Mplayer Source...

[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.

They didn't purposely violate them, it was a delay and nothing more. The fact that certain people would go to such extremes as suing them really speaks pages about the fanaticism of some.

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

How can you compare stealing a car with slightly delaying the release of some bloody code? Stop taking things to such extremes. And yes, I do think that we should cut GPH some slack, because, as you said, they are a small company, and they have done us all a favour by releasing this niche product, the GP2X.

- Alex

 

[Mudi]

And we will never see any products like this again should GPH be put out of business due to a technicality in the GPL. I'm not saying that people who use GPL'd software shouldn't have to follow it, I'm saying that those who make attempts to follow it should not get in trouble for a technicality like this, it will make linux-based embedded products entirely unviable.

 

[Redeeman]

for anyone to distribute nongpl'ed kernel modules are illegal, lawyers with experience in the gpl will tell you this, and so will greg kroah hartmann, a linux kernel developer: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html

and so will any other kernel developer.

but that is not what im trying to have them stop, as its a mere technicality.

however its my understanding that back in time, it wasnt a kernel module, it was linked into mplayer.. now.. if this changed in >=1.4, i still got the gpl'ed mplayer with the gpl'ed blob, only that i didnt get the damn blobs source code when i asked for it, and even if its a technicality, its binding, they made the mistake, they have to face up to that.

but even further more, i believe the blob to be a derived work of mplayer. i think the blob was created to have mplayer use the second core, meaning its one work.

a vendor is NOT allowed to take a gpl'ed work, and then add the ability to load binary plugins, and then create a proprietary plugin for it to load, that is STILL a derived work.

 

[EvilDragon]

however its my understanding that back in time, it wasnt a kernel module, it was linked into mplayer.. now.. if this changed in >=1.4, i still got the gpl'ed mplayer with the gpl'ed blob, only that i didnt get the damn blobs source code when i asked for it, and even if its a technicality, its binding, they made the mistake, they have to face up to that.

Okay... LAST TIME... as you simply don't seem to understand.
I don't even know how it has been done with pre 2.0.0, but... THEY DON'T HAVE THE SOURCECODE AND THEREFORE THEY CANNOT RELEASE IT!

There WAS a GPL case already, it has been solved (no more binaries of non-sourcecode-software is being distributed).

And to say it in the words of Greg Kroah Hartmann:

"If you have legal questions about license issues, talk to a lawyer, never bring it up on a public mailing list like linux-kernel, which only has programmers. To ask programmers to give legal rulings, in public, is the same as asking us for medical advice. It doesn't make sense at all."

So, any problems? Talk to your lawyer. We did. GPH did. Both told me, everything's fine (I don't know if the blob is even a kernel module or some other binary stuff).
But please don't try to convince anybody here at the board as nobody can help you here. Nobody from GPH is here.

Case closed.

 

[trooper]

for anyone to distribute nongpl'ed kernel modules are illegal, lawyers with experience in the gpl will tell you this, and so will greg kroah hartmann, a linux kernel developer: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html

and so will any other kernel developer.

but that is not what im trying to have them stop, as its a mere technicality.

however its my understanding that back in time, it wasnt a kernel module, it was linked into mplayer.. now.. if this changed in >=1.4, i still got the gpl'ed mplayer with the gpl'ed blob, only that i didnt get the damn blobs source code when i asked for it, and even if its a technicality, its binding, they made the mistake, they have to face up to that.

but even further more, i believe the blob to be a derived work of mplayer. i think the blob was created to have mplayer use the second core, meaning its one work.

a vendor is NOT allowed to take a gpl'ed work, and then add the ability to load binary plugins, and then create a proprietary plugin for it to load, that is STILL a derived work.

i believe

i think

Hard facts then. :rolleyes:

Trooper