Slashdot Once More...

[abigsmurf]

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.

<snip>

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.

​

Yeah right, they're gonna trust their business on someone who's just come out of the blue and said "sure, I'll let you use potentially thousands of dollars of bandwidth free of charge".

If your boiler broke down and some random stranger showed up on your doorstep and offered to fit a new one free of charge would you even let him in your house?

 

[shrubberyrobbery]

thanks to evening2005 for re-clarifying some of the issues.

I can't be bothered with all this GPL stuff to be honest.

​

abigsmurf, in light of the previous few posts that statement no longer stands up to scrutiny. you seem to have a lot of info on the subject, and it seems to contradict a lot of other peoples' info. plus you're selectively ignoring each issue in order to counter-argue each other issue.

what exactly is your agenda?

 

[abigsmurf]

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.

​

fine then mr expert. Article 3b. of the GPL

What time frame does it say to allow for once someone has agreed to provide the source for him to deliver it?

Thats right IT DOESN'T GIVE ONE, provided he's agreed to give out the source and he's making a resonable effort , it's not specified how long it should take to provide the code. That's what I'm talking about when I call the GPL vague.

 

[evening2005]

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.

​

fine then mr expert. Article 3b. of the GPL

What time frame does it say to allow for once someone has agreed to provide the source for him to deliver it?

Thats right IT DOESN'T GIVE ONE, provided he's agreed to give out the source and he's making a resonable effort , it's not specified how long it should take to provide the code. That's what I'm talking about when I call the GPL vague.

​

But this "vagueness", as you put it has been approved by lawyers. Clearly it's an acceptable legal document - you say yourself that it has not been tested in court and I posted a link to Eben Moglen's explanation of why the GPL has not been tested in court: because nobody dares to try it on. You clearly couldn't be bothered to read the article, so let me reproduce the relevant section here:

Despite the FUD, as a copyright license the GPL is absolutely solid. That's why I've been able to enforce it dozens of times over nearly ten years, without ever going to court.

Meanwhile, much murmuring has been going on in recent months to the supposed effect that the absence of judicial enforcement, in US or other courts, somehow demonstrates that there is something wrong with the GPL, that its unusual policy goal is implemented in a technically indefensible way, or that the Free Software Foundation, which authors the license, is afraid of testing it in court. Precisely the reverse is true. We do not find ourselves taking the GPL to court because no one has yet been willing to risk contesting it with us there.

This is taken from "Enforcing the GPL", by Eben Moglen

I was harsh in my previous message, but the point remains; you're posting lots of stuff on the board which is demonstrably idiotic. For example, read the Moglen article in its entirety - it is extremely interesting and illuminating. Next time you can convince someone who hasn't read up on this stuff of what the GPL implies. Even if you don't want to read the article, I reiterate my point: The GPL is a watertight copyright licence. It is effectively unchallengeable in court, because it grants more rights than a typical copyright licence. In other words, releasing software under the GPL grants other people more rights than they would have if you removed the licence. To put it even more simply, if GPH was taken to court and argued that the GPL was not a valid licence, they would lose the right to sell the GP2X entirely, because it is only the GPL which allows them to distribute the Linux kernel. In over a decade, nobody has been willing to stand up in court and argue against the GPL; to do so would be idiotic.

 

[abigsmurf]

But this "vagueness", as you put it has been approved by lawyers. Clearly it's an acceptable legal document - you say yourself that it has not been tested in court and I posted a link to Eben Moglen's explanation of why the GPL has not been tested in court: because nobody dares to try it on. You clearly couldn't be bothered to read the article, so let me reproduce the relevant section here:
Despite the FUD, as a copyright license the GPL is absolutely solid. That's why I've been able to enforce it dozens of times over nearly ten years, without ever going to court.
I was harsh in my previous message, but the point remains; you're posting lots of stuff on the board which is demonstrably idiotic. For example, read the Moglen article in its entirety - it is extremely interesting and illuminating. Next time you can convince someone who hasn't read up on this stuff of what the GPL implies. Even if you don't want to read the article, I reiterate my point: The GPL is a watertight copyright licence. It is effectively unchallengeable in court, because it grants more rights than a typical copyright licence. In other words, releasing software under the GPL grants other people more rights than they would have if you removed the licence. To put it even more simply, if GPH was taken to court and argued that the GPL was not a valid licence, they would lose the right to sell the GP2X entirely, because it is only the GPL which allows them to distribute the Linux kernel. In over a decade, nobody has been willing to stand up in court and argue against the GPL; to do so would be idiotic.

