Mplayer Source...

[Redeeman]

im sure that if gph was forced with the choice of going out of business, or simply complying with the license they would choose to live, besides, if they have the source, they can simply blame it on dignsys/magiceyes or whomever did the license violation and sold it to gph.

and then if its impossible to get the source for it, they should face the consequences and have it rewritten (and then release source). it simply is unacceptable that they be allowed to do this, and some time, it will backfire on the distributors.

 

[Squidge]

As far as I'm aware, GPH do not have the source code to the 940 binary lump - only the binary, and it's licensed differently to the rest of the magiceyes stuff.

From what your saying, anyone who distributed a closed source module with a linux kernel would be breaking GPL? Which is clearly false. M.E are doing the same with mplayer - the 940 binary lump is optional.

 

[moxie]

Methinks Redeeman is talking out of his backside. Methinks Redeeman has gotten either the GPL or the nature of the aforementioned "binary lump" (or possibly both) around the back foot, as we say in swedish. That is, has misunderstood them. Methinks.

 

[Orkie]

From what your saying, anyone who distributed a closed source module with a linux kernel would be breaking GPL? Which is clearly false. M.E are doing the same with mplayer - the 940 binary lump is optional.

Don't tell the kernel people that

 

[EvilDragon]

You can try to sue them, but you won't have any success.
A law firm in Germany tried to do that, but as everything shipped with the gp2x that is under the GPL has its sourcecode released, there's no chance.

WHAT do you want to sue?
GPH doesn't have the old sourcecode (MagicEyes did the firmwares, and that's the reason GPH quit them), and the sourcecode for the 2.0.0 firmware is completely released, old versions are not anymore available in any binary form.

There's no GPL violation here from GPH.

and then if its impossible to get the source for it, they should face the consequences and have it rewritten (and then release source).

Errm - that's exactly what they did with FW 2.0.0
That's why we have all the GPL'ed sourcecode of that FW.

 

[Redeeman]

From what your saying, anyone who distributed a closed source module with a linux kernel would be breaking GPL? Which is clearly false. M.E are doing the same with mplayer - the 940 binary lump is optional.

actually it is, why do you think nvidia doesent do this? and ati? they are distributing a binary blob, and then some source to link it to the kernel, its actually the user who creates the actual kernel module, but any user is allowed to do whatever they want to gpl'ed work, all they must do is observe the gpl while redistributing.

so for GPH to distribute a kernel module in binary form that is not gpl, is a violation of the license.

@EvilDragon:
so are you saying that magiceyes created the binary blob, and then later decided to alter mplayer to use it? cause otherwise its stll a derived work..

you are not allowed to simply take a gpl'ed work, and then conveniently add a way for it to use your own binary blob, be it loaded to a second cpu or not

 

[pepone]

you are not allowed to simply take a gpl'ed work, and then conveniently add a way for it to use your own binary blob, be it loaded to a second cpu or not

I think linux is GPL, I also think their is plenty closedsource binary only modules for linux, and I also think that those module don't break any license.
That's the exact same thing here.

 

[Redeeman]

you are not allowed to simply take a gpl'ed work, and then conveniently add a way for it to use your own binary blob, be it loaded to a second cpu or not

I think linux is GPL, I also think their is plenty closedsource binary only modules for linux, and I also think that those module don't break any license.
That's the exact same thing here.

there are not plenty, but linux is gpl, but, a module can be "closed source" while being legal, while others can be illegal.

what makes nvidia and ati legal is that they dont actually distribute a derived work of the GPL, since they dont distribute a kernel module.

its the persons downloading nvidia and ati drivers that does this, by compiling it, and linking it together.

distributing as binary form, without the source is illegal, the GPL is quite simple.

 

[jmetal88]

you are not allowed to simply take a gpl'ed work, and then conveniently add a way for it to use your own binary blob, be it loaded to a second cpu or not

I think linux is GPL, I also think their is plenty closedsource binary only modules for linux, and I also think that those module don't break any license.
That's the exact same thing here.

there are not plenty, but linux is gpl, but, a module can be "closed source" while being legal, while others can be illegal.

what makes nvidia and ati legal is that they dont actually distribute a derived work of the GPL, since they dont distribute a kernel module.

its the persons downloading nvidia and ati drivers that does this, by compiling it, and linking it together.

distributing as binary form, without the source is illegal, the GPL is quite simple.

