GP2X [rant] Why Isn't Gph Embracing The Dev Community?

[bjimba]

bjimba: not sure... I haven't seen any of the mplayer source.. so i take it that it is also not released yet. If GPH are aiming for compliance like we are led to believe they are, then we should see the modified mplayer source soon too... but I wouldn't hold my breath.

​

Here's where everyone in the supply chain better be really careful. The mplayer developers really don't like folks taking their code without complying with the license, and very well may try to shut down both GPH and the resellers.

 

[timbobsteve]

Hmmm I hope not... that would be bad. It would be more productive and beneficial if they just took the busybox approached (e.g. The Hall of Shame)... it is a nice peacefull way to protest (like my sig )

 

[peter.stegemann]

Hmmm I hope not... that would be bad. It would be more productive and beneficial if they just took the busybox approached (e.g. The Hall of Shame)... it is a nice peacefull way to protest (like my sig )

​

Just that close of noone of the buyers of the gp2x would care about that hall of shame. Let's face it - most people like free software because they don't have to pay for it. They don't care about the free software vision, they don't care about the authors and they don't care about that virtual hall.

I know very well why I stopped hacking the nights trough to publish software for the benefit of the "community"...

 

[DaveC]

We already have our own open-source SD code that is far more reliable than the stuff GPH/Dignsys use

Rob Brown wrote it from the ground up, and people in #gp2xdev helped to test it, provide debug info etc, and generally make it very compatible.

​

Will it support 4 gig cards ? (please say yes )

 

[DaveC]

Here's where everyone in the supply chain better be really careful.  The mplayer developers really don't like folks taking their code without complying with the license, and very well may try to shut down both GPH and the resellers.

​

Isn't it too late? Ever since some caffeine crazed, nostrils flaring, Gpl zealot jumped the gun and got this slashdotted, It has already spread all over the 'net like dodgy porn

 

[Hanz™]

Here's where everyone in the supply chain better be really careful. The mplayer developers really don't like folks taking their code without complying with the license, and very well may try to shut down both GPH and the resellers.

​

Isn't it too late? Ever since some caffeine crazed, nostrils flaring, Gpl zealot jumped the gun and got this slashdotted, It has already spread all over the 'net like dodgy porn

​

Wow, "get a grip" DaveC, you are acting as if they don't have a right, how would you feel if some work you had spent ages on was stolen from you (and little change made), you were given no mention in it, and the licence you had made for people to abide to was not followed. And then to top it off, they sell it!

 

[bjimba]

Isn't it too late? Ever since some caffeine crazed, nostrils flaring, Gpl zealot jumped the gun and got this slashdotted, It has already spread all over the 'net like dodgy porn

It's too late because no one in the supply chain -- Dignsys, GPH, or the vendors -- bothered to address licensing issues prior to release.

Actually, even the mplayer developers would prefer eventual compliance. I'm just pointing out that they are less liberal in their interpretation of the word eventual.

As far as "jumping the gun", the gun was fired at the time of initial release. Waiting two months before making this public to a wider audience is not unreasonable.

Oh, and you and certain others here can take as many personal shots at me as you like. I'd prefer that you didn't, since it serves no useful purpose. I will do my best not to respond in kind. I do understand your points. I strongly disagree with the policy-of-appeasement approach you advocate, though.

 

[evening2005]

Isn't it too late? Ever since some caffeine crazed, nostrils flaring, Gpl zealot jumped the gun and got this slashdotted, It has already spread all over the 'net like dodgy porn

It's too late because no one in the supply chain -- Dignsys, GPH, or the vendors -- bothered to address licensing issues prior to release.

Actually, even the mplayer developers would prefer eventual compliance. I'm just pointing out that they are less liberal in their interpretation of the word eventual.

As far as "jumping the gun", the gun was fired at the time of initial release. Waiting two months before making this public to a wider audience is not unreasonable.

Oh, and you and certain others here can take as many personal shots at me as you like. I'd prefer that you didn't, since it serves no useful purpose. I will do my best not to respond in kind. I do understand your points. I strongly disagree with the policy-of-appeasement approach you advocate, though.

​

I just wanted to point out that I agree completely with your approach, bjimba. I thought your blog post was reasonable, as was the story submission to Slashdot. This is 100% on-topic here and 100% on-topic at Slashdot.

Andrew

 

[Mr.Jabberwocky]

Just that close of noone of the buyers of the gp2x would care about that hall of shame. Let's face it - most people like free software because they don't have to pay for it. They don't care about the free software vision, they don't care about the authors and they don't care about that virtual hall.

I know very well why I stopped hacking the nights trough to publish software for the benefit of the "community"...

​

I know where you are coming from. If as much energy was spent on supporting our devs as has been wasted on this topic the community would be a much better place.

Isn't it too late? Ever since some caffeine crazed, nostrils flaring, Gpl zealot jumped the gun and got this slashdotted, It has already spread all over the 'net like dodgy porn

​

Beautiful, I want to quote this in my sig.

 

[yaustar]

I just wanted to point out that I agree completely with your approach, bjimba. I thought your blog post was reasonable, as was the story submission to Slashdot. This is 100% on-topic here and 100% on-topic at Slashdot.

