Slashdot Mirror
GP2X Linux Handheld Makers Don't Understand GPL
Bjimba writes "Apparently, the developer community is having a lot of trouble convincing the makers of the GP2X Linux handheld to comply with the GPL by releasing source at the same time as binary firmware releases. This link leads to a synopsis of the issue, and yes, it's my own blog, but there's no ads."
Works here, TFA in full :
I mentioned some time back that I was going to get myself a GP2X for Christmas. And so I did. Well, actually, under the Rules of Christmas at our house, my wife officially "got" it for me, just like I "got" her present for her. After seventeen years of marriage, shortcuts are allowed.
First impressions: I love this little unit. Runs a Linux 2.4 kernel, plays movies with mplayer, already has MAME ported to it... Really, it has everything in a handheld game/media machine that a hacker-in-the-old-meaning could want. Except for one thing. The kernel source code.
How could this be? This is Linux we're talking about! The open source poster child! (It most likely is GNU/Linux at that. I haven't poked around enough to see what other components surround the kernel. At the very least, bash is present.)
Well, it seems that the company that created the GP2X, Gamepark Holdings, is a couple of guys in some office space in Seoul. Perhaps some of you who follow the popular blogs remember Cory Doctorow's posts on BoingBoing.net when the GP2X was announced. He noticed the dreaded acronym DRM on their website, and raised alarms. Later, it was explained by the only person at Gamepark Holdings who speaks English that they didn't really understand what they were saying.
Apparently, they don't seem to understand the GPL, either. They (and their subcontractor Dignsys, who actually did the Linux port for the GP2X) have been approached repeatedly for release of their modified version of the Linux kernel. Reluctantly, they finally did so, releasing an early, out-of-date prerelease version of the source, which is useless to the developer community who would like to hunt down some of the current bugs. There are active discussions on the GP2X developer boards on the topic, as people try to find the best way to get Gamepark Holdings and Dignsys to comply with the GPL by releasing source concurrently with each new release of the GP2X kernel. Of course, as these sorts of threads tend to do, accusations have flown about all parties involved, most of it totally speculative.
So, herein lies the problem. This handful of early adopters, mostly in Europe and the Americas, is searching for a way to convince Gamepark Holdings and Dignsys to do what the GPL requires of them, without taking down the companies. This is a niche product, and they could complain until the cows come home and never get timely releases of the source. Someone with a bit of PR clout must be brought into the picture. But who? Linus? RMS? Cory? Larry? CmdrTaco?
After puzzling for a while (and yes, my puzzler was sore afterwards), I figured it was time to test the blogosphere. I decided to write a post about the situation as I saw it. This post. Now, I'll submit it to the tastemakers and see if anyone is interested.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
This is the fault of Dignsys not Gamepark Holdings. GPH have created the hardware and Dignsys are porting linux but they're not even doing a good job of it. They just keep introducing more bugs with each firmware upgrade. I mean who interlaces an lcd screen?
from the blog:
Later, it was explained by the only person at Gamepark Holdings who speaks English that they didn't really understand what they were saying. Apparently, they don't seem to understand the GPL, either.
Well, they understood how to get up an English web site. And they understood how to design a device and market it and take people's money. I think they are like anyone else, in that they understand as well as they want to...
It's cool that they chose Linux, but if they wanted to do keep from disclosing the source code, they should have chosen BSD.
For the other that have never heard of GP2X, they have a vid section here with demos. Just don't rape their bandwidth :)
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
"Does that mean that the collective geekiness of slashdot can sue them if they don't comply? How does the GPL get enforced?
"
It gets enforced the same way as any other copyright infringement. The copyright holder files a lawsuit against the infringer seeking specific damages. The GPL is relevant, but only in the sense that the infringer has *rejected* the license, and therefore all rights under copyright law are reserved to the author. The infringer has no right to distribute the material, once he rejects the terms of the GPL.
Now if the party with standing to sue, chooses to take no action, then there will be no enforcement. It could be possible to serve a takedown order against electronic distribution, by a "good for the goose, good for the gander" reading of whatever copyright laws the media companies are using against consumers.
