Gpl & Source Code - Constructive Suggestions

[DijiTao]

I think we're in the phase where it makes sense to contact them if you feel so inclined, but I'd hardly encourage a letter writing campaign or pointing gpl-violations.org towards them, that comes later. I’m merely trying to educate them on what they have done wrong as thus far they haven’t demonstrated an understanding the GPL. As for threatening I didn’t mention any legal remedy or make any threats, as I’m not a stake holder and am thus not in a position to do so. If anybody else would like to let GPH know how this makes you feel Anna Hong’s email address is anna@gp2x.com.

To reiterate one more time please read http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html, as doing so will help clear up how exactly this is all suppose to work. The GPL is a very straightforward document not some legalese gibberish.

 

[DijiTao]

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.

​

Not 100% sure this is the right uboot, but:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/uboot/

License: GNU General Public License (GPL)

 

[DijiTao]

wrong Uboot...

This looks to be the right one:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/u-boot

also GPL'd

 

[abigsmurf]

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.

​

There's a key phrase in what I said : "have to". Sure they can charge for it but they have to have the code available on request and you can then compile that and use it for free. There are various linux distributions for instance with retail versions in the shop where you can freely download the source and compile it yourself, instead what you get when you buy the retail version is documentation and support.

Please don't accuse me of speaking nonsense when you can't read what I've written.

On a side note, reading through the GPL, it could be argued they infact comply with article 3b. They do state in the documentation that you should go to their website for "detailed product information" and they have on their website promised to make available the source code which is what that article requires of them.

The GPL is suprisingly vague when giving timescales for a legal document, all it says is that you have to be able to take requests for 3 years on source code requests, not the timescale in which these requests have to be fufilled. It doesn't even say that they have to make efforts to provide the source code as quickly as possible from what I've read.

 

[Ravnos]

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.

​

There's a key phrase in what I said : "have to". Sure they can charge for it but they have to have the code available on request and you can then compile that and use it for free. There are various linux distributions for instance with retail versions in the shop where you can freely download the source and compile it yourself, instead what you get when you buy the retail version is documentation and support.

Please don't accuse me of speaking nonsense when you can't read what I've written

​

Sorry smurf, but you're wrong and you need to re-read the license. The only people you have to make code available to on request are people with binary copies. You can also charge whatever you like for that binary, and in turn whoever gets it from you can charge whatever they like to further redistribute it. However, everyone either of you distribute your shit to is entitled to a copy of that source. It's a very simple license and it's encouraged that you all read it before saying these things.

 

[abigsmurf]

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

if you're free to distribute copies without paying or charging, that makes the products free in my book...

 

[DijiTao]

Try re-reading the GPL and forgetting what you think you know about how the GPL works. It really does say that whom ever you give a binary two also gets the source, and that's pretty much the only requirement on when the source is given out. However there is nothing to stop someone else from giving away the source/binaries once they have them. So in other words, the GPL grants someone who buys a GP2X the right to request (and receive) the source to all GPL licensed code that comes with the GP2X, it then further grants that person the ability to redistribute that code.

 

[Ravnos]

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

if you're free to distribute copies without paying or charging, that makes the products free in my book...

​

Pay close attention, because I'm not going to repeat myself.

You can charge money for GPL-ed software. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LICENSE THAT PREVENTS THIS. However anyone who receives a copy is free to do whatever they want with it, INCLUDING REDISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE, EITHER FREE OR FOR A PRICE. All they have to do is abide by the terms of the license and grant recipients of the software the same license.

THAT MEANS THAT YOU CAN CHARGE MONEY FOR GPL-ed SOFTWARE. Shit, it even says so in the section you quoted. Just because you can get the software for no charge doesn't mean GPL == no charge.

 

[abigsmurf]

Pay close attention, because I'm not going to repeat myself.

You can charge money for GPL-ed software. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LICENSE THAT PREVENTS THIS. However anyone who receives a copy is free to do whatever they want with it, INCLUDING REDISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE, EITHER FREE OR FOR A PRICE. All they have to do is abide by the terms of the license and grant recipients of the software the same license.

THAT MEANS THAT YOU CAN CHARGE MONEY FOR GPL-ed SOFTWARE. Shit, it even says so in the section you quoted. Just because you can get the software for no charge doesn't mean GPL == no charge.

​

ok you clearly haven't read what I said then. I didn't say they couldn't charge for the program, only that you're more than able to get said program free (although technically the first ever user may have to pay but that's just a strange quirk of the licence)

 

[DijiTao]

I know let's dice up things to the stupidest level of minutia!

Big Picture, GPH has violated the GPL. GPH owes anybody who has a GP2X the source to any and all GPL licensed code that was delivered with the device.