Is it just me, or do you seem to be the only person here who cares about this small technicality?

 

[Redeeman]

you are not allowed to simply take a gpl'ed work, and then conveniently add a way for it to use your own binary blob, be it loaded to a second cpu or not

I think linux is GPL, I also think their is plenty closedsource binary only modules for linux, and I also think that those module don't break any license.
That's the exact same thing here.

there are not plenty, but linux is gpl, but, a module can be "closed source" while being legal, while others can be illegal.

what makes nvidia and ati legal is that they dont actually distribute a derived work of the GPL, since they dont distribute a kernel module.

its the persons downloading nvidia and ati drivers that does this, by compiling it, and linking it together.

distributing as binary form, without the source is illegal, the GPL is quite simple.

Is it just me, or do you seem to be the only person here who cares about this small technicality?

its not only me, and its certainly no small technicality.

its as much a technicality, as whether i choose to go into a car dealer, gets in a car, and drives out, instead of going into the car dealer, pays for the car, and drives out. now its a single small step, but it makes a whole lot of difference.

i realise that alot of the gp2x users doesent care about linux or licenses or anything of the sort, but violating the license of gpled software is just as bad as that of proprietary, only difference is that the companies have lots of lawyers. but that doesent make it right.

to give another realworld example of how this is not a small technicality. its currently legal and possible in almost all countries to go out and buy the materials to create a bomb, though separately, and its entirely legal to sell these materials, however if the shop decides to compile it for you, they are in serious trouble, violating dozens of laws. can you see the parallells?

but no matter what, that is how the GPL is, no matter how ridicoules it may seem to some, its how the license is, and they had a choice about using works covered under that license.

 

[Mudi]

You argue that the license of some other company should not be put above the GPL, but why should the GPL be put above the license of another company?

I still have doubt that any license violation is still present at this point, whereas releasing source for the binary blob (that GPH probably doesn't have anyway) would definitely be a license violation.

 

[Redeeman]

you are right, releasing as gpl would also violate divx's license, which would be just as unfair to them, but as i suggested before, then the only thing they can do is negotiate with divx, or have it rewritten.

if you still have doubts about if a violation really exists, then go read the gpl, or call a lawyer with knowledge of the GPL, its really quite simple.

 

[Mudi]

OK, first off... I do not believe that the binary-blob that mplayer links to is a GPL violation. As I understand it, VLC Player and I believe even the x86 version of mplayer are linked against some binary codecs and no one has brought up serious issues with that.

Second, do we have confirmation that the 1.x firmwares had the binary blob statically linked? That might be considered an issue, but not one that I would think is worth pursuing.

 

[craigix]

GPH had a threat of a court case over mplayer before 2.0 and source was released, since then the case has been dropped and the people behind the case are happy with the current release and source code. I don't want to go into more details on a public forum as i'm not sure what is out in the open about that incident.

But anyway, Case closed.

 

[EvilDragon]

if you still have doubts about if a violation really exists, then go read the gpl, or call a lawyer with knowledge of the GPL, its really quite simple.

Well, given the fact that we had someone here in Germany trying to sue and I am from Germany, I read the GPL and talked to various lawyers (yes, even the ones who successfully sued someone else because of a GPL violation, they knew what they were talking about).

As said by craig, everything worked out and the devs are happy now.

Everything that is under the GPL has been released by GPH. There is no more violation.
According to the GPL, you have to release the sourcecode to each program that derived from a GPL'ed program. It has to be complete enough that you can recompile it and it does run.
In this case, this is the MPlayer and parts of the Linux that's being used by GPH.

You can recompile everything without any problems. The only thing you can NOT recompile is the binary blob - but that is NOT under the GPL. If you provide the binary blob, your own compiled MPlayer or Linux will run perfectly on your gp2x. No violation done.

