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."

Comments

He's right about one thing

[Mateito]

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /2006/01/gp2x-needs-gpl-lesson.html on this server.

Yep. There "is" no ads at all!

Re:He's right about one thing

[mysqlrocks]

You don't have permission to access /2006/01/gp2x-needs-gpl-lesson.html on this server.

I can read it. It's blogspot so it couldn't be slashdotted?

Re:He's right about one thing

[Hal_Porter]

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 Reluctantly, they finally did so, releasing an early, out-of-date prerelease version of the source, which is useless to the developer community who would like to hunt down some of the current bugs.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

Re:He's right about one thing

[Aurisor]

It's checking your referrer.

Click your address bar and hit enter.

Re:He's right about one thing

[zsau]

He didn't say "there is no ads" (which is plainly ungrammatical), he said "there's no ads" (which is not ungrammatical). "'s" can stand for many things, including, at times, a plural copula/to be-like verb. It's just as example of informal language, just like "yep", or contracting in the first place.

Re:He's right about one thing

[Oscaro]

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).

Re:He's right about one thing

[jekewa]

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.

Re:He's right about one thing

[SwiftOne]

TFA says that a version was released that is both out-dated (doesn't match the binary version) and doesn't compile.

He's had to repeat himself a few times in the comments, and includes links there.

Actual truth is unknown to me, I'm RTFAing.

Re:He's right about one thing

[gizmateer]

The GPL issues have apparently been resolved and Gamepark mentions so on their site:

Please stop posting to this board about GPL. Dignsys will post up the sources to the new firmware version 1.3.0 next week on http://source.gp2x.de./ They intend to release it once the binaries to said firmware have been released.

-- Chief Gizmateer Gizmos for Geeks

Violated?

[Mr.Dippy]

Does that mean that the collective geekiness of slashdot can sue them if they don't comply? How does the GPL get enforced?

Re:Violated?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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!

Re:Violated?

[Hal_Porter]

Well according to the GPL version 4, if you kill companies that violate the GPL, you will spend eternity in heaven with 72 virgins.

Cynics have said that the virgins are male and it just feels like eternity, but they are probably shills in the service of Microsoft, the Great Satan of software.

Re:Violated?

[gnujoshua]

Not sure how the GPL gets enforced, but I imagine the people who do know can be found here:
GPL Compliance Lab
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/compliance.html

Software Freedom Law Center
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/

Re:Violated?

[Henk Postma]

Read your parent: " If the FSF acted, they could probably get an order to stop distribution of the device in the US at least. "

Re:Violated?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Also, if you want to see it in action, check out http://gpl-violations.org/.

Re:Violated?

[RobertLTux]

umm try IBM Novell Redhat Sun (partly) NSA and thats just a short list i could go on

Re:Violated?

[cfulmer]

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; and
(2) A copyright infringement claim.

The main problem that you have, in either case, is what the appropriate remedy is. For copyright infringement in the U.S. you can get: (1) an injuncting barring further infringement and either (2) actual damages or (3) statutory damages. (4) attorney's fees can also be awarded.

If it's a profitable current product, then the injunction probably hurts the most. If the software is given away free (as in beer), then it's really hard to prove any actual damages. And, statutory damages are really up to the court's discretion and can range from as little as $200 to $150K. There's a lot of risk there and the legalities are not completely straight-forward.

Here's one little argument (IANAL. Don't rely on this):

If a work is a "joint work" under the Copyright Act, then the authors share the copyright and each is able to exercise the copyright holder's exclusive rights. So, each author can sub-license the entire work however he/she wants.
As a result, although one owner licenses the work under the GPL, another one may issue a proprietary license. If an open-source project is a "Joint Work," then any of its authors can license it under whatever terms, even without the agreement of the other authors. And, if that's the case, then the GPL is not worth a whole heck of a lot.

A Joint Work is "a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or intedepdent parts of a unitary whole." 17 U.S.C. 101. Does an open-source project qualify? You can make a decent case that it does: when somebody publishes their code under an open-source license, they are effectively intending that others merge their contributions into the project. And, such contributions are, by nature, interdependent.

