Gpl & Source Code - Constructive Suggestions

[cheap-plastic]

Go learn Korean

​

Are you dumb or what?

 

[saboteur]

I've been reading this thread with mounting consternation / fear.

If anybody has a genuine concern / greivance about any of their code being used without acknowledgement they should communicate the fact to GPH and try to resolve the issue direct. The original poster did ask for contact info for GPH, and realy should have left it at that.

Irrespective of who you are and the correctness of your statement, posting on this forum first will only create huge controversy within the GP2x community and get GPH, Linux, GPL and the GP2x bad press and WILL ultimately end up damaging all of them.

This is my view only of course, so make of it what u will

( DON'S FLAME RETARDENT CLOTHES AND CURLS INTO BALL )

 

[abigsmurf]

I don't think that's too much to ask really, and I expect that GPH has just made a simple oversight in the rush to get a return on their development investment.

​

it isn't too much to ask, but it is a bit much calling in the lawyers so soon

 

[FluffyPanda]

I don't think that's too much to ask really, and I expect that GPH has just made a simple oversight in the rush to get a return on their development investment.

​

it isn't too much to ask, but it is a bit much calling in the lawyers so soon

​

I agree. Please refer to my previous 3 posts

I don't think it's too soon to tell GPH that you might call the lawyers in though. Give them fair warning and let them know it's being taken seriously.

 

[DijiTao]

Roll on HH, bugger off Linux.

​

What the hell... I don't care how you feel about Linux vs HH because that has NOTHING to do with the current conversation - We're talking about copyright violation, GPH has violated copyright law what the hell does that have to do with HH? GPH has stolen code created by some rather hardworking under-appreciated people such as the original poster and your opinion on the matter is “bugger off Linux”.

There are TWO VALID POINTS OF VIEW:
1) GPH Must release all GPL tainted code *NOW*
2) GPH Must release all GPL tainted code *SOON*

THERE IS NO 3RD I DON’T CARE ABOUT LINUX OPTION. Even if you never plan on using Linux – EVEN IF YOU HATE LINUX, how in the hell can you turn a blind eye to the copyright violation that has taken place?

 

[evening2005]

There is no obligation on GPH side that they have to open up the source on the day one. Well, it's not even officially released yet. This kind of push can actually turn people away from GPL, you have to understand. The last thing a business want is people nagging on their back while the work is still being done. GP2x firmware is far from being completed, I'll even hesitate to call it a beta from all the incompleteness of it that I've read.

​

This is not true. GPH's obligation under the GPL began the first time they shipped a GP2X to anyone outside of their organisation. At that point, they should have made it clear what the licensing arrangements were (by including a copy of the GPL) and made an offer to provide the source code. This is a simple fact.

Why don't you go bug Sony for their source code of PS2 and PSP, instead? Sony did released their Linux SDK for PS2, but they charged $200 for it and good part of it is just binaries and libraries, which is NOT what they're supposed to do under GPL.

​

This makes no sense. The Linux source is included in the PS2 Linux kit, if that is what you are talking. You're paying $200 for the harddrive and network adaptor and the OS. There's nothing to stop Sony from selling any of that stuff. What they're not allowed to do is to restrict me from redistributing the linux source if I want to. Of course to do so would be entirely pointless, but I'm allowed to redistribute it if I want to. Please see the PS2 Linux FAQ for details.

I don't know what you mean about the PSP.

 

[garengarch]

What the hell... I don't care how you feel about Linux vs HH because that has NOTHING to do with the current conversation - We're talking about copyright violation, GPH has violated copyright law what the hell does that have to do with HH? GPH has stolen code created by some rather hardworking under-appreciated people such as the original poster and your opinion on the matter is “bugger off Linux”.

There are TWO VALID POINTS OF VIEW:
1) GPH Must release all GPL tainted code *NOW*
2) GPH Must release all GPL tainted code *SOON*

THERE IS NO 3RD I DON’T CARE ABOUT LINUX OPTION. Even if you never plan on using Linux – EVEN IF YOU HATE LINUX, how in the hell can you turn a blind eye to the copyright violation that has taken place?