On a side note Sony hasn't --- well unless you count that whole rootkit thing, but that's a whole new story...

 

[DijiTao]

I've given some more thought to this whole issue – and the real root of it being “What can we do to persuade GPH to do the right thing”. We'll perhaps my earlier feelings that it's too soon starting to inform stakeholders to put pressure on GPH were incorrect. We don't really have any other course of action. If my note to Anna isn't meet with a satisfactory response (a hard date by which GPH will comply) then I believe these are some of the people we need to contact.

Software: Busybox
Website: http://www.busybox.net/shame.html
Stake Holder: Erik Andersen
Email: andersen@codepoet.org

Software: U-Boot
Website: http://u-boot.sourceforge.net/
Stake Holder: Detlev Zundel
Email: dzu@denx.de

Software: GNU Utils
Website: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
Stake Holder: David Turner
Email: license-violation@gnu.org

Software: Linux Kernel
Website: http://gpl-violations.org/
Stake Holder: Harald Welte
Email: webmaster@gpl-violations.org

Additionally, I suggest all the resellers of the GP2X read this article:
http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxu...39191660,00.htm

In particular you might find this of interest:

Lots of companies that we are going after are resellers, so even if the device is sold as Fujitsu Siemens, it's not made by them, but is an OEM device. With resellers it's easier as we simply tell them, and they then put pressure on their upstream vendors.

So if your on this list:
http://wiki.gp2x.org/wiki/Where_to_Buy%3F

Putting pressure on GPH is in you best interest.

 

[Eolair]

Not sure how real this is but:

http://www.gp2x.com/support/support_sugest...=01&chk=&direc=

 

[DijiTao]

...That's not good - well for GPH atleast. I don't want GPH to get crushed, I just want them to comply - how can they not get it? I'm holding out hope I get a nice note back, but I really kind of doubt it. My GP2X will be in my hands by Wednesday of next week, and I suppose that's how long GPH has till I start writing some letters.

 

[fomit]

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.

​

Barak Pearlmutter has no more rights to the source code than I do. The only way he has any rights to it is if he has a GP2X.

 

[Empyre]

Barak Pearlmutter has no more rights to the source code than I do. The only way he has any rights to it is if he has a GP2X.

​

He has a few GP2x's

 

[gp2brew]

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.

​

Barak Pearlmutter has no more rights to the source code than I do. The only way he has any rights to it is if he has a GP2X.

​

He did say he had bought SIX of them, if you read his post.

Let's not have this needlessly descend into open flaming like certain other threads when this was being discussed recently. This is an issue that needs to be dealt with, the sooner the better.

Even Cyclops, who went out of his way to flame the hell out of me last week, is now an over the top proponent of GPL. Go figure.

Please direct all flames to someone who cares. Santa maybe.

 

[Cyclops]

Barak Pearlmutter has no more rights to the source code than I do. The only way he has any rights to it is if he has a GP2X.

​

LOL he says he has 6.

 

[Cyclops]

He did say he had bought SIX of them, if you read his post.

Let's not have this needlessly descend into open flaming like certain other threads when this was being discussed recently. This is an issue that needs to be dealt with, the sooner the better.

Even Cyclops, who went out of his way to flame the hell out of me last week, is now an over the top proponent of GPL. Go figure.

Please direct all flames to someone who cares. Santa maybe.

​

You really need to learn to read, instead of calling people "linux zealots"

 

[fomit]

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.

​

Barak Pearlmutter has no more rights to the source code than I do. The only way he has any rights to it is if he has a GP2X.

​

He did say he had bought SIX of them, if you read his post.

Let's not have this needlessly descend into open flaming like certain other threads when this was being discussed recently. This is an issue that needs to be dealt with, the sooner the better.

Even Cyclops, who went out of his way to flame the hell out of me last week, is now an over the top proponent of GPL. Go figure.

Please direct all flames to someone who cares. Santa maybe.

​

But that's the point. The only way anyone has any rights to GPL licensed code is if they have the binaries. In this case he has 6 GP2X units, and thus does indeed have rights to the source code. As does anyone with a GP2X.

 

[iignotus]

Empyre and gp2brew: these are the kind of lexical quirks you need to understand before you make a reply about a post, let alone a legal license.

By saying "The only way he has any rights to it is if he has a GP2X.", fomit is 100% correct. I'm sure he knew that Mr. Pearlmutter had the six GP2Xs, and to make an informed reply you must know that fomit also has at least one GP2X. He was simply stating that anyone who has a GP2X has the same right to the source as anyone else with a GP2X, and he is very much correct.

EDIT: Cyclops, this is directed at you as well. I know English is not your native language, but this topic is in a discussion of a license that is legally written in English.