Probably much easier than pursuing a GPL violation case, would be to order them to cease and desist use of the trademark. The blog post indicates a desire among the community to persuade these people to follow the license without having to "Take them down." That's obviously not how it works. If this company can't be made to fear being ordered to cease production, they aren't going to be motivated.
If the FSF acted, they could probably get an order to stop distribution of the device in the US at least. Let the copyright holder file a motion for a temporary restraining order, stating the case against the distributor, the precise terms of the license, and the evidence that the license was violated. That's the first step. Do that. Don't expect a blog post to change anything!
The GP2X according to the online community suffesr a number of problematic issues right now like battery life and slow video playback, which made me refrain from purchasing one. Perhaps if they choose to release an improved revision would I consider getting my paws on it. Bad karma for them since they declined to release the code. Serves them right in my book.
The GPX2 was renamed to GP2X just before it went into production. Something to do with trademarks similarities or something like that.
GP2X.co.uk is a reputable dealer. You can find the main guy (craigix) on #gp2xdev on irc.efnet.org or posting in the gp32x forums.
Yes, if I violate the EULA there is a risk that MS will sue me or cause other problems. In addition there is a risk that some people may nag at me. If I was a company or working for one then the risk is much higher. Please do post in any decent computer related forum that you use pirated software for a company (or doing any other real EULA breaking), and enjoy the 50 replies making fun of you (and the 5 trying to find which company it is so they can report you).
You break the law, for whatever reason, you must accept the consequences. This does brings up the question of exactly how legal a EULA is in the first place however either way there is a chance of lawsuit/bad press no matter what you personally believe about its legality. Granted, if you're smart you will probably not admit any of this if you are caught, since it would probably hurt your case.
I don't see what the problem is, the GPL isn't very strict and you simply need to release the source code. If you don't want to then there are other solutions, free and otherwise (BSD comes to mind, Windows CE probably does as well). If you wish to fight the legality of the GPL have fun, although keep in mind that it grants you rights in addition to those of copyright and if you strike it down you won't be able to distribute the software anyway.
Broadcom have been doing it for years, and nobody gave a shit then.. why now? It's going to be hard to test the GPL in court when willful infringement has been ignored.
That's about as silly as saying that because no one cares about the GPL, all copyright is invalid. It would be nice if that were true, but it's not. Nor is it true that any one person ignoring a GPL violation invalidates the GPL as a license or the copyright laws it's based on.
The FSF has this to say about GPL violations:
The FSF acts on all GPL violations reported on FSF copyrighted code, and we offer assistance to any other copyright holder who wishes to do the same. But, we cannot act on our own if we do not hold copyright. Thus, be sure to find out who the copyright holders of the software are before reporting a violation.
Only the copyright holder can protect their work. There's nothing I can do if you don't care. If the use of your work to rob someone else of their rights bothers you, do something about it. There are lots of people willing to help. If you don't care, release it under another license. The GPL will continue to serve it's purpose regardless.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The GPL says (and has said ever since the very first version) that you must distribute the SAME version of the sources that was used to compile the binaries. Not a barely-working BETA version from 6 months ago, not the version before this one, not even a later version, but the exact same source code used to build THIS binary.
Which they're apparently not doing.
If they want to add DRM and not give out the source, they're going to have to do it as a standalone binary application or module, similar to the NVidia drivers, Macromedia's flash plugin, or Acrobat Reader.. there are ways of doing things like this that _don't_ violate the GPL.
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
The GPL is enforced like any other copyright and derives it's power from the same copyright laws used by some people to strip you of the four software freedoms.
From what I've read, contact is made with the suspected violator. Most violations are not intentional and everyone is made happy right away. If not, you have to do what other publishers do. This is how the FSF does it.
The free software foundation has plenty of good advice. Just Google for "gpl violation site:fsf.org" You will be taken to:
There would not be any confusion over the issue if there were not for a massive propaganda effort by people who prefer their power and wealth to your freedom.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I still don't understand why the source distribution is compulsory in the way that it is. I would argue, and I'm sure others have, that from a purely "end-user" perspective, including the source code is both confusing and superfluous.
