Hanz™
FIGHT THE POWER! :D
Because the current one has missing features. And when compiled is different from the current kernel?!! *obvious*
Last edited by a moderator:
Slashdot Once More...
- Thread starter Tobriand
- Start date
skeezix
Internal Development
The GPL is actually fairly clear and easy to understand, unlike most legalese documents around; go read it.. its like one page long
In essence.. if you take some PGL code, and modify it, you've got to keep the GPL and let out the source.. so someone else can build it. If you make a loadable device driver, it can be closed source, since it is not part of the kernel.. it is merely loaded, like any other application. It gets blurry at times, but in general it is quite easy --
GPH and Digisys didnt' wrtite the Linux kernel; thousands of people did; GPH and digisys added to it, and thus must release the source.. they're in violation of license as is, for 'stealing' the code and not following the rules they agreed to.
(kernel, mplayer, etc.)
jeff
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr.Jabberwocky
Bloke with a brick on his head
What features are missing ? Are you sure the missing features are not just utilities that they have not packaged with it ? In what way is it different ? One binary looks much the same as another to me. Is it a different size ? Have you done a byte by byte comparison ? Are you sure you used the same compiler switches they used ? It is not obvious to me at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
Let me, for a moment describe what we have and what the current firmware is/has:
We have a incomplete/alpha version of the source tree to build the kernel, (ATM it may not even compile? someone check!)
GPH/Digisys HAS modified some Kernel code to fix the LCD problems (AFAIK the LCD drivers ARE apart of the Kernel and not modules)
They have also modified the SDL library(Also GPL/LGPL) to have TV output.
MPlayer has ALSO been modified (GPL), to use the sceond processor/tweaks(?).
They don't have to release the source for their propretary menu app (unless it was made with GPL code...).
BUT the other 3 pieces of software are fair game for a source release.
The only thing I think will/may cause trouble is the SD/MMC drivers, that MAY NEVER see source release due to the way the Secure Digital licence works...If they see OpenSource code, you also see their lawyers... so that could be an issue as well.
Disclaimer:
I am not a GP2X developer, lawyer, or even that knowledgeable about GPL...so I could be wrong.
We have a incomplete/alpha version of the source tree to build the kernel, (ATM it may not even compile? someone check!)
GPH/Digisys HAS modified some Kernel code to fix the LCD problems (AFAIK the LCD drivers ARE apart of the Kernel and not modules)
They have also modified the SDL library(Also GPL/LGPL) to have TV output.
MPlayer has ALSO been modified (GPL), to use the sceond processor/tweaks(?).
They don't have to release the source for their propretary menu app (unless it was made with GPL code...).
BUT the other 3 pieces of software are fair game for a source release.
The only thing I think will/may cause trouble is the SD/MMC drivers, that MAY NEVER see source release due to the way the Secure Digital licence works...If they see OpenSource code, you also see their lawyers... so that could be an issue as well.
Disclaimer:
I am not a GP2X developer, lawyer, or even that knowledgeable about GPL...so I could be wrong.
The trouble is when it comes to law and the GPL you're on shakey grounds, the GPL has only had a few minor isolated tests in courts and is by no means solid. For one thing it has vague wording, huge no-no in legal documents. The biggest problem however is the very nature of copyright law.
Copyright law pretty much everywhere states that you must actively seek to protect you copyright. How can you say you're protecting your copyright when the code is distributed so freely?
In terms of compliance however, they've been slow in releasing code but they have released code and will have promised to release code in the future. That is complying FULLY with the GPL. As I've said before, the GPL doesn't require a time frame, nor does it require the code to be fully available at a public location. As long as they're responding to requests for code and are making efforts to get it online, even if they are lagging quite a bit (here's where a nice piece of vague wording comes into play) they are still in compliance.
Last edited by a moderator:
mongolito404
Member
IANAL but I think "actively seek to protect" applies to trademark not copyright.
