The Spider Mastermind
Member
Its a trap!
Last edited by a moderator:
So Is Today The Day?
- Thread starter Wobedraggled
- Start date
Its a trap!
LOL As its me that made the post, I will make it clear.
What has been reported is that the Linux source is not being released becuase of bundled DIVX.
I will say it again. DIVX is not part of the kernel. It may be part of the modified movie player, but that only stops *one* component being released and thats it.
What wasn't said is "everything is being released, apart from the movie player, becuase divx is propriatry we will arange a better divx free version in the next release"
I don't mind being wrong, but I don't see this as being a stopping block to everything else being released.
I would be astonished if there is any cost in releasing the source.
I have lost trust, about the source being released, becuase of the reasons given which include such gems as "cost", bandwidth limitations", "Not offically released", "becuase people arn't nice to them","didn't understand GPL". I don't belive anything I'm told and now call liar on all of it.
I don't even belive divx is all that tricky to take out. In fact if I was paying $2 a pop i'd make sure it was programmed to be taken out. Its functionality I'd rather do without.
I don't care about GPL. The souce was icing on the cake, but I'd given up on it in real terms. I've objected to being lied to, and being made to beg for the source.
*again* I couldn't give a monkeys about the source, or when its released, if at all. Its the lies I object to.
BTW those mplayer kiddies like the source to be released.
What has been reported is that the Linux source is not being released becuase of bundled DIVX.
I will say it again. DIVX is not part of the kernel. It may be part of the modified movie player, but that only stops *one* component being released and thats it.
What wasn't said is "everything is being released, apart from the movie player, becuase divx is propriatry we will arange a better divx free version in the next release"
I don't mind being wrong, but I don't see this as being a stopping block to everything else being released.
I would be astonished if there is any cost in releasing the source.
I have lost trust, about the source being released, becuase of the reasons given which include such gems as "cost", bandwidth limitations", "Not offically released", "becuase people arn't nice to them","didn't understand GPL". I don't belive anything I'm told and now call liar on all of it.
I don't even belive divx is all that tricky to take out. In fact if I was paying $2 a pop i'd make sure it was programmed to be taken out. Its functionality I'd rather do without.
I don't care about GPL. The souce was icing on the cake, but I'd given up on it in real terms. I've objected to being lied to, and being made to beg for the source.
*again* I couldn't give a monkeys about the source, or when its released, if at all. Its the lies I object to.
BTW those mplayer kiddies like the source to be released.
Rayek
Recovering Sega Addict
Craig is definitely one of the most, if not the most important person here. It's sort of sad that he took offense. It wasn't my intention to bash him or the work he's doing, in fact, he seems to be the person who's helping us out the most, in regards to the GPL. I don't think he'll quit hounding them for the source, or giving us updates. At least I hope he doesn't.
moz
load *,8,1
today is the day i drink beer
rokdcasbah
got me a date with botticelli's niece
in the real world, stupid things do get in the way of other things happening. or, at least, things that someone outside the situation may see as stupid. also, these things have more significance when they compound a problem that was not your #1 priority in the first place. deadlines are missed all the time in a corporate setting, and definitely in an engineering seetting. i don't think it means that people are lying...even if the reasons given do not appear sufficient to you, realize that this is a small group of people, and with a lot of work to do, and i'm guessing that some of the time they have to sleep and eat and so on. don't want to start an argument...just saying that when there is difficulty communicating, using the L word doesn't help.
Last edited by a moderator:
furikuri
Still Fresh
Agreed. I have spent days just trying to figure out what I had did wrong with the game that my friend and I are making. The game will be finished someday as long as college stops getting in the way <_<
Last edited by a moderator:
skeezix
Internal Development
Why don't thye just have the movie player as a separate module? ie: Coudl just append it to the kernel, but not linked into the kernel; or as a shared lib, or loadable module, or any number of things. Silly people over there 
jeff
jeff
nickspoon
vultum stultum habes
Silly Korean people with their silly Linux and silly squiggly writing. I bet all the GPL in Korean says is something like "Make programmer good lease resource later by much all."
skeezix
Internal Development
It'd be a separate issue then; let out the kernel+source, and then worry about the player separately; further, they shoudl ditch any licensed player and just go with pure GPL movie player.
The problem is they're using a partly-licensed movie player, with a pure-GPL kernel-pack, so they can't release the kernel source without including the player and licensed code (as far as I understand it.) Solution -- carve them up.
jeff
The problem is they're using a partly-licensed movie player, with a pure-GPL kernel-pack, so they can't release the kernel source without including the player and licensed code (as far as I understand it.) Solution -- carve them up.
jeff
nickspoon
vultum stultum habes
So you're basically saying that the player source should be just gotten rid of, or is that illegal or something? I don't get the gist of your post.
gluesniffined
Still Fresh
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7
I will first say that I definitely like my GP2X and I really do want to see it succeed with the open source community. I have paid my price of admission and I definitely want to see it continue being developed for.