Andrew

​

The blog post was reasonable, the story on slashdot was okay but the response however was not, the email senders should took the time to research and talk to the people trying to get the source released, they should have realised that something was being done rather then 'jumping the gun' and sending emails to people who have no power to release the source (Craigx DJWillis etc) yet trying their hardest to get GPH/DS to comply.

 

[evening2005]

I just wanted to point out that I agree completely with your approach, bjimba. I thought your blog post was reasonable, as was the story submission to Slashdot. This is 100% on-topic here and 100% on-topic at Slashdot.

Andrew

​

The blog post was reasonable, the story on slashdot was okay but the response however was not, the email senders should took the time to research and talk to the people trying to get the source released, they should have realised that something was being done rather then 'jumping the gun' and sending emails to people who have no power to release the source (Craigx DJWillis etc) yet trying their hardest to get GPH/DS to comply.

​

Of course, everybody should take more time to think before writing emails or forum posts, but you can't blame bjimba or other people here for what random Slashdotters do, can you?

 

[mongolito404]

If as much energy was spent on supporting our devs as has been wasted on this topic the community would be a much better place.

So, where else did you put your energy to support devs. lately ? I mostly see posts from you in GPL related threads. Maybe it's because you think your point matters... while GPL supporters one does not.

 

[thebohemian]

How would developers feel about that? If GPH ripped off your contributions to Open2X and gave you no credit, and only made source releases of the official kernel when they found it convient, and only released the parts they found convient to release, would you feel a bit pissed on?

​

It is my understanding that GPH/DigniSys will comply with the GNU GPL and I think no author will feel bad about this because sharing stuff is the base idea of software freedom.

 

[Epicenter]

How would developers feel about that? If GPH ripped off your contributions to Open2X and gave you no credit, and only made source releases of the official kernel when they found it convient, and only released the parts they found convient to release, would you feel a bit pissed on?

​

It is my understanding that GPH/DigniSys will comply with the GNU GPL and I think no author will feel bad about this because sharing stuff is the base idea of software freedom.

​

So .. you think that because the GPL requires them to release the source that they WILL? That's naive. Hell, if I remember the GPL well enough, you can take any GPL'ed code and make it into a commercial product that is NOT open source and that you charge money for! Either way, it'll be hard to 'make' a tiny company in Korea live up to its licensing expectations. That's an awfully idealistic statement to say they WILL and that they won't MIND because they are out to make money, not to support a bustling homebrew development community-- the guys at the GP2x.co.uk end of things seem to want homebrew to take off big-time, but I don't see that kind of focus being the primary concern at GPH. So it's not going to be top-priority for GPH to release any sort of source code to us.

However, if Craig and friends at gp2x.co.uk are persistent enough I do think we'll at least get firmware that isn't half-broken and lets us use things like the blitter properly-- GPH does NOT Have anything to benefit from games being unable to properly use the hardware.

 

[thebohemian]

That's an awfully idealistic statement to say they WILL and that they won't MIND because they are out to make money, not to support a bustling homebrew development community--

You are free to regard my opinion as idealistic or whathever. However not complying with the GNU GPL is a breach of the law and I dont think that GPH/DS will do this for a long time. Furthermore I am sure you noticed how upset people are because of the current situation.

And then there a other cases were the GPL was enforced successfully: gpl-violations.org

My opinion about the whole story may be a bit unclear because of my personal convictions. Here is how I see it:
- I am a clear supporter of software freedom
- An author's distribution policy should be respected (whether it is free software or not)
- GPH/DS are acting against the law
- GPH/DS should change their behavior soon
- enforcement should be the last option as it will spoil the relationship between the community and GPH

Last but not least: Since people have vastly different opinions about the GPL, this incompliance story has the power to break the community in half. The one who will be called "GPL nuts/extremists/..." and the others who refuse to make up their mind about copyright in the digital age.

IMHO people should realize that we are trying to solve a common problem and should not work against each other.

 

[Ravnos]

Hell, if I remember the GPL well enough, you can take any GPL'ed code and make it into a commercial product that is NOT open source and that you charge money for!

​

You need to go re-read the GPL if you think that's the case. There are free software licenses that function in that manner (the BSD license is the first one that comes to mind) but the GPL most certainly does not.

 

[Dingo_aus]

Interesting link thebohemian.

Maybe if GPH/DS had read reports like this one:
http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fo...injunction.html

We wouldn't have a problem.

Worrying and comforting at the same time:
"
As a result of this violation, the Munich district court has granted a
preliminary injunction against Fortinet Ltd., banning them from further
distribution of their products until they are in compliance with the GNU GPL
conditions.
"

EDIT: Here is a great link on it all
http://www.wasabisystems.com/gpl/index.html

 

[DijiTao]

Am I the only person who finds it odd that GPH/Dig were so careful about the WMV licensee as to not include support for WMV files despite Mplayer being perfectly capable of playing WMV of version 8 and lower? How do you blatantly ignore the player’s licensee (Mplayer / GPL) and then be so careful about the licensee issues revolving around what types of files it plays?

 

[gfoot]

Can MPlayer play wmv files on non-x86 processors? I thought a lot of that stuff was due to using binary codecs...

 

[DijiTao]

Only WMV v9 is limited to x86 because of binary codecs. WMV v8 and less has been reverse-engineered in FFMpeg. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ffmpeg)