Two valid points of view? in YOUR opinion..

GPH has stolen code created by some rather hardworking under-appreciated people such as the original poster and your opinion on the matter is “bugger off Linux
”
Let them sort it out with GPH then, do we really need every bar-room lawyers opinion?
Impressive ass-kissing btw.

 

[evening2005]

You don't have to pay a penny to use a GPL'ed product, otherwise it's not GPL. Also the GPL allows for source code to be provided on request (at cost), but has anyone moaning about the lack of source code emailed GPH? In Korean?

​

Why are you posting such nonsense? You can charge what you like for GPLed software. What you can't do is prevent someone who has bought it (or obtained it from somewhere) from selling it themselves or giving it away. As for the offer of the source code, that offer must be made when the software is distributed. And the licence must be included with the software. Neither of these things seems to have been done. I personally don't care, but there's no point pretending that there is no violation - the violation is clear.

As far as I know GPH have said they'll be releasing the code, give them a chance to organise it and/or to provide a method of distribution, heck give them a chance to remove bugs so they can present decent code.

​

There is no need to "give them a chance" - they are distributing, so they should include the licence and offer the source code. There's no opinion about this. It's copyright law.

 

[DijiTao]

Can somebody write a program that wipes the NAND* so you can have a GPL-free GP2X and then give it to garengarch?

*note this will brick the device but if you really want to get "Hardcore" with your homebrew....

 

[garengarch]

Can somebody write a program that wipes the NAND* so you can have a GPL-free GP2X and then give it to garengarch?

*note this will brick the device but if you really want to get "Hardcore" with your homebrew....

​

Thanks!

That I can manage quite well by myself

 

[codeninja]

This makes no sense. The Linux source is included in the PS2 Linux kit, if that is what you are talking. You're paying $200 for the harddrive and network adaptor and the OS.

​

Sony made it ONLY available with those extra stuffs making you PAY for that. There is no place on www.sonystyle.com where you can download just the source code, and that's my point.

Anyway, I've mentioned in other threads that GPH should release their firmware so that others can fix/impove their firmware for them faster; I am not against opening up and complying with GPL. What I am against, however, is hasting everything at all cost and ruining the whole thing. Patience is a vitue, give them some time to comply. Is THAT hard for you to wait a little? Don't you have other things in your life to worry about other than this in the meantime?

 

[oneandoneis2]

Sony made it ONLY available with those extra stuffs making you PAY for that. There is no place on www.sonystyle.com where you can download just the source code, and that's my point.

Actually, that's fine within the GPL: You only have a right to source code of software that you actually possess. You can't demand that GPL software be given to you, nor can you demand the source code of it. Only source code to software that has been distributed to you.

Anti-GPL people do like to pretend otherwise so they can do the "If the government uses GPL software, they have to release it and all our military secrets will be exposed!", but this is pure garbage: You can modify GPL software and keep the changes to yourself. Only if you release the software must you release the code.

HTH

Dominic

 

[Ravnos]

This makes no sense. The Linux source is included in the PS2 Linux kit, if that is what you are talking. You're paying $200 for the harddrive and network adaptor and the OS.

​

Sony made it ONLY available with those extra stuffs making you PAY for that. There is no place on www.sonystyle.com where you can download just the source code, and that's my point.

​

No, Sony INCLUDED IT with their PS2 Linux kit. That means they complied with the terms of the GPL.

NO WHERE IN THE GPL DOES IT SAY THAT YOU MUST GIVE OUT YOUR SOURCE TO ANYONE AND EVERYONE. IT JUST SAYS THAT IF YOU RECEIVE A BINARY COPY OF THE SOFTWARE, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE SOURCE CODE.

rtfl.

 

[DijiTao]

It's a good read, much better then your typical EULA.

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

 

[evening2005]

This makes no sense. The Linux source is included in the PS2 Linux kit, if that is what you are talking. You're paying $200 for the harddrive and network adaptor and the OS.

