Mplayer Source...

[Shikaku]

Well, we can't say that it is GPH's fault that we don't have the full Mplayer source. It's MagicEyes fault.

This post should be void, closed, and deleted if the GPL doesn't cover this or I'm mistaken in some way, but I think we should Slashdot the GP2X again, for the source of the binary that MagicEyes has for Mplayer that gives access to the hardware. I seriously don't know why it is and should be closed source, and it would probably help all of us if we have access to this hardware, not only for much improved codec support, but also for real number crunching like a FPU.

I think we deserve it...

 

[oneandoneis2]

You could always report it to gpl-violations.org if you think there's undisclosed GPL source code..

 

[Squidge]

Err, we do have the full Mplayer source, and we have everything that is under the GPL.

If your talking about the 940 binary that mplayer uses, then this isn't under the GPL, and isn't open source. There's nothing you can do about this. Mplayer can be built and used without the source code to it, as it's not linked to it. It's a completely seperate part.

 

[Redeeman]

ehm.. if it isnt linked to it, where is it then?

also, dont they have a binary kernel module or something?

and regarding the kernel, the i2c code has been REMOVED from the kernel svn..

 

[nubie]

ehm.. if it isnt linked to it, where is it then?

also, dont they have a binary kernel module or something?

and regarding the kernel, the i2c code has been REMOVED from the kernel svn..

You just answered your own question, the binary module provides a SERVICE to the mplayer that does the decoding.

The i2c code is missing because it holds the serial number and they don't want those out in the wild because of the DRM and the need to lock a game to a GP2X.

to clarify, the i2c bus has a chip with the serial in the chip.

 

[jbrodack]

close this thread and make a sticky announcing that code under gpl has been released. this was a sore point in the scene for a while and i would really not want any more of this kind of negative publicity of the gp2x or for anybody new to gp2x and just finding out about it to get the wrong idea.

it took gph a while but they finally have all source code released that they are obligated to release. there were delays but there was intention to release the full source code from a while before it was released. there were lots of arguments about the gpl but i remember one part where a company can allow people to ask them for the source code and they have to send it. time really isnt specified. obviously the best way to be safe it to release source code at the exact same time you release any binary that uses gpl code but considering that gph said they would release the code and made good on their word i don't hold anything against them for taking a while. i mean they even set up a dev website and svn repository and such.

basically all wrongs have been righted and the gp2x is currently fully compliant with the gpl liscense. please don't try to make anyone else think otherwise especially since it took a while to get to this point.

 

[Squidge]

It's not even a binary kernel module as such, just a binary lump that is loaded into the arm940. You can disassemble it if you wish, and it does contain other peoples work, but it does not seem to contain anything that has been GPL'd - just freeware.

Magiceye's are unlikely to release the source code as it uses undocumented registers, which MagicEyes don't want public.

 

[Redeeman]

sorry to respond after so long, but

<snip>

You just answered your own question, the binary module provides a SERVICE to the mplayer that does the decoding.

The i2c code is missing because it holds the serial number and they don't want those out in the wild because of the DRM and the need to lock a game to a GP2X.

to clarify, the i2c bus has a chip with the serial in the chip.

just because they dont want people messing with that, doesent give them the right to remove the code.

It's not even a binary kernel module as such, just a binary lump that is loaded into the arm940. You can disassemble it if you wish, and it does contain other peoples work, but it does not seem to contain anything that has been GPL'd - just freeware.

Magiceye's are unlikely to release the source code as it uses undocumented registers, which MagicEyes don't want public.

but its made for mplayer, does anything else use this blob? i doubt they made this binary blob, and then afterwards thought "hey, now we need to modify mplayer, lets use our previous work!"
and that is then a derived work of mplayer, be it in a separate file or not.

and you say it contains work of others too, well.. why is their work more important than those of mplayer? mplayer has a license too, the GPL

 

[EvilDragon]

and you say it contains work of others too, well.. why is their work more important than those of mplayer? mplayer has a license too, the GPL

Yes, that's why the MPlayer Code has been released but not the rest which is not under the GPL.
So... where's the problem?

 

[BradN]

But if they do not release the source code to everything required to make the exact same mplayer binary they distributed, then they MUST release the non-GPL object files instead to allow re-linking a modified mplayer with whatever they added. Of course, source would be nice, but they legally may not be able to do that.

