Gpl & Source Code - Constructive Suggestions

[WrongEyedJesus]

Gamepark have told me they will send me the source.

​

LOL, - that puts an end to that conversation then.

*cue even more fractious, obcure and obtuse spin off threads*

Actually I've really enjoyed this one......

 

[abigsmurf]

I accuse GPH of not correctly filing their tax returns in the proper manner!!!!

obtuse enough?

 

[iignotus]

As AireTamStorm said, they need to release the exact snapshot of source that will compile to the kernel released in these devices we've gotten so far. If that includes DRM code that's not in modules, tough shit. We must still receive it in lieu of a GPL violation.

 

[iignotus]

I love it when gp32x.de goes down

 

[Squidge]

That's something I'll agree with - the source GPH release must be able to be compiled and linked without errors. Stuff like DRM and the dodgy SD driver should be in modules if they don't want them exposed.

Personally, I feel this is exactly what they are doing - the earlier versions were all in kernel, and they are probably moving there trade secrets, DRM, NDA'd source etc to module so they can release the kernel source.

It'll be funny when they eventually release it, people dive into it, and then find that the only alterations to the MMSP2 code that we already have are calls to modules provided only in binary form, so no use to anyone whatsoever. At least it'll keep the people complaining about the GPL happy tho'

 

[WrongEyedJesus]

I accuse GPH of not correctly filing their tax returns in the proper manner!!!!

obtuse enough?

​

Controvertial. Not sure given the inferences of legal action within this thread I would go there, all power to you though mate......

 

[codesmith]

That's something I'll agree with - the source GPH release must be able to be compiled and linked without errors. Stuff like DRM and the dodgy SD driver should be in modules if they don't want them exposed.

Personally, I feel this is exactly what they are doing - the earlier versions were all in kernel, and they are probably moving there trade secrets, DRM, NDA'd source etc to module so they can release the kernel source.

It'll be funny when they eventually release it, people dive into it, and then find that the only alterations to the MMSP2 code that we already have are calls to modules provided only in binary form, so no use to anyone whatsoever. At least it'll keep the people complaining about the GPL happy tho'

​

Considering it is 100% within their rights to do so, part of me wishes they would do just that, simply to get back at all the GPL whiners. Of course, I'll be willing to bet a large percentage of them will just give a satisfied smirk, say "my job here is done" and never even download it.

 

[AireTamStorm]

If they have to give up the DRM, then so be it. They can just make another DRM as a module down the line. We need the initial snapshot for this to comply with the GPL.

 

[Cyclops]

Considering it is 100% within their rights to do so, part of me wishes they would do just that, simply to get back at all the GPL whiners. Of course, I'll be willing to bet a large percentage of them will just give a satisfied smirk, say "my job here is done" and never even download it.

​

You need to move on from your hatred of GPL. Most here have little understanding about licences(including me), and have tried to put what little they know into the discussion. Which is nice. I don't see your GPL whiners anywhere. I'm actually surprised you can still make a post like that after the topic was created by someone who not only bought 6 units but has wrote code for the kernel. He is not really a whiner is he.

 

[FFNoir]

Why does the GPL require that you release the sourcecode?

 

[dodgyville]

Why does the GPL require that you release the sourcecode?

​

The GPL is really simple. Thousands of people have donated their time and effort to write an entire operating system - millions of lines of code. GPH are allowed to use ALL of this code and effort FOR FREE. All they have to do is share the tiny bits of code they have written. That's all they have to do. If they don't want to do that, then they shouldn't use the work of THOUSANDS of others.

People here are making out that the linux people are some how trying to steal GPH's code, or to wreck the company. That is not true. GPH started using linux with their eyes open. It has allowed them to create a multimedia device to (almost) rival the PSP - a device with billions of dollars backing it. If anything, GPH are trying to "steal" from linux. That's why the linux people are upset.

I don't understand why all these people are rushing to the defence of GPH. They must all be 16 year-old fanboys.

Here's just a few of the things GPH get from the GPL with no effort on their part:
An operating system that can handle two CPUs
Graphics drivers
SDK kit
emulators
native ports of games (quake, etc)
a compiler (gcc)
movie player
support for video codecs

It would take GPH years to create software anywhere near as good as that.

It really is a great match - a good set of hardware put together by GPH and the world's most flexible, generous, cool operating system. If it works it'll be heaven!

To all those who say GPH should be able to keep their source closed. Let me tell you this: If all the source code was already open, all the firmware issues would probably already be solved. And that's the power of open source.

Good luck!

 

[FFNoir]

Why does the GPL require that you release the sourcecode?

​

The GPL is really simple. Thousands of people have donated their time and effort to write an entire operating system - millions of lines of code. GPH are allowed to use ALL of this code and effort FOR FREE. All they have to do is share the tiny bits of code they have written. That's all they have to do. If they don't want to do that, then they shouldn't use the work of THOUSANDS of others.

People here are making out that the linux people are some how trying to steal GPH's code, or to wreck the company. That is not true. GPH started using linux with their eyes open. It has allowed them to create a multimedia device to (almost) rival the PSP - a device with billions of dollars backing it. If anything, GPH are trying to "steal" from linux. That's why the linux people are upset.