​

SCO seem to be doing a good just of challenging the validity of the GPL in court (yes I know it's about potentially copyrighted code in linux but if you follow the case, they have challenged the GPL and they weren't struck down)

You also didn't address my point about the timescale in the providing of source and the fact that the GPL doesn't mention one at all.

 

[Series-8]

I don't know why people say the GPL is vauge or whatever...

Its elementarily simple, short, and to the point. It also works/has been tested/blah blah.

If it did'nt GNU/Linux would not be here today for us to argue about.

The matter is: GPH/Digisys has forgot to release the updated source for
(what 5?) varous programs they have used or changed.

Also;
Really, so U-Boot uses JFFS2. which is explicitly MADE for NOR Flash devices. hmmm :unsure:

What everyone really wants the source for is to fix some of GPH's mistakes.

Otherwise all the other work can be replicated, but it would be a senseless waste of effort to duplicate what already exists. (But It WILL be done if GPH does not comply)

This is still not too bad of an issue. yet.

 

[evening2005]

But this "vagueness", as you put it has been approved by lawyers. Clearly it's an acceptable legal document - you say yourself that it has not been tested in court and I posted a link to Eben Moglen's explanation of why the GPL has not been tested in court: because nobody dares to try it on. You clearly couldn't be bothered to read the article, so let me reproduce the relevant section here:
Despite the FUD, as a copyright license the GPL is absolutely solid. That's why I've been able to enforce it dozens of times over nearly ten years, without ever going to court.
I was harsh in my previous message, but the point remains; you're posting lots of stuff on the board which is demonstrably idiotic. For example, read the Moglen article in its entirety - it is extremely interesting and illuminating. Next time you can convince someone who hasn't read up on this stuff of what the GPL implies. Even if you don't want to read the article, I reiterate my point: The GPL is a watertight copyright licence. It is effectively unchallengeable in court, because it grants more rights than a typical copyright licence. In other words, releasing software under the GPL grants other people more rights than they would have if you removed the licence. To put it even more simply, if GPH was taken to court and argued that the GPL was not a valid licence, they would lose the right to sell the GP2X entirely, because it is only the GPL which allows them to distribute the Linux kernel. In over a decade, nobody has been willing to stand up in court and argue against the GPL; to do so would be idiotic.

​

SCO seem to be doing a good just of challenging the validity of the GPL in court (yes I know it's about potentially copyrighted code in linux but if you follow the case, they have challenged the GPL and they weren't struck down)

You also didn't address my point about the timescale in the providing of source and the fact that the GPL doesn't mention one at all.

​

SCO's entire case is about their contract with IBM. They dropped the GPL crap about a year ago. I did address your point about the timescale. The GPL is a legally watertight licence - what you call "vagueness" clearly meets the standards of the lawyers who drew it up. You have to ask yourself, if this went to court, would GPH be able to say that they had made a reasonable attempt to distribute the source? Well, the GP2X has been available since November and we are still awaiting a source release which matches any of the released versions of the firmware. I would not call that a reasonable attempt. I don't think that you would either.

The point about me not responding to little bits of your posts is a bit rich, as I've taken the trouble to discuss every part of your earlier post and you have not responded to any of my arguments there. I thought originally that you were just a kid who prefers talking to thinking. Now I think that you're trolling for attention.

 

[Aaaaaaaa]

The Way I See it:

I'm not good with computers and i dont understand all this GPL and dgnsys or whatever.

However, I just think tat they are waiting for a good, strong complete firmware before they releace the source.

They don't wan't to release every source because they know they are going to have to make a lot of new releases. They also said in one of their emails that when they want to upload something to the server, they have to send a "charge" (money)

This should be sorted by evildragon's offer of free space.

But isn't the gp2x only out now because we placed pressure on the company, I'm sure it was said somewhere, so GPH braved it and released it with a buggy firmware, i guess it was their only option.

I've only done a bit of GCSE businesss studies so im not a pro, and this is just my obsevation:

They are only a small company, so perhaps they released it early to recoup some R and D costs.

So I say, before jumping to conclusions, we should wait for the "official release" or a stable firmware.

 

[GeminiDomino]

The Way I See it:

I'm not good with computers and i dont understand all this GPL and dgnsys or whatever.

It's not a computer issue, it's a legal issue.

However, I just think tat they are waiting for a good, strong complete firmware before they releace the source.

That's not for them to say. Under the GPL, if they distribute the binary, they have to release the source. Period.

They don't wan't to release every source because they know they are going to have to make a lot of new releases.

They don't have a choice.

They also said in one of their emails that when they want to upload something to the server, they have to send a "charge" (money)

That's their problem. It doesn't change thier responsibility WRT the source.

So I say, before jumping to conclusions, we should wait for the "official release" or a stable firmware.

