Slashdot Once More...

[slygamer]

There will most likely be penalty clauses in the contract for early withdrawal or the such. Either way, its lose lose. It just depends which is the lesser of two evils.

 

[xafier]

I'm sure they could find a loophole out of the contract due to the contractors not sticking to international laws

 

[icurafu]

Aargh! not again!!!

OK, the first time I sided with them, but now they're just being stupid :angry:

They *know* what the deal is now, my advice to them is to get the latest source from dignsys, and cancel the contract with them. There are plenty of people right here that can take that source and fix all the remaining bugs. Sheesh.

​

That would be so funny.....

"Hello Guys, we just cancelled our contract with dignsys and now we want you guys to release the firmware. Here is the source. We will send out peanuts to those who contribute greatly to the firmware."

 

[barnesy]

That does sound funny, but if they did that, they'd help the open2x project a lot, and it's not as if anyone on the open2x project is expecting money from GPH for doing it.

 

[Muncher666]

I'm sure they could find a loophole out of the contract due to the contractors not sticking to international laws

​

I may be wrong, but I suspect that GPH are still nonetheless responsible, even if Dignsys don't comply GPH are still legally responsible.

CraigX: Say WHAT?? Is Kyutae a GPH or Dignsys guy? That seems to throw all of the speculation out the door, and suggest that someone really doesn't give a crap..

Allan.

 

[Hanz™]

[02:12] craigix@com: i think i have found a korean translation of the GPL, do you want to read it?
[02:13] Kyutae: I don't want to.

​

Well there it is plain for all to see. *shakeshead*

 

[torpor]

the solution to this problem is simple: continue the Open2X effort, route around the problem, continue developing the open code that we do have in such a way that it results in more/better/greater features ..

the whole 'chinese-clone' issue is a problem, and we have to respect that: we can do so by only contributing to GPH's public and open efforts, and not working on clone makers stuff.. GPH can help us with this by giving us a way of confirming that we are running on GPH-made hardware, but it will only be worthwhile to us open source coders to do such a thing, if in fact there is open cooperation from GPH in the first place ..

 

[Hanz™]

the solution to this problem is simple: continue the Open2X effort, route around the problem, continue developing the open code that we do have in such a way that it results in more/better/greater features ..

the whole 'chinese-clone' issue is a problem, and we have to respect that: we can do so by only contributing to GPH's public and open efforts, and not working on clone makers stuff.. GPH can help us with this by giving us a way of confirming that we are running on GPH-made hardware, but it will only be worthwhile to us open source coders to do such a thing, if in fact there is open cooperation from GPH in the first place ..

​

In my opinion they are just as bad as the Chinese clone workers, they are profitting from other peoples effort.

I think it will be very bad, if later on when Open2X is more developed, if they just stole the code and gave no thanks I could see a lot of very disgruntled devs, and I don't think they wouldn't do this. It would be very bad for the community.

 

[saboteur]

I think it will be very bad, if later on when Open2X is more developed, if they just stole the code and gave no thanks I could see a lot of very disgruntled possibly leaving devs, and I don't think they wouldn't do this.

Simple - Set up a company and sell open2X. when u buy it u get the source etc. That way GPH or others can't just nick it.

Cheers

 

[Hanz™]

I think it will be very bad, if later on when Open2X is more developed, if they just stole the code and gave no thanks I could see a lot of very disgruntled possibly leaving devs, and I don't think they wouldn't do this.

Simple - Set up a company and sell open2X. when u buy it u get the source etc. That way GPH or others can't just nick it.

Cheers

​

I don't think that is the point. *shakeshead*

 

[Muncher666]

I think it will be very bad, if later on when Open2X is more developed, if they just stole the code and gave no thanks I could see a lot of very disgruntled possibly leaving devs, and I don't think they wouldn't do this.

Simple - Set up a company and sell open2X. when u buy it u get the source etc. That way GPH or others can't just nick it.

Cheers

​

But that means we're having to pay for it. We could have an agreement or checking system that basically prevents GPH people from downloading the program/source, though.

Allan.

 

[Paradox]

From what I understand, they dont want to be cloned by the Chinese.