Last edited by a moderator:
mongolito404
Member
And no, copyright on GPL licensed code is not explicitly given away.http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html said:
Last edited by a moderator:
shrubberyrobbery
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2005
- Messages
- 174
exactly. this isn't about copyright. gah!!! how many more times?
I suppose its a subtle difference between copyright, which is ownership rights, and the gpl which is about protected freedom rights, ie: the protection AGAINST ownership, but really, its not THAT hard to understand.
abigsmurf, are you some kind of anti-GPL secret agent or something? you just seem to keep on steering this away from any productive discussion. sorry, man - i'm getting grouchy. i should just go get some sleep!
Last edited by a moderator:
I had some pretty good contact with GPH until I mentioned GPL <_< (read releasing the required source code). I was friendly and only tried to explain then that (besides the fact that it is a legal requirement (and based on a good principal)) it is beneficial for them as well. (And that they only have to release the GPL covered software.)
OrR
Corporate games suck.
Guys, you are talking about all the wrong issues!
Can someone expand on this further and tell me exactly:
-Which sources have supposedly been MODIFIED since the last source code release and need updating?
-Which sources have been MISSING in the release and need to be included?
-What else needs to be FIXED about the source code release?
-What other things/actions are required to comply with the GPL?
We need to communicate what we want, else there is no chance that we'll get it. Sure, we can threaten them with driving them out of business but it's not something we actually want. It's at best a last ressort if we can't get this solved in any other way. But there are other ways.
Thanks for starting!
Can someone expand on this further and tell me exactly:-Which sources have supposedly been MODIFIED since the last source code release and need updating?
-Which sources have been MISSING in the release and need to be included?
-What else needs to be FIXED about the source code release?
-What other things/actions are required to comply with the GPL?
We need to communicate what we want, else there is no chance that we'll get it. Sure, we can threaten them with driving them out of business but it's not something we actually want. It's at best a last ressort if we can't get this solved in any other way. But there are other ways.
Last edited by a moderator:
judge0
Member
We need them because we have not yet received the U-Boot source code, just the code used for the dev kits.
Again, we only have HALF the required source code. The U-Boot code is MUCH more important than the kernel code.
Guys, you are talking about all the wrong issues!
Thanks for starting!
-Which sources have supposedly been MODIFIED since the last source code release and need updating?
-Which sources have been MISSING in the release and need to be included?
-What else needs to be FIXED about the source code release?
-What other things/actions are required to comply with the GPL?
We need to communicate what we want, else there is no chance that we'll get it. Sure, we can threaten them with driving them out of business but it's not something we actually want. It's at best a last ressort if we can't get this solved in any other way. But there are other ways.
Whatever has been modified is kind of irrelevant at this point. The most crucial piece of software on this system is also GPL/LGPL and it has never been released.
It's also what is causing a lot of the problems with the system.
ie. The JFFS2 filesystem that is initiated with U-Boot is the primary cuplrit behind the 30 second boot up time. It's also a JOURNALLED file system, which means the NAND is being read and written to constantly during up-time. EXT2 would be a much smarter choice for both boot time and NAND life span.
Without the proper U-Boot source, you can have the most efficiently compiled kernel AND STILL HAVE A 22 SECOND BOOT DELAY. This information comes from www.denx.de, the website for the makers of U-Boot.
I'd hazard a guess that the spontaneous brickings are also a problem with an improperly compiled U-Boot. That source as well as the patches DignSys and GPH applied to it are what will make this a truly successful system .... or not.
I find any mention of attempts to correct the systems shortcomings by requesting the source for the kernel, filesystem and U-Boot as "whinging" VERY offensive.
Last edited by a moderator:
nickspoon
vultum stultum habes
Have GPH been BusyBox shamed yet?
Random people sending patronising or threatening emails really isn't productive either it just pisses the people receiving them off and eliminates any semblence of goodwill they may have. Reading the slashdot posts it seems people are phoning craig to 'voice their opinions' too (as well as encouraging other to call their suppliers). Sorry this is hysteria plain and simple and it's not going to get anywhere.