And in doing so, they are engaged in full blown copyright infringement, which is against the law, even in Korea.

 

[OrR]

Let's take a look at the GPL:
3.

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b ) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;

(point c is valid for non-commercial stuff only)

There is no source code distributed with the binary releases (=GP2X units, firmware updates). There is also no written offer included.
To do: Convince GPH/dignsys to at least include a written offer.

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

This only seems to apply to the source code (?). In what shape is the source code released by dignsys? Does it have everything described here? What GPLed sources are missing from it? (Heard something about Bash or something?! I'm not a Linux Geek, please help me out here!

That seems to be it, the other stuff seems to be more or less irrelevant crap. (?)

 

[Muncher666]

WOW. And I thought this would calm down over night. Jesus guys, get a grip.

We need to start calmly working this out, not filling pages of forum with arguments about GPL. It's a waste of time, a waste of gp32x's bandwidth, and to be honest it's getting annoying. There have been a few sensible posts (like the one talking about the general size of the kernel's source, and the one about releasing it with the binaries) but on the whole it's just been people 'politely' but violently slagging each other off over the GPL.

EvilDragon, have you sent an email to them personally?

Allan.

 

[DaveC]

I just have a simple question. I am not going to argue the technical aspects of GPL as that has been done ad-nauseum.

We know that dignsys is responsible for the coding of the firmware etc for GPH as a contractor of some sort. We know that GPH themselves do not code or have the sources.

If GPH requests the source from dignsys for release whenever a new FW is made and dignsys says "no" What should GPH do? Seriously this is a real question to me. They could sue but they likely don't have the money for a legal battle and lawyers. How can GPH get the sources for release without either going bust from legal fees, or pissing off dignsys to the point where they stop all work on the fw and delete the code from their HDDs?

This seems quite a SNAFU to me I don't know the solution. Putting the screws on GPH would seem kind of fruitless in this situation because they don't produce the code. What could be done in reality that could get us what we want which is to have the source with every FW release AND to have GPH remain in business to keep producing the unit?

 

[DijiTao]

I just have a simple question. I am not going to argue the technical aspects of GPL as that has been done ad-nauseum.

We know that dignsys is responsible for the coding of the firmware etc for GPH as a contractor of some sort. We know that GPH themselves do not code or have the sources.

If GPH requests the source from dignsys for release whenever a new FW is made and dignsys says "no" What should GPH do? Seriously this is a real question to me. They could sue but they likely don't have the money for a legal battle and lawyers. How can GPH get the sources for release without either going bust from legal fees, or pissing off dignsys to the point where they stop all work on the fw and delete the code from their HDDs?

This seems quite a SNAFU to me I don't know the solution. Putting the screws on GPH would seem kind of fruitless in this situation because they don't produce the code. What could be done in reality that could get us what we want which is to have the source with every FW release AND to have GPH remain in business to keep producing the unit?

​

The only reasonable option seems to be pressure from a third party to both Dignsys and GPH. Said third party would have to be willing to legally destroy Dignsys and GPH if they did not comply, and facing that destruction the only sane choice for Dignsys and GPH becomes compliance. The FSF comes to mind as an excellent candidate for the third “motivating” party.

 

[DaveC]

I just have a simple question. I am not going to argue the technical aspects of GPL as that has been done ad-nauseum.

We know that dignsys is responsible for the coding of the firmware etc for GPH as a contractor of some sort.  We know that GPH themselves do not code or have the sources.

If GPH requests the source from dignsys for release whenever a new FW is made and dignsys says "no"  What should GPH do?  Seriously this is a real question to me. They could sue but they likely don't have the money for a legal battle and lawyers.  How can GPH get the sources for release without either going bust from legal fees, or pissing off dignsys to the point where they stop all work on the fw and delete the code from their HDDs?

This seems quite a SNAFU to me I don't know the solution.  Putting the screws on GPH would seem kind of fruitless in this situation because they don't produce the code.  What could be done in reality that could get us what we want which is to have the source with every FW release AND to have GPH remain in business to keep producing the unit?

​

The only reasonable option seems to be pressure from a third party to both Dignsys and GPH. Said third party would have to be willing to legally destroy Dignsys and GPH if they did not comply, and facing that destruction the only sane choice for Dignsys and GPH becomes compliance. The FSF comes to mind as an excellent candidate for the third “motivating” party.

​

But wouldn't they be destroyed as soon as the FSF gets a hold of them because of fees etc? I would imagine at the time the FSF gets involved it is too late. GPH and the GP2X will cease to exist, which seems like a bad option and not the result that we want.

 

[jmetal88]

I just have a simple question. I am not going to argue the technical aspects of GPL as that has been done ad-nauseum.