​

even if another company did clone the gp2x, so what? who's going to buy it? the gp2x already has a big and well established community here, and on other forums, from the gp32.

 

[Eolair]

[02:12] craigix@com: i think i have found a korean translation of the GPL, do you want to read it?
[02:13] Kyutae: I don't want to.

​

:lol:

 

[Paradox]

[02:12] craigix@com: i think i have found a korean translation of the GPL, do you want to read it?
[02:13] Kyutae: I don't want to.

​

:lol:

​

so basically, until devs get the source, we can say goodbye to custom firmwares that adds new features to the core of the 2X, only "external" programs?


example: someone wanted to add new features to the file explorer, like rename, copy, etc, but they cant without the source, only an external file explorer which is ran from game/utility menu or something?

 

[Captainbubby]

Actually I don't understand Craigix's post there, who is Kyutae?

 

[Muncher666]

I took the initiative and sent an email to Dignsys. I basically gave them a brief gpl rundown, and asked them very nicely for the source code. Here is the cryptic response it appropriated.

"Dear Sir.

DIGNSYS open all of kernel source for GP2X on our web site as follow GPL.
I guess, sombody talking the source that opend on our website was old one.
but, this is the same source code that release the GP2X in that time.
Then, why are you talk about violation of GPL ?
We are follow the GPL, and open the kernel that we have.

The update job will be done every month or two month.
because, we do not have our own server, we must request to company who have server to update.

We have plan to update newer version of Kernel after fix bugs.
But, The firmware still have bugs, and we spend time to fix the bugs only."

So if someone can translate this, and I'm serious, I'm confused - I'll respond.

Allan.

 

[AcidiC]

I think that they are either

A) Totally disregarding you

B ) Will only release the source when it's complete?

Really confused me as well lol.

 

[Muncher666]

I suspect the latter is the case, but this is the most annoying thing. However, they do seem to be worried about violating GPL, which is promising. I don't think they are disregarding me - perhaps the source is available on the korean website? I'm sending a message asking if this is the case.

Allan.

 

[AcidiC]

We are follow the GPL, and open the kernel that we have.

The update job will be done every month or two month.
because, we do not have our own server, we must request to company who have server to update.

We have plan to update newer version of Kernel after fix bugs.
But, The firmware still have bugs, and we spend time to fix the bugs only

Wait... I think they mean that they can only update their "job" every month, and right now they want to fix the bugs before releasing the kernel; which means it could take 2 months at the very least. Hmm... I have no idea :lol:

 

[Tobriand]

I took the initiative and sent an email to Dignsys. I basically gave them a brief gpl rundown, and asked them very nicely for the source code. Here is the cryptic response it appropriated.

"Dear Sir.

DIGNSYS open all of kernel source for GP2X on our web site as follow GPL.
I guess, sombody talking the source that opend on our website was old one.
but, this is the same source code that release the GP2X in that time.
Then, why are you talk about violation of GPL ?
We are follow the GPL, and open the kernel that we have.

The update job will be done every month or two month.
because, we do not have our own server, we must request to company who have server to update.

We have plan to update newer version of Kernel after fix bugs.
But, The firmware still have bugs, and we spend time to fix the bugs only."

So if someone can translate this, and I'm serious, I'm confused - I'll respond.

Allan.

​

My attempted interpretation - take with as much salt as you think it warrants:

Dear Sir,

DIGNSYS has already opened the source for the GP2x, and it is available on our website. If you are concerned that the source is old, then you needn't be - it is the same source that we released with the GP2x [at release of the 1.0.0 alpha firmware the first units shipped with?]. As such, we do not understand why you are saying that we have violated the GPL. We are, in fact, following the GPL, and have released the Kernel source code that we have [ready for release].

We will be updating the source on our web-page every couple of months. The reason we aren't going to do so more often is simply that we don't own the server, so it is a lot of hassle to get the people who do own it to do the update.

We are currently planning to update the kernel [source] after we have fixed the bugs currently present in it. However, at present, we're spending all our time on the fixing bugs, rather than going through the hassle of updating the source itself.

Personally, I get the impression from that that they do not realise it is supposed to be with every released binary that the source gets released, but I have made some assumptions (the bits in square brackets).