Last edited by a moderator:
Gpl & Source Code - Constructive Suggestions
- Thread starter barak_pearlmutter
- Start date
FFNoir
I
wow Barak_Pearlmutter went silent... I wonder if he is the actual Barak Pearlmutter and not someone who just took his name to feel important...
Earlier he presented his public PGP signature - he's the real deal.
And yes, he has been noticably silent, which is a shame. I'd like to know how he feels about some of the recent developments (Monday being chief amoung them).
-OCA|
EDIT: Signature, key, same difference =P
Last edited by a moderator:
dodgyville
Member
Is this the same Craigix that said "give me your money and I'll ship your gp2xs in the middle of October"?. LOL. (I'm just kidding on the square, craigix - you rock!).
I think we're talking from the same page, just with slightly different outlooks. The BEST thing about linux is not the variety and quality of the code, it is the fact that it enforces open source. Open source is the best thing that ever happened to computers - you may scoff - but it's completely true. We both want the gp2x to be the a success. I know for a fact that the gp2x has more a chance of being successful if it embraces open source.
That's why a lot of us really want the the gp32 community to embrace the open source mentality, not just the grudging trappings forced on it by the GPL. (Oh man, I sound like a Christian!!!).
As I said, clash of two immovable objects. Hopefully the community will create its own linux distribution to run on the gp2x - something based on debian would ROCK, and GPH software won't be needed. If there was an open-source distribution based on debian, I bet it would quickly replace any default closed-source ones. I guess we need access to the bootloader or something first.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tobriand
Well-Known Member
Out of interest, for those that do understand the GPL in its entire depth, what would a legal solution be if option 3 from OCA| turned out to be as things were - e.g. the DRM and SD drivers are both under incredibly strict licenses from hypothetical companies that, say, control GPH's funding, but GPH stupidly (by not properly understanding the GPL) included it directly in the source that compiles to the current Kernel?
I *know* some people would say that they have to release the code regardless, but, legally speaking, is there ANY way GPH can say "look, we made a mistake, please delete the version of Linux on the GP2x and install this one that's almost identical"? Would even a product recall cover it (after all, people could choose not to return their GP2xes and therefore still retain the right to the entire source, presumably)? And what would people consider more of a sacrilege - if GPH asked for a product recall and then send heavies round to everyone who'd ordered 2xes to enforce that and make sure that the licenses were observable, or if they didn't, but said publicly that they would never be able to release the source for an identical build of Linux to that *currently* on the 2x?
Personally, incidentally, I'd say their admitting that and providing a new kernel with source for everyone to update would seem the sensible thing if that is indeed the situation, but I'm not currently asking for sense, but rather the legal standing.
Thoughts, anyone?
I *know* some people would say that they have to release the code regardless, but, legally speaking, is there ANY way GPH can say "look, we made a mistake, please delete the version of Linux on the GP2x and install this one that's almost identical"? Would even a product recall cover it (after all, people could choose not to return their GP2xes and therefore still retain the right to the entire source, presumably)? And what would people consider more of a sacrilege - if GPH asked for a product recall and then send heavies round to everyone who'd ordered 2xes to enforce that and make sure that the licenses were observable, or if they didn't, but said publicly that they would never be able to release the source for an identical build of Linux to that *currently* on the 2x?
Personally, incidentally, I'd say their admitting that and providing a new kernel with source for everyone to update would seem the sensible thing if that is indeed the situation, but I'm not currently asking for sense, but rather the legal standing.
Thoughts, anyone?
AireTamStorm
Unix Addict
Good wordNo I say it becuase I don't care about GPL. GPH shouldn't care about GPL now. Its difficult to talk about enforcement of licence. Its easier to talk about whats best/most fun. They will probably release something monday. All this IP talk just makes things dull. If GPH are not saying to themselves "Everybodys getting the code now, how can we make this work for us?" then they should be.
GPL forces people to be play fair, but really on this device its to everybodys interest that they do so, including GPH. Becuase thats the main selling point of GP2X.
GPH has nothing to lose in releasing the source code. In fact, they have everything to gain, the biggest being the support and collaborate effort of the community, second being getting the GPL-zealots off their asses.
Releasing the kernel source will be the right step to make, but depending on whether or not they include whatever proprietary code they have in the INITIAL snapshot, the community may choose to pursue it or not. I'm not interested in attacking GPH, or the GP2X.
I said at the beginning: Give them time, but time to do it correctly. I do expect them to release the initial snapshot, because if they don't, they still have a tainted kernel without the source. Doing that would be like making another handheld and saying "Oh, I released the source for the other device, so I don't have to for this one." Entirely incorrect. I don't want GPH to go under, so they should just cooperate and give us the code. But also, we should give them some time (within reason) to do so.
All I care about is getting my freaking anime for the airplane, and continuing being able to do so for the next 50 years of my life. Till then, GPH isn't allowed to make any fatal mistakes. :- P
Last edited by a moderator:
Ravnos
Asleep in Samsara
Hypothetically, as long as they ceased distributing the violating version, they should be ok. That's all the GPL really says about it, that if you can't comply with the license, you can't distribute software under the license or else you're infringing copyright (this is where the legal penalties would come in, not through violating the GPL. RMS has said himself that copyright law is what gives the GPL its teeth.) If they stopped selling the machine with the the hypothetical undistributable kernel, they could immediately begin selling machines with their compliant kernel + source. The GPL doesn't (and can't) prevent you from redistributing any GPL-ed software with which you are complying with the license.