Heck, imagine someone codes some program that relies on binary libraries (Windows DirectX, etc.) and releases under the GPL. Does he have to release the sourcecode of the binary libraries as well?
No. He can't and he doesn't have to.

 

[Redeeman]

if you still have doubts about if a violation really exists, then go read the gpl, or call a lawyer with knowledge of the GPL, its really quite simple.

Well, given the fact that we had someone here in Germany trying to sue and I am from Germany, I read the GPL and talked to various lawyers (yes, even the ones who successfully sued someone else because of a GPL violation, they knew what they were talking about).

As said by craig, everything worked out and the devs are happy now.

Everything that is under the GPL has been released by GPH. There is no more violation.
According to the GPL, you have to release the sourcecode to each program that derived from a GPL'ed program. It has to be complete enough that you can recompile it and it does run.
In this case, this is the MPlayer and parts of the Linux that's being used by GPH.

You can recompile everything without any problems. The only thing you can NOT recompile is the binary blob - but that is NOT under the GPL. If you provide the binary blob, your own compiled MPlayer or Linux will run perfectly on your gp2x. No violation done.

Heck, imagine someone codes some program that relies on binary libraries (Windows DirectX, etc.) and releases under the GPL. Does he have to release the sourcecode of the binary libraries as well?
No. He can't and he doesn't have to.

the directx thing i cannot answer with 100% actually, but i believe the gpl allows usage of the systems base things, which is also why linux has two sorts of symbol declarations, those who are internal things, and those who are standard OS interfaces.

 

[Mudi]

After some research: mplayer for x86 links to binary files for WMV, quicktime, and realmedia. mplayer for GP2X is just as legit legally as mplayer for x86.

 

[Alex.]

This pisses me off, who the hell would have sued GPH over this bullcrap? Are those people insane, do they relaly think that GPH delaying the release of sourcecode is the greatest evil in the world today? Do they really have nothing else driving their lives? This burns me, GPH is a small company, not some software behemoth stepping over licenses. They were brave enough to venture in the market with a new handheld that made thousands of users and developers happy and this is how they're repaid, with nerd lawsuits?

- Alex

 

[Redeeman]

After some research: mplayer for x86 links to binary files for WMV, quicktime, and realmedia. mplayer for GP2X is just as legit legally as mplayer for x86.

not true, mplayer plays wmv, quicktime and realmedia just fine without, however it offers the ability to load vfw, directshow, and proprietary api quicktime and realmedia dlls.. but it most certainly doesent link against it, and it certainly isnt required.

This pisses me off, who the hell would have sued GPH over this bullcrap? Are those people insane, do they relaly think that GPH delaying the release of sourcecode is the greatest evil in the world today? Do they really have nothing else driving their lives? This burns me, GPH is a small company, not some software behemoth stepping over licenses. They were brave enough to venture in the market with a new handheld that made thousands of users and developers happy and this is how they're repaid, with nerd lawsuits?

- Alex

so small companies may violate licenses, but huge companies may not? you seem to miss the point. just because you dont care anything about having the source for these things, some do. im sure you'd agree that its equally unacceptable for an economically poor person to steal a car as for a rich guy that lives in a castle

 

[shadohawk]

its as much a technicality, as whether i choose to go into a car dealer, gets in a car, and drives out, instead of going into the car dealer, pays for the car, and drives out. now its a single small step, but it makes a whole lot of difference.

You forgot to get in the car in the second scenario how did you drive it? ...


But being on topic....
http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735
It's old talk about kernel modules, but for the most part, since I am not looking at the source and have not been given an example of the linking you describe Redeeman I can't say I can see condemning them. I know this is just a forum and not a court of law, but I am just saying a bit more reference material from both sides would help. Right now, I am not sawyed in either direction, but I have a hint of leaning to no violation since from what I am understanding is that the mplayer devs are happy. But again, I don't have much more than here say evidence.

I just think that referenced "facts" would go a long way, but right now the arguments seem circular.