With the GPL, source distribution isn't compulsory. You really should read it. End users don't care about source code and they probably would never ask for it.
In fact, if you're not redistributing someone elses' work, but instead have released your own software under a GPL redistribution license, nobody can redistribute your software unless they have the source code, and you are completely free to decide whether or not you're going to give anyone your source code.
However, once you do give someone the license and ability to redistribute your software to the satisfaction of the GPL, anyone they redistribute your software to automatically gets those same rights.
In this case, Linux isn't your software. It isn't GP2X's software either. They are redistributing it, and as a result, need to provide that written offer. It seems like people want to take them up on it- presumably those that have received the binary, and these people are entitled to do it!
RTFA.
The complaint is that the sources that were made available do not match the current binaries. The released source is a pre-release version and doesn't help the people who want to fix the bugs in the current binaries.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
May be GP2X does not want to release their R&D work and Inventions to the world to use it for free which they invested considerable amount of money to develop.
If that's the case, they shouldn't have used code that forbids just that. They were free to write all of their own code from scratch. But they didn't. They took GPLed code that requires that they share any distributed changes.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Don't be afraid to let them know how you feel!
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
> In theory, the GPL, like any other software license, is enforced by the owner of the copyright in the code. In the U.S., this can take two forms:
> (1) A breach-of-contract claim for violating the license
Nope, there is no breach of contract, because the GPL is not a contract. It is a license.
So that leaves:
> (2) A copyright infringement claim.
Or use open source tools to build a closed source program with a closed source license.
Or use closed source tools to build an open source program with an open source license.
Because, ya know, you can.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
> Wow, now that's a silly post. The GPL is clearly a bilateral contract, in which part of the subject matter is a license as to a copyrighted work.
Okay, Sherlock, if it's a bilateral contract, where do I sign it? What, nowhere? Sorry, NOT a contract then.
Look, it's very simple - GPL is a conditional license to a copyrighted work. If you abide by the terms, then you are allowed to use, modify, distribute, etc. If you don't abide by the terms (which you are not required to do, and there is no mechanism for ensuring your agreement) then it is COPYRIGHT LAW which binds you, not GPL. The GPL has no "contract clauses" as FSF likes to call them.
If you break the terms, you are guilty only of copyright infringement (because the license becomes void) and not breach of contract.
Okay, Sherlock, if it's a bilateral contract, where do I sign it? What, nowhere? Sorry, NOT a contract then.
Who ever said that you have to sign a contract for it to be valid? Hell, you can even have oral contracts -- no writing or signatures there. You need to read up on the necessary elements for contract formation.
If you don't abide by the terms (which you are not required to do, and there is no mechanism for ensuring your agreement) then it is COPYRIGHT LAW which binds you, not GPL.
No, if you distribute a GPL'ed work improperly, then you are infringing a copyright and breaching a contract. (unless you argue that you never agreed to the GPL, which may or may not be true, depending on circumstances)
I hate to pull rank here, but I am a copyright lawyer, and I do write licenses and other agreements for a living. I know what I'm talking about.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
The GPL governs how you redistribute programs based on GPL code. The major requirement is that you cannot modify the source and then release only a binary copy. This is a restriction on changing the product.
The Microsoft EULA governs a thousand other things... how many computers you may install the binary on, what you may use the software to do, whether you can transfer ownership of the software, etc. These are restrictions on simply using the product.
It's the difference between using the law to make sure you don't republish someone else's book under your name and using it to make sure you don't give the book to your friend.
Another way to look at it is that violating Microsoft's EULA is something a six-year old can do the first time he touches a computer. Violating the GPL is a lot of work, and basically requires some kind of programming knowledge. To violate the GPL, you have to be in a position to know better.
Really, it has everything in a handheld game/media machine that a hacker-in-the-old-meaning could want. Except for one thing. The kernel source code.
Actually they didn't release the source code for other modified software either, including MPlayer and SDL (SDL is in the same state as the kernel, an early version, and MPlayer was never released).
