Linux Maybe Wrong Choice For Gph?

[DijiTao]

It would be nice if people who seem to be anti-GPL would actually read the GPL, or understand how many commercial products use GPL'd software.

To address a couple of points brought up in this thread.

When GPH choose MagicEyes, they choose Linux. MagicEyes provides two OS options WinCE or Linux, given WinCE's cost the answer was obvious. Suggesting that GPH should have developed an OS from the ground up is fairly ridiculous. Judging from how long it's taking them to get firmware patches out the door the amount of time it would have taken them to develop a full fledged OS would have delayed the GP2X for a very long time.

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.

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.

Stinch is absolutely correct. GPH cannot “give” code to the GPL that GPH does not own, and in practice I do not believe any company has ever been forced to give up their proprietary code even if they mixed it in with GPL'd code. What has historically happened is the offending company, GPH in this case, is forced to stop the infringement, usually through a court order. The company then works out the problem, in this case that would mean making sure that no “proprietary” code is mixed in the GPL'd code, making the source code available to those who have been given binaries, and lastly by including a copy of the GPL licensee with the GP2X.

Linksys/Cisco didn't go bankrupt when they had to release their GPL-tainted code. Nobody buys the lower quality knock offs.

 

[Cyclops]

aye... who willl control it? the userbase? or the company?

​

I count about 5 different groups. The users don't actually have a say

 

[Cyclops]

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.

​

think about *why* I would say its about control. Come on now catch up.

 

[haplo]

my bad stinch, I didn't consider them working someone else's copyright code into the kernel, I just was thinking about their own, which since they worked it into a gpl codebase, it would now make it gpl. if it was someone else's they are breaking the gpl, and probably the other party also won't be very happy so lets hope there is none of that.
I think GPH is smarter than that. They;ve given us a wounderful new device and I suspect they put a lot of thought and some lawyer time into investigating hte issue before moving forward. I'm sure everything will be cool in a little while. mmmm early adopting.

 

[Alpha2]

Putting the possibilty of the (presumably planned)HK knock off that was reported, GPH was prehaps a little un aware of what they were getting into more than anything else. Looking at Linux from an outsiders point of view I get the impression that the half dozen or so versions of Linux out there ported to the GP2X would mean confusion for the non-coder.

Let's say you had the official version that uses certain applications like GPH's planned Commercial games (or Mplayer, or anything really). Someone else comes a long with an altered version of the linux kernal created thanks to released source and the game dosent play, who's he going to complain to? GPH That's who...

There's nothing wrong with the GPL, it's just making it hard to do buisness.

 

[haplo]

thats nonsesne. Fine I can create some version of the kernel where nothing works, but who would use it. Noone. They'd stick with mainline GPH kernel becasue its officailly supported and probably has the largest group of developers focused on it. Any novel features I come up with in my own kernel, I'd seek to get them integrated into the main line kernel. Thats how most of hte kernels and most OSS software works. I can roll my own version and test and play, which is great, and slows anyone to try things which alows for unforseable jumps in free R&D, but at the end of the day everyone wants to get their code into the main kernel.

besides, theres no way someone using a custom kernel would complain to GPH. Thats stupid. If they can and did put a custim kernel on their GPx2 its not GPH's fault of stuff doesn't work. It's lunacy to think otherwise and no one would. If you modded your XBox are you going to complain to MS when halo stops working? no.

Honestly I don't know where people come up with these worries. Take a closer look. Has linux failed becauseo f the GPL? you've taken a one second look at trhe comunity. a timeless flash. and you see lots of kernels. Then you draw your own and IMHO false conclusions that there's crazy fragmentation and nothing works.

If you watched you'd see a steady flow from the corners of the community to various kernels and finally working there way to the main line kernel. It's more like a pyramid. The best wins. And the best isnt a platform where nothing works

What this really opens up is the ability for anyone to try out things and it's far more possible new and novel uses of the GP2X will pop up this way.

 

[AireTamStorm]

If GPH added proprietary code which they don't have permission to distribute under GPL then they can't release it as GPL.

​

That doesn't mean the GPL violation goes away. I don't believe the DRM they integrated is non-disclosure anyway. Either was == They must release the code under the GPL.

If you want to discuss the GPL issue, do it in Barak's thread.

 

[Alpha2]

I wasnt stating it as fact only a scenerio in which GPH has to deal with one more subset of angry people, only these are people who actually own the system and not Linux users who might have had no intention of buying it.

I'm only giving you a possible path that GPH might have to concider and you fly off the handle like I'm specifically attacking Linux, I'm not I have nothing against it, hell I'd probably be using it now if I were more computer confident.

What ever their reasons they're buisness related and not some conspiracy designed to hurt the GPL.