Gpl & Source Code - Constructive Suggestions

[DijiTao]

Dear Santa,

I have been a very good boy this year, which is why while I may have previously asked for a red fire-truck I would also like to ask for you to persuade Game Park Holding to give a copy of the source code to anyone whom they have already distributed a binary of GPL'd source code to.

Thank you very much, I'll leave you extra milk and cookies.

-Diji

 

[craigix]

Gamepark have told me they will send me the source.

 

[Tobriand]

Stunning - so, almost completely sorted out then

 

[Eolair]

Gamepark have told me they will send me the source.

​

First the stereo patch and now this. A good day for the gp2x

 

[iignotus]

I hate to shoot the horse just to sniff the glue, but do you have an email or conversation where they gave you, say, a specific date of release?

Once again you are a great boon as an intermediate.

 

[craigix]

I hope to have it on monday, however they may not be releasing some private DRM related parts.

 

[iignotus]

As far as I know, if those unreleased parts are kernel modules, then they are completely within their right and have done exactly the right thing most of us have been after.

This is a good day

 

[sweetfish]

First the stereo patch and now this. A good day for the gp2x

​

Everyday is a good day for gp2x.

 

[Empyre]

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.

Wow! I post 5 words into this thread and i get pulled up on it!

I never said fomit was wrong. I certainly wasn't saying Mr. Pearlmutter had more right to the source than anyone else, I didnt type enough to even imply that!

I know the spirit of the GPL but not the letter of it so I don't feel qualified to commet on any of the issues being discussed here, I do however feel my post was as valid as fomits.

 

[Vimacs]

i hope they release the code of the menu, its realy needs some fetures added, like mount/unmount, soft reboot.

 

[stinch]

As far as I know, if those unreleased parts are kernel modules, then they are completely within their right and have done exactly the right thing most of us have been after.

This is a good day

​

Mine only has 4 kernel modules that appear to be related to usb host support and presumably are not even used.

/lib/modules/2.4.25/kernel/drivers/usb/gadget/g_file_storage.o
/lib/modules/2.4.25/kernel/drivers/usb/gadget/g_zero.o
/lib/modules/2.4.25/kernel/drivers/usb/gadget/gadgetfs.o
/lib/modules/2.4.25/kernel/drivers/usb/gadget/net2272.o

All the interesting stuff is presumably in the kernel and will need to be released.

 

[DijiTao]

as I said way back, I'm betting the kernal release delay was needed to pull the DRM stuff out and make it modules. I really hope they've done so as modules work out better for everybody - they get to keep their closed source DRM, and the GPL doesn't get violated.

 

[fomit]

Well, I certainly am glad that this is happening. I have been in love with my GP2X since I got it (barring the minor freakout over the included batteries only lasting 45 minutes).

I just wish the batteries would last longer. I hope it's nothing as serious as there being a soldering problem.

 

[fomit]

as I said way back, I'm betting the kernal release delay was needed to pull the DRM stuff out and make it modules. I really hope they've done so as modules work out better for everybody - they get to keep their closed source DRM, and the GPL doesn't get violated.

​

Hopefully once that happens we will finally see some newly updated firmware as well. Just to keep everything in line.

 

[DijiTao]

It's Peanut Butter Jelly Time!
(http://www.ebaumsworld.com/flash/peanutbutter.html)

 

[AireTamStorm]

extract from the GPL: If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. anything they've programmed which isn't just an extension or modification of GPL code they're not forced to release.

It is a FREAKING LINUX KERNEL, and if that doesn't count as derivative work, I don't know what does.

They released this as the initial binary, so they have to release everything that makes the initial binary work (or at minimum a newer version).

also the GPL doesn't give a timeframe for making code available, only that it must be made available. They're also well within their rights to only offer hard copies which they could charge 'cost' for

​

There is a timeframe, its called "make available immediately upon request". This is where the violation lies. They CANNOT charge for the kernel itself. They can only charge for the act of transferring the kernel/source between point A and point B. This doesn't mean they can charge a buck for an email.

 

[codesmith]

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...

​

Sony may not have violated the GPL, but the rootkit thing (which includes OSS code in it) and this Slashdot post indicate that they are far from being honest in this regard. In case the link stops working for some reason, here's the summary: Sony's "Champions of Norrath" game has the "BSAFE" RSA logo on the manual (implying that they use a certain well-known but expensive data security library, presumably to protect the gamers' privacy and so on), yet a search of the game binary reveals that they are in fact using an open source library called "LibTomCrypt", which cost them zilch (and which has not been under as much peer review as the RSA libraries, so it's anyone's guess as to how it compares to the RSA code). Now what we have here is not a GPL violation because Tom is nice enough to release his software with a more liberal license, yet Sony is clearly abusing both Tom and their customers by pulling this stunt.

 

[FFNoir]

As far as my argument on this matter goes:
People who are entitled to, go ahead and sue...
just don't be the whiners when GPH goes under like Bleem (bad comparison but you get my point...)

 

[Hanz™]

As far as my argument on this matter goes:
People who are entitled to, go ahead and sue...
just don't be the whiners when GPH goes under like Bleem (bad comparison but you get my point...)

​

Why is the arguement still going on, if they plan to release the source code?

 

[Cyclops]

As far as my argument on this matter goes:
People who are entitled to, go ahead and sue...
just don't be the whiners when GPH goes under like Bleem (bad comparison but you get my point...)

​

:blink: I couldn't stop laughing.