Discussion in 'General Talk' started by Tobriand, Jan 12, 2006.
Yeah, so now traffic shouldn't be a problem anymore
great..looks like everything is getting sorted out..and it only took a few emails to dignysys saying that ED could host the files?
Doesn't matter. They're not ALLOWED to hold out on releasing it.
Actually, pissing on the GPL is EXACTLY what they are doing (and I don't consider "we'll release it next week" to close the matter. When it IS released, then I'll give them credit for doing so).
Except, well... they can't. By not releasing the sources, they're trafficing in illegal software.
"Eventually" isn't good enough. If they want to keep the source under wraps, then they need to recall every unit and rewrite the firmware in something that's NOT GPLed (FreeBSD or NetBSD would be suitable for this purpose)
Otherwise, they are required by the terms of the GPL to release the source when they release the binary, not "eventually."
Or the FSF will just have to get an injunction.
Well, not really. GPLv2 demands code linked against it to be licensed under GPLv2, as well. So you'd need to
a) either release the driver being loaded by and using parts of the Kernel-source (headers/includes covered under the GPL would suffice) in full source under the terms of the GPL
b) write a wrapper (licensed under the terms of the GPLv2) that completely seperates your driver code from the kernel, by providing some kind of binary interface (ABI) to the non-free outside stuff.
a) is clearly better for both the community and the companies as well, as they do have the ability to have others fixing their code. b), however, is the way many companies have chosen in the past (nvidia or ati, for example), possibly due to relicensed 3rd-party code in their device drivers.
Btw, the URL ED supplied still does not provide anything. What has happened to this issue as a whole?
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. 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.
Well that's nice to kno hopefully this is all over now *crosses fingers*, just wondering how did u find this out?
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 ..
They are not removing code they are separating it. If they removed code stuff wouldn't work anymore.
That's not strictly true. It's entirely possible that 10 seconds is spent initialising DivX code that I rarely use.
Until we can see the code we can't say what impact it will have, and DignSys aren't telling. It's a tad too soon for panic.
Why didn't they simply come out up front and say we have issues about completely screwed code that on one hand breaks one copyright and breaks another on the other hand.
Personally have no problem with the odd bending of rules in these circumstances provided that the bending is done temporarily and purely for the benefit of the community. In laws of these kinds you have to come to an agreement on what is acceptable behaviour rather than complaining about people toeing the letter of the law exactly.
Somebody on here said they cared little about the legal issues of the GPL but more about the principles behind it. On occassion the principle is going to conflict with the law which is why strict adherance to a law is not always preferable. There have to be cases where negotiation is prevailent even if it doesn't immeadiately mean 100% compliance.
Prehaps guidelines should be set in future in respect to how to act given the damed if you do and damned if you don't type scenario. Nobody has benefitted by forcing GPH to withhold the lastest FW and their problem was seemingly an honest mistake rather than an attempt to make GPL software propriety. Prehaps in future the FSF can be an intermediatry for companies that have such issues and can advise them on the best way to go about becoming compliant with GPL without disclosing propriety software like the SD drivers etc. It's certainly a better solution than the all or nothing attitude some would take and would protect the spirit of the GPL against the odd occurence where the law was contrary to the spirit.
All over the place, bit here, bit there - mainly on the forums.
Most of it's directly from Craigix, I believe.
You know, the main driving force behind me buying a GP2x was the fact that the _COMPLETE_ device is managed by Free Software. So, for me, this topic clearly deserves attention and to be done with as soon as possible, because I want to get hold of the inner workings of the gadget I paid about 200 Euro for. Thanks for putting up with me and international copyright and redistribution law, and not trying to hush this to death ;>
There's some pretty loud silencing going on with this issue. Sure we all know the score at this point so there really isn’t much of a need to talk about it, but at the same time it’s not like the issue isn’t valid. Maybe a GPL FAQ should be made up and added to the board as a sticky?
Tht is probably a very good idea.
Separate names with a comma.