​

Sony made it ONLY available with those extra stuffs making you PAY for that. There is no place on www.sonystyle.com where you can download just the source code, and that's my point.

​

I'm sorry, but your point is nonsense. There is no need to distribute the source to people unless you have distributed the binaries to them.

Anyway, I've mentioned in other threads that GPH should release their firmware so that others can fix/impove their firmware for them faster; I am not against opening up and complying with GPL. What I am against, however, is hasting everything at all cost and ruining the whole thing. Patience is a vitue, give them some time to comply. Is THAT hard for you to wait a little? Don't you have other things in your life to worry about other than this in the meantime?

​

I don't think it's a case of what I am worrying about. It's about respecting copyright law. GPH are apparently worried about a Chinese copy of their product - but who are they to complain if they have used GPLed code without following the conditions set out in the licence?

 

[DijiTao]

We'll I've sent a nice note to Anna as I believe that prehaps increasing the pressure on GPH is most likely called for.

Anna,

Game Park Holdings is currently in violation of international copyright law by distributing a modified version of the Linux Kernel with out a licensee to do so. The Linux Kernel is licensed via the General Public Licensee, which is better known by its abbreviation “GPL”. A copy of this license can be obtained here:

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

An unofficial Korean translation can be found here:

http://korea.gnu.org/people/chsong/copyleft/gpl.ko.html

Game Park Holding’s violation comes from the fact that it is distributing executable code with out the accompanying source code, this is covered under section 3 of the GPL. To remedy this Game Park Holding must follow one of three options as outlined in the GPL:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
B) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

This situation must be corrected immediately to both avoid the legal ramifications from this copyright infringement, and to restore faith in the Linux and Open Source communities and ultimately your customers that Game Park Holdings is a law abiding company that is not stealing the works of others.

Please do not reply with an answer of “We will release the source code soon”, since you are in fact legally obligated to release it immediately.

 

[iignotus]

Codeninja, please read the GPL in its entirety. Many of us can tell that you haven't. It would be of great service to all of us if you did. Thank you.

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

 

[Winterkid]

The unit is pre-release, the firmware isn't even past beta, technically. Perhaps they should just release the source to Barak Pearlmutter as is for now until they get the rest of the bugs/additions/revisions finished. It would show they are willing to comprimise (even more than they have already) and it would show they understand the spirit of the GPL, at least to someone with absolute rights to at least a good portion of it.

And that note, while well written, succinct, and using excellent verbiage, even giving examples of your point, is still fairly threatening. I was hoping someone could come up with an alternative or a plan that perhaps avoided this kind of thing BEFORE anyone contacted them.

 

[Squidge]

Firstly, I agree with the valid points made here. When GPH first released the devboards to developers in October they should have made the source code to the kernel/etc available at the same time. Not only would it have saved us a lot of time, but it would have meant them complying from day one and so there would never be any of this, but simply more praise (and probably more people wanting it). After all, the devboards were fully linux based, and thus since you have the binary and the hardware to run it on, you are legally entitled to the source code, as has been stated here many times.

Now, I don't really want to give people more ammunition for a fight, but does anyone know the status of 'uboot' (which GPH use to load the Linux kernel). I've a feeling it could be GPL as well, but I'm not 100% sure. Modifying GPH's version of uboot would be much better for the HH launcher, than trying to patch into the binary.

 

[iignotus]

The unit is pre-release, the firmware isn't even past beta, technically. Perhaps they should just release the source to Barak Pearlmutter as is for now until they get the rest of the bugs/additions/revisions finished. It would show they are willing to comprimise (even more than they have already) and it would show they understand the spirit of the GPL, at least to someone with absolute rights to at least a good portion of it.

​

You also do not know what the GPL is, nor its terms. As soon as you receive any binary that is compiled with direct support of GPL'd code, you have the absolute right to request the source. They cannot simply release it to one person that contributed to the kernel in 'good faith'.

Please read http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html , then continue this discussion.