1) During development it was called GPX2, the company ran a stupid naming the console competition the guy who suggested GP2x won... just stupid. 2) There is actually no WMA support due to the rights issue, despite what it says on the box, but they may get rights in the future. 3) The source has been released they just dont seem to be quick with releasing updated source with each firmware version, something which some people would like rectified. 4) Besides the fact my GP2X console is a pre-release version, its the best thing I have ever bought. The public domain software urinates all over the PSP, something new is released nearly every day. The scene is really great, it reminds me of the C64 and amiga days. 5) Yeah they seem not too be so quick with firmware updates but these guys catered the console to the publics request the whole way through the design, so its what the gamer out there wants. I dont think they originally had the open source idea in mind but it came with the request of the general public. I know that there are only hand full of people who make the GP2X and they that are working flat out, they are probably just being slack with updated source code releasement. 6) Besides there mistakes I believe the manufacturesrs are good guys who will eventually comply when they get more organised. The huge prerelease sales are probably too much for them to cope with while the thing is still under development.
"This may seem offtopic, but does anyone know if this company has paid the proper royalties to be able to sell a device that plays MP3 and WMA out of the box? From a company that feels like it can do what it's doing with GPL-ed software, it wouldn't surprise me if they haven't."
Since it uses Mplayer is already GPL'ed, this is the "viral licensing" that people talk about. A piece of GPL'ed software that first might not have the right have the legal right to exist in binary form. The same reason Xvid is source only.
There are a few programs and codecs people tend to overlook, same reason mplayer, css, divx isnt included in some linux (gpl'ed) distros, they respect the copyrights.
First, using a GPL'd application does not make the entire device GPL'd. And you could still have proprietary applications on top of the linux kernel.
Second, I don't know of any software which is illegal in source form and legal in binary form, only the opposite. There's nothing stopping them from shipping source.
Third, mplayer is an original work and doesn't violate any copyright, neither does XviD. The XviD codec is covered by many software patents, and mplayer can't be distributed with codecs written by others without permission.
Fourth, your post completely failed to answer any of the questions raised by the parent. Have they paid MP3 and WMA licenses?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Well, I rang the UK distributor, and spoke to a very friendly and helpful lady there. I told them I was interested in the GP2X but was concerned about the availability of the source.
She told me that she had just read the news herself. She said that 'Craig' - it sounds as though he is her colleague who deals with the manufacturer - was going to contact them himself. She said that she was sure he would put a post on the front page of their website http://www.gp2x.co.uk/ when he had some news. It does look as though they keep the news up to date on their front page.
So, if everyone gets their local distributor to help, maybe we can sort this out...
Michael Nelson
It's not going to be just as easy for GamePark to distribute the source.
The GP2X uses SD Media. SD media has zip zilch zero FLOSS drivers that read it because of the S. The security is very much unused in today's world and so most FLOSS systems can read SD because all SD implementations must support the old MMC specifications--so that's the workaround.
The problem is that if the GP2X actually does use the security functions of SD media (which they most likely do in order to attract commercial developers), they may have contractual obligations to NOT distribute the source.
They could get around it with binary modules (Linus' exception) but don't expect this one to be very easily solved by a simple source release.
He's wrong about one thing, too.
After two minutes searching, I found the link to the file archives, in which there is gp2x Embedded Linux Source. I'm downloading now, so it may be the case I eat my words, but it looks like the peeps behind the kernel have released the source.
End the FUD
If you release your own software under GPL, you must release the source code. Otherwise you haven't released it under the GPL, and FSF can sue you for trademark violation.
Not true: GPL isn't a trademark, and is a redistribution license. The General Public License doesn't place any restrictions on the copyright holder and cannot legally do so.
The GPL only grants rights, and it specifically only grants certain redistribution rights, provided certain conditions are met. If you cannot meet those conditions you cannot redistribute the software. You couldn't legally do so anyway.
If you are the copyright holder, then the GPL doesn't apply to you at all: it is something that you decided should apply to people when they redistribute your software. If you don't give them the ability to satisfy the GPL in order to redistribute your software, then they still cannot redistribute it.
But: If they do get the ability to satisfy the GPL, they can redistribute it- they don't have to, but if they do redistribute it, they must make it possible for whoever they redistribute it to, to satisfy the GPL of the thing that was redistributed.