We know that dignsys is responsible for the coding of the firmware etc for GPH as a contractor of some sort. We know that GPH themselves do not code or have the sources.

If GPH requests the source from dignsys for release whenever a new FW is made and dignsys says "no" What should GPH do? Seriously this is a real question to me. They could sue but they likely don't have the money for a legal battle and lawyers. How can GPH get the sources for release without either going bust from legal fees, or pissing off dignsys to the point where they stop all work on the fw and delete the code from their HDDs?

This seems quite a SNAFU to me I don't know the solution. Putting the screws on GPH would seem kind of fruitless in this situation because they don't produce the code. What could be done in reality that could get us what we want which is to have the source with every FW release AND to have GPH remain in business to keep producing the unit?

​

The only reasonable option seems to be pressure from a third party to both Dignsys and GPH. Said third party would have to be willing to legally destroy Dignsys and GPH if they did not comply, and facing that destruction the only sane choice for Dignsys and GPH becomes compliance. The FSF comes to mind as an excellent candidate for the third “motivating” party.

​

But wouldn't they be destroyed as soon as the FSF gets a hold of them because of fees etc? I would imagine at the time the FSF gets involved it is too late. GPH and the GP2X will cease to exist, which seems like a bad option and not the result that we want.

​

Dave, I have to say at this time you're probably the most sensible person on this entire board. You've got the only replies in this thread that I completely agree with.

 

[DijiTao]

But wouldn't they be destroyed as soon as the FSF gets a hold of them because of fees etc? I would imagine at the time the FSF gets involved it is too late. GPH and the GP2X will cease to exist, which seems like a bad option and not the result that we want.

​

That's my point - They should know that they wouldn't stand a chance, so why would they risk it? The mere threat should be enough for them to come into compliance. If they decide not to immediately cave in once the FSF pop'd in to say “hi” I kinda think they deserve what they get since it would be utterly moronic not to comply.

 

[OrR]

I just have a simple question. I am not going to argue the technical aspects of GPL as that has been done ad-nauseum.

We know that dignsys is responsible for the coding of the firmware etc for GPH as a contractor of some sort. We know that GPH themselves do not code or have the sources.

If GPH requests the source from dignsys for release whenever a new FW is made and dignsys says "no" What should GPH do? Seriously this is a real question to me. They could sue but they likely don't have the money for a legal battle and lawyers. How can GPH get the sources for release without either going bust from legal fees, or pissing off dignsys to the point where they stop all work on the fw and delete the code from their HDDs?

This seems quite a SNAFU to me I don't know the solution. Putting the screws on GPH would seem kind of fruitless in this situation because they don't produce the code. What could be done in reality that could get us what we want which is to have the source with every FW release AND to have GPH remain in business to keep producing the unit?

​

Well, there would not really be a solution. If dignsys really wouldn't give out the sources even after threatening them with legal action and whatnot (we can do that for GPH... :rolleyes: ) then they'd have to be taken to court. It would be a major hit for the GP2X but nothing we couldn't recover from. After all, the community could simply get rid of Linux or make it's own. (Or both, which also seems to already be happening).
However, I don't think we should worry just yet. After all dignsys have given out some sources already. They were not the right and complete ones but I think the problem is merely communicating to them exactly what is expected and how important the issue is.

 

[jmetal88]

Again: Are we SURE these aren't current?

 

[OrR]

I'm no developer so I've got no idea about all this crap but someone said they weren't. However, some confirmation from someone in the know would indeed be nice.
Even if they were it wouldn't solve the problem since the GP2X and the firmware updates don't come with a written offer of sourcecode.

 

[DaveC]

But wouldn't they be destroyed as soon as the FSF gets a hold of them because of fees etc?  I would imagine at the time the FSF gets involved it is too late.  GPH and the GP2X will cease to exist, which seems like a bad option and not the result that we want.

​

That's my point - They should know that they wouldn't stand a chance, so why would they risk it? The mere threat should be enough for them to come into compliance. If they decide not to immediately cave in once the FSF pop'd in to say “hi” I kinda think they deserve what they get since it would be utterly moronic not to comply.

​

What I was saying was if "once the FSF pop'd in to say “hi” " it would be too late they would go under and take the GP2X and community with it.

Kind of like if you are pirating warez and the feds "pop in", by then it is too late and you are fucked. You can't just tell the feds "ok i will delete the warez then you will let me go right"

Same here you can't just tell the FSF " ok I will get legal now, don't prosecute us" It would be too late, and we are done for.


I guess the best thing would be to go after dignsys and not GPH. That way if dignsys bit the dust we could find another solution for the firmware. If GPH goes bust than none if this matters anymore.