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 Reluctantly, they finally did so, releasing an early, out-of-date prerelease version of the source, which is useless to the developer community who would like to hunt down some of the current bugs.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;
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!
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.
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
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."
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).
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
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