Now, if whatever license they have for the 940/hardware decoding stuff doesn't allow them to redistribute the object files, then they are, to use a technical term, fucked.

 

[Vimacs]

you have evrything to make an exact copy, the hardware stuff is in a kernel module.
There is allready an alternate version with ac3 support and more added in the archive.

 

[BradN]

Oh ok. Yeah I think then they're good provided that the code inside mplayer to interface with the kernel module is there.

 

[Squidge]

Yes, the 940 code is completely seperate - you can build mplayer without it, and a recompiled mplayer will work in exactly the same way as the official version with the same features, which includes the 940 optimisations.

Also, they do allow you to rebuild the 940 kernel module, just as most of it is simply a binary lump.

So, no violations as far as I can see...

 

[Redeeman]

But if they do not release the source code to everything required to make the exact same mplayer binary they distributed, then they MUST release the non-GPL object files instead to allow re-linking a modified mplayer with whatever they added. Of course, source would be nice, but they legally may not be able to do that.

Now, if whatever license they have for the 940/hardware decoding stuff doesn't allow them to redistribute the object files, then they are, to use a technical term, fucked.

its not always enough to distribute enough to recreate the exact same binary, the mplayer port and this blob was created to be a single product, which doesent constitute them advertizing it as a separate work

Yes, the 940 code is completely seperate - you can build mplayer without it, and a recompiled mplayer will work in exactly the same way as the official version with the same features, which includes the 940 optimisations.

Also, they do allow you to rebuild the 940 kernel module, just as most of it is simply a binary lump.

So, no violations as far as I can see...

where can i get so i can build the kernel module myself (i know, with the blob being without source)


edit:
and also, didnt the binary blob for the 940 use to be inside the mplayer binary, where they only later (in 2.0) moved it out? in that case, they already need to give it, since they have distributed THAT version to many, including me i believe.

 

[Mudi]

OK guys, I personally don't know whether it was ever distributed inside the mplayer binary, but you are not going to get them to distribute the source of that blob ever I'm afraid, due to higher-up licenses. Making an issue of old versions now is just a waste of time.

I am interested if the new version is GPL compliant, though it sounds to me as though it is.

 

[Shikaku]

OK guys, I personally don't know whether it was ever distributed inside the mplayer binary, but you are not going to get them to distribute the source of that blob ever I'm afraid, due to higher-up licenses. Making an issue of old versions now is just a waste of time.

I am interested if the new version is GPL compliant, though it sounds to me as though it is.

Whether or nor it is or isn't, I hate to say it but it would benefit the community if we did have the source, for FPU/MP? decoding purposes.

 

[Redeeman]

OK guys, I personally don't know whether it was ever distributed inside the mplayer binary, but you are not going to get them to distribute the source of that blob ever I'm afraid, due to higher-up licenses. Making an issue of old versions now is just a waste of time.

I am interested if the new version is GPL compliant, though it sounds to me as though it is.

but it is a fairly big issue, by not forcing them to release it, they are (incorrectly) getting confirmation that the license from their third parties, are more important than those of mplayer.

 

[Mudi]

As much as I'd love to get the source, when the issue is between getting yelled by a few in the community and being sued by DivX it seems to be an obvious choice I would love it, but it's not worth having GPH sued to death.

 

[Redeeman]

how can divx sue them if we cant? if korea has laws it should also apply to gpl software.

this kind of prioitizing between importance of gpl vs proprietary must be thought at the highest level, they had the license, they should have chosen back then, and they did, they choose to use gpled software, thereby choosing that they will release the source, it was THEIR choice, they could have simply chosen not to use gpled software, they must now face the consequences.

even though i may get flamed for this, i believe they should not be allowed to ship any more gp2x's out before they have given the source, how they will explain it to divx is their problem, however im sure divx would be willing to sell the rights to gpl any code there might be for them.

 

[Mudi]

I hope that nothing that I say here is interpreted as flaming, because I agree with you in principle. But this is the sort of thing that scares a large number of people away from open-source... a mistake like this can truly put a company between a rock and a hard place.

GPH has made attempts to comply with the open-source licenses, which is much more than other companies do. I would like to get full sources for the proprietary stuff but I know that realistically it isn't going to happen.