[edit: I thought it was your space, ED. ]
Yeah, so now traffic shouldn't be a problem anymore
Last edited:
[edit: I thought it was your space, ED. ]
However much they want to comply with those thigies n be legal, it looks like they are trying to hold out as long as they can before releasing it so its stable
perhaps theres a reason why theyre not releasing it
its not as iff theri pi$$ing on those legal thingies,
its that theyre trying to hold out a few more days before doing wht they have to do. They probably recognise what theyre doing but they know that it will be a while before any action is taken against them, because wel..... they can.
They will eventually release it, im sure theyre doing what they see as best, even if it isnt whats best for this dignsys thngy.
I guess ppl will just have to hold out....
Well, not really. GPLv2 demands code linked against it to be licensed under GPLv2, as well. So you'd need toIn 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 --
Muncher666 posted on Feb 3 2006 at 02:04 PM said:Basically Dignsys had non-GPL code woven through GPL code, so they're unravelling. The code in question appears to be SD drivers and DivX stuff. Once the unravelling is over, we shall see updated firmware with source code.
Allan.
Jester posted on Feb 3 2006 at 02:48 PM said:Muncher666 posted on Feb 3 2006 at 02:04 PM said:Basically Dignsys had non-GPL code woven through GPL code, so they're unravelling. The code in question appears to be SD drivers and DivX stuff. Once the unravelling is over, we shall see updated firmware with source code.
Allan.
Well that's nice to kno hopefully this is all over now *crosses fingers*, just wondering how did u find this out?
DaveC posted on Feb 3 2006 at 03:11 PM said:Won't this "unraveling" make the code bigger? If so do we have 3 minute boot times to look forward to?
torpor posted on Feb 3 2006 at 03:15 PM said:DaveC posted on Feb 3 2006 at 03:11 PM said:Won't this "unraveling" make the code bigger? If so do we have 3 minute boot times to look forward to?
i can't imagine that to be the case. if anything, removing code would make it boot faster.
what we might see is slightly less performance, but greater GPL'itude. i'd be happy with that.. if the whole damn thing was GPL'ed, we'd see all performance/bug issues smooth out, fast, while the GPL-friendly hackers take it all on ..
That's not strictly true. It's entirely possible that 10 seconds is spent initialising DivX code that I rarely use.DaveC posted on Feb 3 2006 at 04:26 PM said:They are not removing code they are separating it. If they removed code stuff wouldn't work anymore.
Jester posted on Feb 4 2006 at 01:48 AM said:Muncher666 posted on Feb 3 2006 at 02:04 PM said:Basically Dignsys had non-GPL code woven through GPL code, so they're unravelling. The code in question appears to be SD drivers and DivX stuff. Once the unravelling is over, we shall see updated firmware with source code.
Allan.
Well that's nice to kno hopefully this is all over now *crosses fingers*, just wondering how did u find this out?
Muncher666 posted on Feb 3 2006 at 04:04 PM said:Hooooooiii.. seriously, this issue has been so completely done to death elsewhere, so please don't try to resurrect this topic, it doesn't need it. There is already another active thread about the firmware/source issue.
DijiTao posted on Feb 3 2006 at 09:36 PM said:....Maybe a GPL FAQ should be made up and added to the board as a sticky?