We've got the response from the creators of the firmware and they've said they're currently trying to set up a system for monthly updates of the firmware. Look at the code they've currently got on their site, there's over 100megs of it for a single version! Considering how many people would download this, their hosting would no way allow them for hundreds of gigs of bandwidth every week. I don't think it's too much to ask to give them a chance of organising a way of distributing the source that bankrupting themselves with bandwidth costs.
Why am I so cynical about the GPL? Because of this thread!
Last edited by a moderator:
The GPL was drafted by much better lawyers than you and I, and has been through a lot difficult cases than this one.
It is not shaky, it is very clever. It is a licence which gives you certain rights to use copyrighted code. If you reject the terms of that licence, you are obliged to comply with the standard copyright laws which are much more restrictive of your rights. If GPH does not accept the GPL terms, they have NO right to use the copyrighted code in the Linux kernel without agreeing specific terms with ALL the copyright-holders (authors) of that code.
There is no requirement to defend your copyright - you're thinking of trademarks. Under the Berne Convention, everything written is automatically copyrighted from whenever it is put in fixed form, and you'll find that every linux module includes quite clear copyright statements, so there can be no confusion on that score!
Have a read of the GPL and especially the preamble -- it's a very accessible document that explains a lot of this stuff.
Last edited by a moderator:
evening2005
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2005
- Messages
- 137
Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. GPLed code is copyrighted. Just read the GPL.
Last edited by a moderator:
shrubberyrobbery
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2005
- Messages
- 174
i'm not even going to leave any of your post in the quote. EVERYTHING you just said has ALREADY been covered or shown to be invalid by this thread, for example they've been offered free bandwith.
look, stop it. its just not funny anymore.
Last edited by a moderator:
evening2005
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2005
- Messages
- 137
Sorry, but this is nonsense on two counts: (1) Eben Moglen is on record as saying that the GPL doesn't get tested in court because it is water proof. He makes a very convincing case for this which is based on the fact that with the GPL you have more rights than for typical copyright licences. Search for the phrase "in court" in This article by Eben Moglen. (2) There is nothing vague about the terms of the GPL. The fact that you don't understand it doesn't make it vague or unenforceable.
Nonsense. If you create something that is copyrightable, you own the copyright, even if you haven't written your name on it. Note that if you don't put your name on it, you might have problems proving that you created it, but you don't need to "actively seek to protect your copyright". You are thinking of trademarks. This is a red herring, however. All of this code is protected under the GPL and GPH are in breach.
Wrong again, I'm afraid. What they have released does not match even the first version of the firmware, let alone the subsequent ones they have released. The stuff about time limits is a red herring. They have to offer to provided the source and they have to provide it if it is requested. They are not doing this and they are in breach of copyright. Full stop.
You know, you're posting stuff about the GPL up and down this board but it is pretty clear that you don't have the first idea what is in it. You really should read it as it is incredibly clear. For a watertight legal document, it really is an easy read.
Last edited by a moderator:
The times it's been tested are in small courts against small companies and naturally if there's a chance of validifying the GPL, you get teams of expert lawyers flown in to fight against which they stand little chance.
As these have been small cases, they've been handled by small courts with judges who aren't fit for the complexities of copyright and software law. http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback...L3_20040903.pdf is a good example of how one of the 'victories' was down to suspect decisions by the judge (and also highlights some of the failings of the GPL under German law).
I'd be willing to bet there are a good number of countries where the GPL isn't valid under their interpretation of copyright law (just like pretty much every single EULA is illegal under UK law).
The first case that will truely set a precedent of the validity of the GPL (under US law) will be SCO vs IBM. Provided IBM don't bankrupt the company with legal costs (although no doubt MS will prop them up), it will be the first high profile test of the overall concept of the GPL. If SCO win, the GPL will be crippled and Linux will become the victim of a feeding frenzy.
Last edited by a moderator:
OrR
Corporate games suck.
Well, if the GPL isn't valid, that means you have got no legal right to distribute the code or binaries at all since they are protected under copyright law.