I don't understand why all these people are rushing to the defence of GPH. They must all be 16 year-old fanboys.

Here's just a few of the things GPH get from the GPL with no effort on their part:
An operating system that can handle two CPUs
Graphics drivers
SDK kit
emulators
native ports of games (quake, etc)
a compiler (gcc)
movie player
support for video codecs

It would take GPH years to create software anywhere near as good as that.

It really is a great match - a good set of hardware put together by GPH and the world's most flexible, generous, cool operating system. If it works it'll be heaven!

To all those who say GPH should be able to keep their source closed. Let me tell you this: If all the source code was already open, all the firmware issues would probably already be solved. And that's the power of open source.

Good luck!

​

Ah ok, makes sense... I'm only a casual Linux user so I never really had any need to read over the GPL... You're right though... if they can iron out their violation and release the source, then we can get on worshiping them for not being close-minded like Sony...

 

[dodgyville]

([snip)

Ah ok, makes sense... I'm only a casual Linux user so I never really had any need to read over the GPL... You're right though... if they can iron out their violation and release the source, then we can get on worshiping them for not being close-minded like Sony...

​

It feels a bit like two immovable objects have hit each other - graigix fanboys and gpl zealots. Talk about a clash of the titans!

(Disclaimer: I am an open source fan)

We all want the same kickass thing. A great console that does everything! GPH have provided the "console", and open source is providing the "everthing". At least until someone comes out with a 2000 MHz 576 mb memory 3D accelerated hand-held that weights under 100g and runs for 18 hours on 1 AAA battery.

 

[iignotus]

Everyone should listen to AireTamStorm.

He is one of the few people in this entire thread with the right idea.

 

[judge0]

That's something I'll agree with - the source GPH release must be able to be compiled and linked without errors. Stuff like DRM and the dodgy SD driver should be in modules if they don't want them exposed.

Personally, I feel this is exactly what they are doing - the earlier versions were all in kernel, and they are probably moving there trade secrets, DRM, NDA'd source etc to module so they can release the kernel source.

It'll be funny when they eventually release it, people dive into it, and then find that the only alterations to the MMSP2 code that we already have are calls to modules provided only in binary form, so no use to anyone whatsoever. At least it'll keep the people complaining about the GPL happy tho'

​

It's linux, if you are unhappy with performance/configuration of machine, you compile a new kernel, make menuconfig et al.
Pretty hard to do without the source . . .


Edit: spelling

 

[Cyclops]

Everyone should listen to AireTamStorm.

He is one of the few people in this entire thread with the right idea.

​

No, LOL

 

[iignotus]

Everyone should listen to AireTamStorm.

He is one of the few people in this entire thread with the right idea.

​

No, LOL

​

Do you have any reason for that statement, or are you just spouting things off to be ornery?

 

[Cyclops]

Do you have any reason for that statement, or are you just spouting things off to be ornery?

​

Good word No 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.

 

[OCA|]

dodgyville, a lot of people here believe GPH has never acted in bad faith. There are many theories as to how GPH broke the GPL without intending to do so:

<SPECULATION DISCLAIMER>
The following three points are entirely speculation on my part.

-Misunderstanidng the terms of a license that has no official Korean transation

-Caving to pressure from customers demanding their GP2x NOW or pulling their pre-order, causing them to rush the units out while neglecting their obligations under the GPL

- Interweaving 3rd party licensed code with the GPL'd code (again, due to misunderstanding) and now being backed into a corner they can't get out of without violating one license or another

That third option is particularly scary... they would likely be entirely at the mercy of the open source community, which, if this thread is any indication, looks to be somehwat less than merciful.

Finally, GPH is a tiny little company releasing a unique product while truly listening to the desires of its customers. Some think such a company should be cut a little slack in the form of giving them a bit of time to release the source before dragging them through the mud (or worse, the courts), especially since existing discussion of the issue with GPH is making consistant progress (see DJWillis's post).

I don't think ANYONE here is trying to say GPH should just get away with violating the GPL and just be left alone, and nobody is saying that they aren't violating the GPL

Persoonally, I lean towards defending GPH... for now. Dealing with larger companies that infringe (such as Linksys), often legal action had to be threatened before you could even reach someone with the authority to make any meaningful decisions on the matter, but that's clearly not the case at GPH. They screwed this up, honestly, and it isn't the first thing they've screwed up with regarding the GP2x. I hardly think they should be tarred and feathered just yet.

When the source is finally released (hopefully, as Craigix said, on Monday), I sincerely believe that Linux and GPH/the GP2x will mutually benefit. I can't help but think that the GP2x will, in the long run, be an asset to the Linux community.

-OCA|

 

[DijiTao]

And the Linux community will be an asset to GPH -- it's pretty much a win-win if GPH would just get with the program. If I was CraigX thou I'd be worried about this most. He's got the letters GPL, and pictures of tux all over gbax.com. It's pretty clear that being an open source Linux hand held was part of the marketing, and right now that marketing is significantly less than true. I'm going to guess that's why he's working on the issue as much as he is. Additionally as I pointed out before, it's much easier to go after the resellers then GPH and typically this is what happens with GPL violations.