Last edited by a moderator:
codesmith
Member
I think he expected to get a lot of support for his idea of suing GPH, and instead stirred up a hornets' nest. I bet the popular support he found here for GPH took him aback, he's probably trying to figure out if there's an astroturf campaign going on
About that GPH thing I said before, I was only spouting - I have a rebel side to my personality, and when I see any group of people beating down on somenone, I side with the guy getting beaten down, regardless of who's right
I must say that I'm *really* glad that things are being resolved outside of the courtroom. Congratulations to all involved in that.
Last edited by a moderator:
When did all these people become zealots. Your fighting windmills. GPL actually did what it said on the box. If GPH try to pull a fast one, and they will, someone will again persure a method of extracting the source.
OCA gave me a nice laugh, because he/she is clearly confused, I couldn't even bring myself to give a responce.
GPH will not go out of buisness becuase they will release the source. They will lose control over their product, but they have been doing so for some time. They have one oppertunity with which is to embrace the openess and control their linux. Which I can't see them doing. They would have to change their mindset to do so, and those cannot be changed overnight. If at all.
Remember there is no community, only individuals and they do what they want.
As of monday Linux as an OS for a handheld games machine, lives or dies on how good it really is.
Last edited by a moderator:
AireTamStorm
Unix Addict
What else do you call a group of people that are interested in and contribute to a collaborative effort?
Even if people are just "doing what they want", I still see the community definition fitting. Why the hell else are there endless websites and forums about this? Its called a community, even if the community consists of individuals "doing what they want".
Last edited by a moderator:
I have no doubt they will release the source. And I genuinely hope you're right about them not going out of business.
But, some of the actions that have been discussed on this board could put GPH in jeopardy. A court ordered injunction, for instance, would cut off their revenue stream. And with such a small company, that could stop them cold right there.
It ultimately boils down to, will GPH release the source before legal action is taken? I can only hope so.
I don't consider myself a zealot for either side, I apologise if I come off that way. GPH *needs* to comply with the GPL, I just think the way some people are going after it could ultimately be counter-productive.
Finally, if I sound confused - I guess that's because this particular issue has me in the awkward position of being both a GPL supporter, and someone who wants to see GPH succeed.
-OCA|
Last edited by a moderator:
C
codeninja
Guest
I have this funny imagination going whenever you guys mention about suing GPH that gives me a good laugh. Remember, they have no presences in US or Europe other than their retail partners. That means the trial will happen in Korea, where all the proceedings will be in Korean. Good luck arguing your case in Korean to Korean judges won't understand a thing in English and will most likely be pressured by Korean internet users (they call themselves netizens) who're going to paint the whole thing as the war between a small defenseless Korean company and some foreigners invading Korea to take over Korean industry. Whoever you'll hire in Korea to argue your point for you would probably be threaten with their lives as traitors and more likely scared away eventually.
Mega companies were successful in the past only because they used their connections in the US government or other powerful European governments. It's going to be a long and painful process at best, and by the end of it, GP2x won't even exist making the whole thing pointless. Just don't forget you're talking about a foreign country which you have no idea how things work.
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe this is correct, in the past this is what has happened. Also as far as I know seeking that kind of solution has always fallen in favor of the GPL.
Last edited by a moderator:
craigix
Mega GP Mania
I had messages waiting for me on MSN from them saying they have the source ready to send, so I should be able to get it tonight, I'll put it on evildragons site as soon as i have it.
oneandoneis2
Member
A few years ago, as some may recall, SCO was suing various Linux vendors, claiming that proprietary SCO-owned code had been incorporated into the Linux kernel.
They were met with a general response of "Tell us what code infringes, and we'll immediately replace it with non-infringing code."
If Linux developers are allowed to fix their problems by replacing copyright code with a new, free alternatives, then IMHO so are GPH: Sauce for the goose, and all that. . .
Realistically, if GPH said "We can't release the code for the firmware you've got, but here's the firmware upgrade & all its source code", I can't really see any kernel developer still trying to get a lawsuit of out it. What would it accomplish? You'd still be able to compile a GPH kernel et al, would anybody really care that the old & buggy version hadn't had the code released?
Still, hopefully it's not a problem & the code will be released to the satisifaction of all. . .
Thank you very much craigix, I know you've had to put alot into getting this sorted out.
I hope what we get is what is called for by the GPL licensee which is to say the complete source code plus the compile scripts. This is covered under section 3 of the GPL:
I expect to be able to do the usual ‘make menuconfig’ and start tweaking my kernel. The other big question still left in my head is will today’s release include all GPL’d licensed code or just the kernel. Getting the modified Uboot is kind of critical, and even for you HH fans.
I hope what we get is what is called for by the GPL licensee which is to say the complete source code plus the compile scripts. This is covered under section 3 of the GPL:
”The GPL” said:
I expect to be able to do the usual ‘make menuconfig’ and start tweaking my kernel. The other big question still left in my head is will today’s release include all GPL’d licensed code or just the kernel. Getting the modified Uboot is kind of critical, and even for you HH fans.
Last edited by a moderator:
I replied to Anna thanking her for her response, and politely reminding her of what was needed for GPL compliance. So far I think things have worked out well. We basically did the whole “Good Cop / Bad Cop” routine. So thank you good cop DJWillis, and thank you everyone who’s put pressure on GPH to come into compliance.
codesmith
Member
Large companies have been pulling this for literally centuries, eg Gunboat Diplomacy two centuries ago. I'm not as worried about GPH (which, as you said, is probably fairly safe from anything other than public opinion) as I am about the small dealers that import the consoles for us. I don't want someone like gp32z.com (which I think is just one guy working doing it in his spare time), Craig or ED going through a DMCA (or equivalent) takedown complete with confiscation of all his computers for copyright violation. It doesn't matter if all they're doing is selling GPL-infringing hardware, as far as the cops are concerned they might as well be bootleg CDs.
Last edited by a moderator:
