Last edited by a moderator:
iignotus
The one and only
Upon request. I read that as immediately, making time for shipping routes if necessary.
Also, codeninja, you seem to have an ax to grind against people who respect copyright law. I suggest you no longer make comments about the GPL license or the distribution of the GP2X kernel's sources until you have resolved your discrepancy.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jarska333
What do you want?
I would assume there is a some leeway for sorting out possible (seriuos) corporate secrets...
iignotus
The one and only
No. There isn't.
Furthermore, GPH has to release the source snapshot that will compile to the kernel that is in the GP2Xs they have already released. Regardless of whether or not that kernel has DRM, proprietary, or 'secret' code, if that proprietary code is not in modules but rather interspersed within the kernel, it must be released in its entirety. There is no way around it.
Last edited by a moderator:
If GPH added proprietary code which they don't have permission to distribute under GPL then they can't release it as GPL.
Last edited by a moderator:
C
codeninja
Guest
And then, GPH will bankcrupt and we'll be all playing $10 chinese ripoff versions instead that works prperly only when the Sun and the Moon line up. Geez, those I-am-so-right-you-are-so-wrong guys never know when to stop, or even slowdown. I'm no fan of any sort of fundamentalists.
Last edited by a moderator:
Arn't you the one translating the rumors from the korean site. I'm quite surprised you have moved from such negative posts to truly positive ones.
Its either a duplicate or an anti-linux, or an anti-gph. I'm begining to suspect your just anti GP2X
Last edited by a moderator:
haplo
Still Fresh
if they added proprietary code the the kernel the answer is not "they can't release it under the gpl" and answer acording to the license which they implicitly agreed to by using the kernel and shipping it is that that code is now also licensed under the GPL. Thats how it reads thats how it is.
I also don't see how releaseing the source code will bankrupt GPH. They sell hardware.
anyways, I'm sure gph does plan on releaseing the source code relatively soon so this will all be moot and we can move on
I also don't see how releaseing the source code will bankrupt GPH. They sell hardware.
anyways, I'm sure gph does plan on releaseing the source code relatively soon so this will all be moot and we can move on
That's not how it is. Only the copyright holder can allow code to be released as gpl. If some third party (GPH) incorporates someone else's proprietary code into a GPL licensed program and distributes the binaries then that third party (GPH) have broken the terms of the GPL.
The only way proprietary code incorporated into a GPL program can become GPLed is if the binaries are distributed by the copyright holder of the proprietary code or by a third party that has the copyright holders permission to release the incorporated code as GPL.
Incorporating code into a GPL program and distributing the binaries does not trump the copyright holders rights.
Last edited by a moderator:
It can, very, very easily. Here's how. (NOTE: this is speculation of a worst case scenario. I am not saying this actually happened, I wouldn't be one to know if it did, the following is PURELY HYPOTHETICAL
--
First, they license some code from someone, likely part of the DRM code. That license says they cannot redistribute the source to this portion of the code. No problem.
Second, they (probably misunderstanding the GPL) integrate that code into the GPL'd Linux code to get the machine rushed out the door to all of the demanding customers who are threatening to cancel their pre-orders if they don't get their GP2X's yesterday. Specifically, instead of using a kernel module, they just hack it in and statically link it.
And now, they're in a no win situation - they cannot comply with the GPL (releasing the same source that was used to compile the binary kernel that is in the shipped units) without breaking their agreement with the company they licensed the DRM from. They're either going to get sued by the GPL people, or the people they licensed DRM from, either way putting GPH in serious risk of being driven out of business.
--
I sincerely hope they are not in such a situation.. I'm merely demonstrating that they COULD have backed themselves in a corner where the GPL could cause them to go under.
-OCA|
Last edited by a moderator:
C
codeninja
Guest
What is your definition of rumor? Would you consider everything here rumor? Or, anything not in English is a rumor?
You may call me whatever you want, as I consider you as one of the you-are-with-me-or-against-me fundamentalists. I know, it's impossible to admit there are more than two colors in the world for you guys.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, quite the reverse. I think selective reporting to present a certain viewpoint is never useful. I think the fact that you have started this thread shows your viewpoint.
Last edited by a moderator:
Josquius
Member
I wouldn't be too harsh on chinese copycats considering the design of the GP32...
C
codeninja
Guest
So, now I'm getting accused of *selectively* delivering bad news? And, I'm sorry that I didn't know that having a viewpoint was bad thing.
On this very issue of openning up firmware, I'm for it, but against hastly openning it at all cost with no other consideration.
Speaking of viewpoint, mine is to have everything balanced so that we can cover all the ground. So, sometime I play a role of devil's advocate, to balance things out. But my preference always goes to somewhere in the middle since I hate all extreme views. There is no such thing as good extreme view, and that's my viewpoint, if you call it a viewpoint.
Last edited by a moderator:
C
codeninja
Guest
I was expecting to have some healthy debate regarding GPL from different perspective (business side of it). But, I think, I made a mistake of not knowing how much of hot button issue this is and there is no rooom for discussions. I see no point of this thread myself any more. Please close/delete this thread.
iignotus
The one and only
That decision is not up to you.
I'm still suggesting that you read the GPL and understand the concepts of its terms before you continue making posts about it.
Last edited by a moderator:
GPL *should* never ever have been an issue. Everybody knows this is nothing to do with GPL. This issue is nothing to do with linux. Its about control. The GP2X is going to be interesting.
Last edited by a moderator:
FFNoir
I
aye... who willl control it? the userbase? or the company?
iignotus
The one and only
You make little sense. Almost everything linux has to do with the GPL or some other license. Releasing the source is actually about *relinquishing* control, so that everyone can add to the health and well being of an excellent handheld.
Last edited by a moderator:
