makes the distribution of software done in shipping the unit to me a violation of copyright. In order to compel someone under copyright law, one must have "standing". In this case, that means one must be the holder of the copyright in question. I, as an author of some code in the Linux kernel (grep Barak /usr/src/linux/CREDITS) do have such standing.

Therefore I have two questions to the community here:

(1) Would anyone else with standing---ie an author of GPLed or LGPLed code included in the GP2X and associated materials---please contact me to coordinate.

(2) Does anyone happen to know the appropriate legal contact at GP2X.com. (I'm looking for phone number, FAX number, email, and physical address.)
--
Barak Pearlmutter

 

[andrew_j_w]

Please read this thread and this blog post.

Gamepark holdings will be releasing the source to the kernel soon.

Andrew

 

[DJWillis]

If you wish to help please read the latest entry in my BLOG, this matter is being worked on and attempts to deal with this cordially are being undertaken.

 

[Anderson]

The source code for the Gp2x Quake I & II ports is available for download from this very site :rolleyes:

 

[Ferentix]

And since GPH are a fairly small company, I doubt they want some badass lawsuit against them or whatever, so I think the outcome is pretty much certain in favour of source release...

 

[woogal]

...and instead contained more GPLed software (eg Quake, Quake2) also without source code. There was no written offer of source code.

​

Did you even bother to look at the readme.txt for quake and quake2?. My website is clearly mentioned at the bottom, and the links to the source are clearly visible on the site. If the site was down you could even have emailed me and politely requested the source instead of complaining about it on an open forum.

 

[barak_pearlmutter]

The blog doesn't have any real information, and the thread is full of posts by people who either don't understand the GPL or don't have standing.

Let me ask a simple question. Why should I take this violation of my copyright any less seriously than Microsoft would if Gamepark Holdings shipped a device with WinCE in flagrant violation of copyright? Would Microsoft accept assurances by third parties that "the issues are being worked out just wait"?

Gamepark Holdings is aware that they are currently in violation of my copyright. They have made no public apology, nor announced any plan to come into complience immediately. In similar circumstances in the past, initiating legal action has led to dramatic attitude shifts at corporations that previously scoffed at copyright law. So it seems to me that I should set the legal wheels in motion. Any reason why I should not?

 

[NeOCidE]

urgh....whatever :rolleyes:

 

[Flexinoodle]

Just wondering because i have no knowledge at all of these things

As these are pre releases and the official launch is the end of the month don't GPH have until then or are these still counted as full release ?
Reading this post has made me look into this whole GNU GPL stuff and realise just how much of an issue it is.

 

[DJWillis]

Dear Barak Pearlmutter,

I fully respect you have standing as a contributor and are welcome to pursue this as you see fit. I have been making substantial effort to resolve this and I do believe GPH seek to make a compliant release in the near future.

Let me ask a simple question. Why should I take this violation of my copyright any less seriously than Microsoft would if Gamepark Holdings shipped a device with WinCE in flagrant violation of copyright? Would Microsoft accept assurances by third parties that "the issues are being worked out just wait"?

You have no assurances, just the ramblings of some unknown who is looking to actively resolve the situation without resort to legal means.

This approach was very coercive in bringing MagicEyes (makers of the CPU in the GP2X and the basis of there distribution) into compliance regarding there original Linux kernel, U-Boot boot loader and associated patches. Prior to this they could be considered in violation of the GPL.

Gamepark Holdings is aware that they are currently in violation of my copyright. They have made no public apology, nor announced any plan to come into complience immediately. In similar circumstances in the past, initiating legal action has led to dramatic attitude shifts at corporations that previously scoffed at copyright law. So it seems to me that I should set the legal wheels in motion. Any reason why I should not?

None what so ever. You are free as a contributor to seek what ever resolution you see fit. I was merely drawing to your attention existing work to attempt to resolve and defuse the issue. There are many other company’s that could also ‘benefit’ from assistance in bringing there products into compliance.

John Willis

 

[barak_pearlmutter]

As these are pre releases and the official launch is the end of the month don't GPH have until then or are these still counted as full release ?
Reading this post has made me look into this whole GNU GPL stuff and realise just how much of an issue it is.

​

No. There is nothing in the GNU GPL about an "official" release. Or about a "release" at all, for that matter. Distribution of GPLed software is in violation of copyright unless certain conditions are met. These conditions mainly consist of making the corresponding source code easily available in one of several specified ways.

"Not an official release" is no excuse. Try that with Microsoft: "we shipped a few hundred samples of a device that incorporates WinCE, but we were figuring you wouldn't mind since it is not an official release." Yeah, right.

 

[craigix]

This is exactly why I want to go raw

 

[newmark]

but free software community does not have the microsoft money.
we don't count as a firm, we are only customer. even if we permit their stuff usable. (sorry for ironic words)

enjoying uh?

 

[Flexinoodle]

Woah woah
I was just asking a question not suggesting anything, I'm guessing you are feeling miffed about the copyright thing so i will leave it at that but remember i didn't break your copyright i asked you a question.