As for the lack of a source release, mplayer does not require a licensed codec to decode DivX; why they would use a proprietary commercial codec is beyond me. The second point is that the company that created the firmware and applications knew well ahead of time what the licensing restrictions were on the code they used but did not themselves write. It's not as though all of a sudden this nasty GPL thing was sprung on them out of the blue and now they have to scramble to find a solution. Someone else has done MOST of the nasty grunt coding work for them and has given it to them for free and has allowed them to redistribute it at a profit with only one minor restriction, they have to make their source changes available to whomever requests it. The GPL does not require them to allow you to download it from them, they can provide the source on a per-request basis and send it to you either electronically or for a fee not to exceed media and distribution costs should you prefer it mailed to you on a CD or other type of media.
Please do not forget that the OS and applications running on the GP2X was created by myriad other people. I would hate to think of the time investment if they had to write all of their own code for the OS and applications from scratch. They are profiting off of someone else's work and they need to abide by the license restrictions that they agreed to when they decided to use GPL software.
It is also my understanding that the original firmware source was released. If this is the case, there should be more than enough there for developers that wish to create their own fork of the GP2X firmware.
As for the lack of a source release, mplayer does not require a licensed codec to decode DivX; why they would use a proprietary commercial codec is beyond me. The second point is that the company that created the firmware and applications knew well ahead of time what the licensing restrictions were on the code they used but did not themselves write. It's not as though all of a sudden this nasty GPL thing was sprung on them out of the blue and now they have to scramble to find a solution. Someone else has done MOST of the nasty grunt coding work for them and has given it to them for free and has allowed them to redistribute it at a profit with only one minor restriction, they have to make their source changes available to whomever requests it. The GPL does not require them to allow you to download it from them, they can provide the source on a per-request basis and send it to you either electronically or for a fee not to exceed media and distribution costs should you prefer it mailed to you on a CD or other type of media.
Please do not forget that the OS and applications running on the GP2X was created by myriad other people. I would hate to think of the time investment if they had to write all of their own code for the OS and applications from scratch. They are profiting off of someone else's work and they need to abide by the license restrictions that they agreed to when they decided to use GPL software.
It is also my understanding that the original firmware source was released. If this is the case, there should be more than enough there for developers that wish to create their own fork of the GP2X firmware.
furikuri
Still Fresh
Not again...
moz
load *,8,1
oh yes its time for another beer!
Last edited by a moderator:
Xisiqomelir
Still Fresh
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 58
Sorry man, it's not that easy. If they did what you suggested, the binary firmware which compiled from the "expurgated source" would NOT be the same binary firmware which they released (Because it couldn't play DivX).
=> Not full GPL compliance
=> Back to the drawing board
Now, you might say "Isn't DivX a proprietary codec?". You would be exactly right. As a proprietary binary codec, the DivX part should have nothing to do with the source. This is why bjimba, panda and cyclops are sceptical.
Last edited by a moderator:
Drak
fff
Im not in a hurry but getting it today would be interesting.
Phil
FAPPO!
YOHOHO
Tharr be pirates and buckaneers in this harr thread
Tharr be pirates and buckaneers in this harr thread
rokdcasbah
got me a date with botticelli's niece
this here's a hoedown...i mean hootenanny
skeezix
Internal Development
Most people aren't too pricky, so it'd be easy; ie: They're violating GPL now (unethicly), but if they just made a new firmware using a pure GPL codec, everyone woudl be happy; ie: folks woudl get over the fact existing firmwares are evil
Theres lots of options, but they're just in the "drag" phase; most companies will swipe thigns from GPL without a second thought; its onyl when everyone realizes they're stealing that they then go through the 'what a drag' phase, and then eventuallky figure out to do with it. If only companeis realizes day one that GPL means 'share' and not 'wohoo, we can steal for free!'
They'll sort it out, but they're obviously clueless about how things stand
jeff
Theres lots of options, but they're just in the "drag" phase; most companies will swipe thigns from GPL without a second thought; its onyl when everyone realizes they're stealing that they then go through the 'what a drag' phase, and then eventuallky figure out to do with it. If only companeis realizes day one that GPL means 'share' and not 'wohoo, we can steal for free!'
They'll sort it out, but they're obviously clueless about how things stand
jeff
Phil
FAPPO!
I thought it was a par-tay?
Last edited by a moderator:
