Where Is The Firmware

[Deed]

I've coded in various specialized languages over time (laugh if you like - you do it in C in a month, I'll do it in AMOS in a day - in the end, the customer doesn't care - as long as it works). 

​

Just curious, what is AMOS ? Are you talking about an old Amiga language ? Or is it something else ?

edit : wrong spelling

 

[shrubberyrobbery]

It seems that a lot of people are arguing about Open Source and Free Software while it's clearly the wrong place to do it.
<snip>
- GPL compliance is a legal thing made to protect an ideology from people whom don't give a shit about it. You may not care about Free Software but the GPL is made to prevent you to abuse people who do. Don't like it ? Make your own software or buy one.

​

seconded. it's not up for discussion. its been discussed ad-nauseam but that changes nothing about the situation. trying to justify one position or another changes nothing. if you don't agree with the GPL ideology, don't participate in it.

I don't want to see gph be shut down OR for them to abuse the contributions of all the GPL coders on which they rely. All I wanna do is get on with it: play some games, and dabble in writing some homebrew.

 

[evening2005]

I'm trying to figure out what this means. It sounds like you're bashing the likes of me? but.... I really don't know. Do you mean to say that all of us who want the source are going to get nothing of it? That's interesting. Because FluffyPanda seems interested in at least taking part in the development of the Community OS. And I'm sure there are many others. What we have yet to see is something constructive, an amssing of all those interested in working on an OS that will, of course, use the coveted source, and a compiling of all the goals said OS will hope to acheive.

And... I don't think the point of this is to get the masses interested in Linux. We, I guess, kind of want a better product, if that makes any sense. :huh:

For your competition of producing meaningful additions, I for one will be exempt because I'm not 'flaming', I'm 'informing'.

​

I'm not 'bashing' ... I'm merely pointing out what seems to happen when these sort of 'religious' discussions turn into the heated flames that I seem to see directed at GPH (who, as I understand it, isn't even RESPONSIBLE directly to the firmware - if someone sells me a chip for a project, and they do something wrong, I shouldn't be held liable for their actions - please correct me if I'm mistaken).

For hardware things it would depend on the contract. But it's a false analogy because software doesn't work that way. The default position for software, is that you don't have any rights to copy and distribute someone else's work. Full stop. The GPL lets you get around this by saying, "So long as you distribute the source code with your executables, you can modify, copy and distribute as much as you want. But if you don't want to distribute the source files, you're not allowed to distribute the executables. Under copyright law, the only thing that allows you to re-distribute this code is this licence (the GPL), so if you don't want to abide by the terms of the GPL, you don't get to distribute your executable". This is the problem that GPH (and perhaps craigix and ED) have.

 

[evening2005]

Let me clarify what I consider "open". Open to me means that ANYONE can develop for it. You do not have to pay for a $50,000 SDK. You are not restricted by someone else's idea of QUALITY to release a title. No matter HOW HORRIBLE Elf Bowling is on the DS, SOMEONE will play it and probably LOVE it. I never expect a consumer to be able to alter the CORE system of ANY product for the very reasons that have been stated here time and time again. If you want to see the DOWN side to open development, look no further than Firefox and the ugly "extension" issue where every build was breaking extensions - where extensions did UGLY things (hell, my friend found an extension that pinged an ad server). OSS is a cool thing for a community - its less cool for a business trying to earn the confidence of customers and keep "bad things" out of their product. Again, time and place for everything.

To me, if the GP2x NEVER opened the firmware to open source, I don't feel cheated (no, I realize I didn't write anything that was used to make it and somehow feel cheated that GPL isn't followed) NOR would my feelings on "The Gp2x is an open console" change. ANYONE can dev for it. No charge, no fee, no restrictions.

​

What you're saying isn't meaningful because it's not your (or our) decision to make. The copyright for the Linux kernel is held by hundreds or even thousands of developers, any one of whom has the right to insist that GPH stop distributing the GP2X. What you think about when someone says, "open" doesn't matter even a little bit.

 

[kanzlr]

am i right that with the BSD license, you dont have to include the source?

if so, FreeBSD or any other BSD licensed variant would have been a good idea.

but then, they couldnt write LINUX in big flying letters over the thing

 

[evening2005]

If the creators of the firmware (its not GPH right? They just use it - no one has contradicted this point - so I'm assuming at this point, I'm correct) used OSS to make money, then YES - they are BOUND to its rules and I'm not disputing that. But why unleash your venom on GPH? If you build a PC with parts you build from Best Buy, and the CPU performance sucks, you don't go scream at Best Buy - you scream at Intel or AMD. Its not Best Buy's fault that 1) They carry a processor that doesn't meet your expectations. 2) You bought it.

You're not right. I have explained why further up the thread. The funny thing about this is that you're arguing up and down this thread and yet it is clear that you have no idea about what the GPL requires. Seriously, you should read it, or read any one of Eben Moglen's articles about it (google "Eben Moglen" and GPL).

 

[Polymira]

Yeah, not releasing the source (it doesn't matter whether or not GPS wrote the firmware, they distribute it, and sell it in their console) is in breach of the GPL. Which, as far as I know, is technically a breach of the law. I don't want to go after GPH either, but no matter what, it's black and white.

They can release the binaries as long as they provide the source (even if only when requested i believe).

 

[peter.stegemann]

[...lots of ignorance about the rights of other other people and a bad case of zero respect for them snipped...]

If I slapped you in the face, would you die from that? No. If I "borrowed" your car without asking, would you loose any money? No. Would you freak out? Yes.

I'm definitely not a friend of OSS and the GPL. It's the opposite, I think it's absolutely the wrong direction - but I _always_ respect their rights. What's so difficult about that? If you don't want to accept their rules, don't use their stuff.

 

[Shane R. Monroe]

You're not right. I have explained why further up the thread. The funny thing about this is that you're arguing up and down this thread and yet it is clear that you have no idea about what the GPL requires. Seriously, you should read it, or read any one of Eben Moglen's articles about it (google "Eben Moglen" and GPL).

​

No, its not explained.

Yes, I understand what GPL means. I wouldn't jump in if I didn't. However, are you implying GPH is at fault because they are "receipt of stolen property" as DigiSys are the ones who are ACTUALLY in violation of the GPL?

If company A takes a GPL piece of code and makes a "widget" out of it and sells it to company B which does NOTHING to it - rather embeds it on a chip, whatever ... doesn't alter it at all ... explain WHY company B is at fault for company A's violation of GPL.

I'm assuming that GPH isn't touching ANYTHING they get from DigiSys (if I'm wrong, and Digisys is in violation AND GPH is in violation - then someone needs to point this out and I'll shut the hell up) which means THEY are NOT obligated to follow the GPL as they aren't the MODIFYING body. You can't expect GPH to deliver something they don't have or aren't responsible for.

So, again - let's say I download a piece of software that is GPLed by Community X ... and I offer it on my website for download. Community X is found in violation of GPL. Should *I* be sued because that file was redistributed through me? Of course not - I'm not the one in violation.

Please explain to me in detail why I'm incorrect.

 

[evening2005]

You're not right. I have explained why further up the thread. The funny thing about this is that you're arguing up and down this thread and yet it is clear that you have no idea about what the GPL requires. Seriously, you should read it, or read any one of Eben Moglen's articles about it (google "Eben Moglen" and GPL).

​

No, its not explained.

Yes, I understand what GPL means. I wouldn't jump in if I didn't. However, are you implying GPH is at fault because they are "receipt of stolen property" as DigiSys are the ones who are ACTUALLY in violation of the GPL?

If company A takes a GPL piece of code and makes a "widget" out of it and sells it to company B which does NOTHING to it - rather embeds it on a chip, whatever ... doesn't alter it at all ... explain WHY company B is at fault for company A's violation of GPL.

I'm assuming that GPH isn't touching ANYTHING they get from DigiSys (if I'm wrong, and Digisys is in violation AND GPH is in violation - then someone needs to point this out and I'll shut the hell up) which means THEY are NOT obligated to follow the GPL as they aren't the MODIFYING body. You can't expect GPH to deliver something they don't have or aren't responsible for.

So, again - let's say I download a piece of software that is GPLed by Community X ... and I offer it on my website for download. Community X is found in violation of GPL. Should *I* be sued because that file was redistributed through me? Of course not - I'm not the one in violation.

Please explain to me in detail why I'm incorrect.

​

The provisions of the GPL come into force at the point when you redistribute GPLed code. So GPH are in violation because they are distributing the linux kernel and not offering the source. To be specific, because they are not in any position to offer the source so they are not allowed to sell (or give away for that matter) the GP2X. It really is that simple. The only thing that allows them to redistribute the Linux kernel is the GPL. But the GPL requires that you offer the source if you are going to distribute the executable. Since GPH are not in a position to offer the source, they are in violation of the GPL, just as DignSys are. You might argue that GPH's infringement is "DignSys's fault", but that doesn't have any legal basis; GPH are separately in violation because they too are distributing the kernel.

 

[FluffyPanda]

Most of the following is for the benefit of Shane R. Monroe.


1) The violation DOES impact GPH because they are distributing the code. If I pirate a million copies of windows XP and ship them to Dell, who then sells those copies to their customers, Dell is not safe from a microsoft lawsuit.

2) Even if you don't personally have any use for the source you should still be happy to see it released because it will allow people who do care to improve it.

3) The "I paid for it so it will naturally evolve to what I want" arguement doesn't hold up in the real world. Microsoft gets a lot of money for every copy of windows XP but they still left a known bug unpatched for 6 months until someone recently found a way to use it to take remote control of fully patched (XP SP2) systems.

Don't believe everything MS writes about OSS. You are free to pay Red Hat or Novell for your linux distribution if you need vendor support. The GPL ensures that the work those companies do to protect their paying customers can be of benefit to everybody.

4) Security is possible under open source quite simply because a system designed to be secure is not made any easier to break by having the source.

To clarify, there are two methods of finding a vulnerability: white box and black box. In white box you examine the code (machine code or source) and look for weaknesses. If the code was written to be secure (and especially if hundreds of developers world wide are reading and patching it) then reading the source will be unlikely to give you any insight into an attack vector.

Reading the compiled code with the aid of a debugger or performing black box security testing is responsible for the vast majority of security alerts.

Furthermore, when a security hole is discovered in the code it is normally trivial to patch. When it is discovered as the result of unexpected behaviour from a compiled program it can take a lot longer.

Does that answer the question to your satisfaction?


5) I'm getting tired of this arguement. I paid for my GP2x. I am entitled to the source under the terms of the GPL. I will actually DO something with the source, even if that turns out to just mean "read it". What you think or want doesn't really change any of that, so why do you want to deny me my source access?

I'm not making a fuss about it and I'm not stomping my feet and demanding it now, but I do want it, I do expect it and I am entitled to it. As a paying customer of GPH I deserve that much.

 

[FluffyPanda]

If company A takes a GPL piece of code and makes a "widget" out of it and sells it to company B which does NOTHING to it - rather embeds it on a chip, whatever ... doesn't alter it at all ... explain WHY company B is at fault for company A's violation of GPL.

I'm assuming that GPH isn't touching ANYTHING they get from DigiSys (if I'm wrong, and Digisys is in violation AND GPH is in violation - then someone needs to point this out and I'll shut the hell up) which means THEY are NOT obligated to follow the GPL as they aren't the MODIFYING body. You can't expect GPH to deliver something they don't have or aren't responsible for.

So, again - let's say I download a piece of software that is GPLed by Community X ... and I offer it on my website for download. Community X is found in violation of GPL. Should *I* be sued because that file was redistributed through me? Of course not - I'm not the one in violation.

Please explain to me in detail why I'm incorrect.

OK, I want to go into the detail you ask for.

Try to follow my thinking here.

Hypothetical situation:

GPH builds a cool little media player.
Oooops! They need an OS.
GPH asks DignSys to build one for them.
"Sure!" says DignSys and slaps a custom linux distro on a CD.
GPH takes the finished OS and loads it onto 10,000 devices, which it then ships.
Someone notices that the OS is a lot like linux, investigates.
Ooooops! It is linux!
GPH has to stop distributing the device.
DignSys is sued by GPH. Both companies go out of buisness.

Resilt: Not GPH's fault, they are still screwed.

Actual situation:

GPH builds a cool little media player.
GPH asks DignSys to develop a linux-based OS for them.
"Sure!" says DignSys and slaps a custom linux distro on a CD.
GPH takes the finished OS and loads it onto 10,000 devices, which it then ships.
GPH markets the device as a linux-based personal entertainment device and sells lots and lots of copies to people who think a linux-based handheld would be cool.
GPH is swamped with people demanding the source code.

Result: GPH has actively decided to ship devices they know damn well they are not licensed to ship.

DignSys is actually only infringing if they didn't give the source to GPH. The GPL is quite clear that you are only entitled to a copy of the source if you receive a binary version from someone.

In case that isn't clear enough, GPH sold me my binary, not DignSys. They are responsible for giving me the source.

 

[BradN]

I've decided that I'm not going to buy a gp2x until they release the source for the GPL components. I run linux as my only operating system and even though I don't program much in C, it would be irritating to find a bug or something that I could probably work around but not be able to due to the lack of source.

As a couple quick examples, my CD drive acts a little weird when ripping audio CDs with errors, and after a couple, the linux driver will switch to a single sector DMA mode, and then ripping anything after it goes _really_ slow. All I had to do to fix it was comment out one line in the cd-rom driver.

Also, my laptop touchpad behaves very poorly when the kernel uses its touchpad driver for the PS/2 interface - I commented out the touchpad specific support and now I can double tap and drag with the pad again.

 

[Rayek]

I'm kind of mad that people say it's not right to discuss this here. I mean, this is a forum. What else are we supposed to do? Sure, it's "meaningless", and it "has no point", but why not? You're tired of hearing about it? Nothing's goading you but your own interest to click here. (Though the title is a bit misleading, and we have hijacked the thread a bit...)

 

[Paradox]

yeah i keep checking here too because of the title...annoying

 

[DijiTao]

Let me clarify something ... I have a GREAT DEAL of respect for Linux and its ilk (mySQL, PHP, Apache, et al) as a server platform. If given a choice - I'd pick PHP/Apache ALL THE WAY. Those are products that run in a controlled environment by intelligent people that know what the hell they are doing.

How do you believe all the great OSS server applications that you have such respect for came into being? Back in the early to mid 90’s OSS on the server was worse then OSS on the desktop is today (Ubuntu is very useable). Apache hasn’t always been the marvel of web serving that it is today. Apache started out as nothing more then a collection of user contributed patches to NCSA HTTPd 1.3, hence “A Patchy Web Server”. You simply trust the Apache foundation these days because of their proven track record. Back in 1995 I’m sure there was some guy arguing that web servers are complex applications that need to be written by people that know what the hell there doing, and some OSS application named Apache would never amount to a damn thing. When Apache choose it’s licensee I bet some guy argued that the source shouldn’t be open because nobody outside of the tiny group of Apache developers would ever be able to do anything with it anyways. Someone mostly likely argued that having the having the source of Apache released to the world at large would result in uncountable numbers of variants poping up that would all be incompatible and would result in web applications having to be designed specifically from one flavor of Apache or another. Look at the history of OSS, look at how it has evolved, look at how contributions have come from the most unlikely of places, IBM, Novell, Sun, some kid living in his mother’s basement, and understand how critical the release of the source code is. Linux is making inroads into the embedded market, Linux is getting smaller and more mobile, and the lessons learned in tailoring it to the GP2X could very well be helpful to the community at large. Not releasing the source goes against the wishes of all the people who have worked so hard to get it to be were it is today, and it slows the evolution of what Linux will be in the future.

That being said - my problem isn't with the CONCEPT, its with the attitude and mentality of people behind it. The fact of the matter is, 9 out of 10 people using OSS (that number I pulled out of my ass - I'm sure I can do a poll and find out) have ZERO need for source code. They have need for free software. Period.

That is most likely how GPH feels, they have zero need for the source code, they just wanted a “free as in beer” OS. I would actually say that the percentage of OSS users who need access to the source code is shockingly low, as in maybe 1 in a 1,000,000. OSS is everywhere; anybody who uses the web is directly or indirectly using OSS; every Apple users is running a machine filled with BSD licensed code, every Unix variant uses at least a few of the GNU utils; TIVO’s run Linux, the list goes on and on. The point is that at some point in your day you’re going to interact with something that’s using OSS whether it’s your bank’s ATM or your cell phone. So yes, the users of OSS greatly out number the number of developers of OSS, but the only reason that OSS code exist in the first place is because of the release of source code.

Yes, I'm pleased that folks like yourself have use for it (I'm not being sarcastic), but the rest of the people that are just using it to get a job done have trouble getting our hands around your need for FULL EXPOSE' of EVERYTHING. Again, you might be able to do something with it - we can't. You guys can't seem to figure out why we just DON'T CARE and we can't figure out how YOUR access to the source code will somehow get our requested Feature X into the equation. People learn to code and want source code to fix THEIR OWN problems, not User X's wants and needs. I may say that playing .IFF video files on GP2x is a MUST and without that feature its PURELY useless to me. Let's be honest - the GP2x ain't gonna be running IFF video anytime soon unless a DEVELOPER that happens to have some free time from his MS-centric job to work on it over the weekend ALSO wants that feature. Sure, everyone wants MPG playback (esp. me) and in time, SOMEONE is going to provide it. But Open Source doesn't help User Y that needs .IFF playback. It can't be hard to understand why OSS means NOTHING to User Y.

I’d like to point out that there is a lot of non-Microsoft centric programming going on out there. In the circles in which I travel, I would go so far as to say that the bulk of programming that I see going on is non-Microsoft centric. There’s a lot of UNIX work going on, some PHP, tons of Java – mostly in the form of JSP’s, and the hard-core modeling and simulation stuff is all X-Windows based. Now onto your point, which you pretty much already answered yourself, as surprisingly often what user X wants is what user Y wants. I another problem here you fail to grasp what the different pieces of GPL’d code are and why people want them. Here’s my list of the 3 pieces of source I REALLY wanted released and why:

1 – The Linux Kernel:
(a) By all accounts the current implementation of the Linux kernel is piss poor. Given proper sources and compile scripts (as required by the GPL), I believe your average Gentoo user who’s run menuconfig far too many times could come up with something better.
(B) Having the kernel sources will be an absolutely invaluable reference for those hardware hackers who wish to run software on the bare metal
© Given the nature of the Linux kernel and it’s purposes, any improvements made for efficiency are not going to break backwards compatibility and will be a boon to everyone. It’s not like programs compiled for the Linux 2.4 don’t work on Linux 2.6

2 – Mplayer
(a) Without the modified Mplayer source you are completely at GPH’s mercy as to what file types will be played on the GP2X.
(B) Adding support for more file formats will be trivial once given the source – personally my odd ball container format that I plan on looking into adding is .nuv
© New players could be created that do not replace GPH’s stock player (thus keeping compatibility) and are just run like any other program.

3 – U-Boot
(a) The source to U-boot is critical to all software modifications to the GP2X as it is only by booting off the SD card that we can avoid bricking. GPH has ZERO motive to allow booting off the SD card.
(B) Direct Hardware access needs to tie into U-Boot to be safe, Squidge seems to up to some interesting things, and I’d like to be able to run them without risking a brick.

No, its not explained.

Yes, I understand what GPL means. I wouldn't jump in if I didn't. However, are you implying GPH is at fault because they are "receipt of stolen property" as DigiSys are the ones who are ACTUALLY in violation of the GPL?

Please read the GPL. Not someone's summary, not form and opinion on what other people say, but read it for yourself, it’s not that long and this is clearly spelled out.

As a public service I will break it down, but don’t just read this, also read the GPL.

GPL’d software is copyrighted, it is therefore protected through copyright law. If you copy it without permission you are in violation of copyright law. The GPL licensee grants you the right to copy the copyrighted material, but only grants you this right if you meet certain criteria. GPH is not meeting that criteria so they therefore have no right to copy the copyright material and are therefore in violation of copyright law. I can’t make it any easier to understand then that.

 

[Shane R. Monroe]

I really appreciate everyone's time laying things out and explaining things - and I understand the points all around (would take me forever to address them all).

So let me summarize to make sure I'm clear and I can stop starting crap

1) GPH shouldn't have shipped the GP2x until the source code was done, complete, and in a tar ball somewhere for download ... BECAUSE ...
2) While they didn't write it, they (as a company) DISTRIBUTED it, which makes them just as accountable as Digisys under GPL
3) While many of you will do something with the source code to try and improve the product, its more of a legal issue than a practical one (and there is nothing wrong with that - esp. if you contributed to OSS that was used in the GP2x ... which by the way, does that fit anyone here? Has anyone here actually contributed to any of the source code used in the GP2x firmware?)

I do wonder, though, if the GP2x hadn't shipped ... STILL ... because of the Digisys hold up ... would we all be complaining in ANOTHER post about how long its taking the units to ship?

Again, thanks for everyone for taking a lot of time and a lot of posting. I DO appreciate it.

 

[Alpha2]

Just out of curiousity, how many actual Linux coders have contacted Digisys for the GP2X Kernal source?

 

[jmetal88]

I am no longer reading posts of more than 3 lines in this thread.

This is the most pointless thread ever, in my opinion. Neither side will give, so I say to both sides:


GIVE UP ALREADY!!!

 

[MakavelianKode]

Amazing posts by FluffyPanda and Rayek. I've learned A LOT. I was previously on the side of the fence that - yeah one is entitled to the source, but what's the big deal? Now I'm extremely enlightened and it's amazing how much of a help it can be. Thanks for opening my eyes guys.