As far as i am concerned if they mess with your rights you should take it as far as you feel you need to, I am certainly not sticking up for GPH when they have quite blatantly tried to slip under the radar here, I really like the look of the 2X but in the last few days my want to get one has drifted severly.

 

[Cyclops]

Any reason why I should not?

I want the source. I've made it quite clear that I have zero zilch nana understanding of the licencing, and I am no diplomat, in absence of anything better. I think legal threats are the way to go sooner rather than later.

Your post scares me. Because of what I want. GPH to "do the right thing" open the source, start a wiki, allow user contributions, Drive linux for the GP2X users. In reality I know I have my head in the ground.

There is already hostility towards Linux in these forums see Craig9's post it speaks volumes.

DJWillis has apparently put himself forward as a diplomat. Its not something I could do. Its not something I have confidence in him doing,and I think he's a star for giving it a go, but *if* he is good enough the rewards could be greater for GPH, and linux, and GP2X users everywhere.

What will happen is GPH will try to play a waiting game, and somebody will move to legal threats.

 

[codesmith]

Just wondering because i have no knowledge at all of these things

As these are pre releases and the official launch is the end of the month don't GPH have until then or are these still counted as full release ?
Reading this post has made me look into this whole GNU GPL stuff and realise just how much of an issue it is.

​

No kidding. People think the GPL is pretty cool, but if you want to do things properly it's a lot of work to comply. For students or anyone without a release schedule, it's easy: just release everything only when you're done. However, if you're on a release schedule and time is getting tight (like it normally does ) you end up hacking a few things together and releasing a 75%-90%-working version to meet the deadline, with a patch in the pipeline to get everything right. Often there will be hacks in there you're not proud of, or outright source release problems like a buggy dynamic linker forcing you to statically link in closed-source files. Given enough time, those problems can be solved and the new binaries and source released, the problem is that most customers want their stuff NOW, and the number who are willing to wait for a proper release is in the minority. Why risk losing most of your customers for something just a few want, and they're going to get later on anyway?

My advise to Gamepark and anyone else wanting to release OSS hardware in future: use BSD instead of Linux. It's just as good, for some things better, there are several specialized versions (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, DragonflyBSD, etc - those are not distros, but distinct kernels) and you can release the source code when you're good and ready.

This link has a good comparison of the two licenses: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1...ndex.html#INTRO

Some relevant quotes:
"The so-called new BSD license applied to FreeBSD within the last few years is effectively a statement that you can do anything with the program or its source, but you do not have any warranty and none of the authors has any liability (basically, you cannot sue anybody). This new BSD license is intended to encourage product commercialization. Any BSD code can be sold or included in proprietary products without any restrictions on the availability of your code or your future behavior."

"In contrast to the GPL, which is designed to prevent the proprietary commercialization of Open Source code, the BSD license places minimal restrictions on future behavior. This allows BSD code to remain Open Source or become integrated into commercial solutions, as a project's or company's needs change. In other words, the BSD license does not become a legal time-bomb at any point in the development process.

In addition, since the BSD license does not come with the legal complexity of the GPL or LGPL licenses, it allows developers and companies to spend their time creating and promoting good code rather than worrying if that code violates licensing."

While I was doing some fact checking for this post (too much misinformation around software licenses out there to trust my memory), I realized that if you statically link your code against glibc (like you need to do if you want to use gcc 4, the ABI has changed since gcc 2.95, so the glibc that comes with the gp2x can't be used by gcc 4 compiled programs), your code automatically becomes GPLd. I wonder what that's going to do for commercial releases of games? I suspect newlib, which uses a more liberal license, is going to become the de-facto c library on the gp2x.

 

[Cyclops]

Well you've sold me on the benefits of GPL over BSD

 

[codesmith]

There is already hostility towards Linux in these forums

​

Actually, there's not. There is a hostility towards heavy-handed enforcement of the GPL by well-meaning individuals like yourself. It only takes one ambulance-chaser wanting to make a name for himself (he won't stop at GPH releasing the source, he'll seek punitive damages, class-action, etc) for GPH to be driven into the ground. A lot of the newcomers here are looking at the world through MS-vs-Linux coloured glasses, but not all companies are evil and out to get you. The fact is, GPH actually listened to us, their longtime users, and changed the design of their new console based on what we asked for (do you think Sony or Nintendo would double the amount of memory, one of the most price-sensitive components in a system, just because a bunch of Zelda fans asked them to?). As far as we're concerned, GPH is the good guy, and all the "we want the source NOW" types are the evil ones wanting to spread their "One OpenSource Way" no matter who gets squashed.

 

[codesmith]

Well you've sold me on the benefits of GPL over BSD

​

I give up

 

[Flexinoodle]

Well sorry Codesmith but you are wrong, If GPH have broken a law they have broken a law, How good they are to the community is totally irrelevent if they are breaking laws, I don't want GPH todisappear infact i actuallysee them as the last hopefor mobilegaming now Tapwave have gone, This does not however give them the right to dishonor a contract they agreed to when they used the code from these people, Just because they are a smaller company than Sony or MS does not mean they have extra community biased rights.

It's kind of a shame really because this could get real ugly and seriously hurt sales which i think is terrible, Hopefully this is all nothing and GPH willsort it out soon.