I should note that there's another interpretation, which is that each modification creates a new derivative work. In that case, there is no joint work -- each author owns what he/she contributed and the GPL has a lot more teeth.

The GPL helps some -- paragraphs 0 and 2 imply that modifications are derivative works. But, the GPL doesn't say so specifically, nor does it specifically say that you're not creating a joint work. One of the tenants of Contract Law is that you construe the contract against the drafter. The end result is that enforcing the GPL is not quite the slam-dunk case that people seem to think it is. (Again, IANAL. Don't rely on this.)

Re:Violated?

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

Re:Violated?

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

Re:Violated?

[cpt kangarooski]

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.

Re:Violated?

[cpt kangarooski]

The GPL doesn't require you to do anything, it merely allows you to do some things you normally can't do because of copyright. It doesn't care whether you agree or not.

So you're saying that I can modify source from a GPL'ed project without being required to release my version when I distribute my binaries? I think it's quite clear that the GPL does require people to do things when they meet the conditions specified in the agreement.

From the linked article:
The reason that matters is because if it's a contract, then you enforce it under contract law, which is enforced state by state, and there are certain necessary elements to qualify as a valid contract. If it's a license, then it's enforced under copyright law, and that's enforced on the federal level according to the terms of copyright law, not contract law.

There's your Hitler. The author wrongly assumes that you can't pursue a GPL violation under multiple causes of action. The GPL is a contract pertaining to a license. Breach the contract and you infringe the copyright to boot, because of the way they're tied together.

Re:Violated?

[cpt kangarooski]

If it were a contract, then you might have to give a fee or something to the FSF

Contract formation does not require a fee. The assumption of an obligation is sufficient.

as it stands, you don't even have to contact them to tell them you're distributing the program.

Also not necessary.

You CAN distribute them, if they are accompanied by source code (or an offer to provide it).

I.e. the first party promises to license a right to do things if the second party promises to do so only under the conditions set in the GPL. It's an ordinary exchange of promises.

Re:Violated?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't want to do this. I'm afraid I'm going to have to pull rank on you here. I'm with the mattress police. There are no tags on any of these mattresses.

Re:Violated?

[ajs318]

The GPL does not get enforced at all!

The GPL doesn't tell you anything about what you may not do: it is a licence in the true sense of the word, in that it gives you permission to do things above and beyond what the Law of the Land ordinarily gives you permission to do.

Copyright law is what tells you what you may not do. It varies from country to country, but generally you need permission from the copyright holder to make copies of a copyrighted work unless the copy is only a small portion {e.g. a passage from a book quoted in a review}, the making of the copy is a necessary step in the course of doing something you are already entitled to do {e.g. making a copy of a computer program in memory for the purpose of using the program}, or certain other acts as determined by the courts {e.g. recording a television broadcast that you are entitled to watch for later viewing; in some countries, making a copy of a CD or LP which you own on another kind of medium for listening elsewhere}.

The GPL grants you permission to make copies of a computer program on certain conditions: principally, the obligation to make the source code available. If you do not agree to the conditions, then this permission is withdrawn and any copy you make may infringe copyright.

In some countries copyright is purely a civil matter and only the copyright holder can bring suit against an infringer; in others, breach of copyright is a criminal offence and the police can be involved. In still other countries, copyright is considered civil up to a certain limit whereafter it becomes criminal.

If there is a criminal copyright law in Korea then the police can be asked to investigate. However, if Korean copyright law is purely civil then only a copyright holder could initiate proceedings.

Note that if there were a country somewhere in the world where the law granted every citizen the right to make unlimited copies of computer programs but did not oblige them to supply the source code {à la BSD}, the GPL would be meaningless there: the Law of the Land has already granted unconditional permission to copy the object code, and nothing can take away a statutory right. Of course the typical MS EULA also would be meaningless there. {I know of no such country; but if anybody really wants to set up an Independent Sovereign State, then they could pass such a law.}

Re:Violated?

[femto]

But I'm already sharing Slashdot with 900,000 virgins.

Re:Violated?

[Kadin2048]

But I'm already sharing Slashdot with 900,000 virgins.

Hence why 72 would be such an improvement.

Re:Violated?

[Kadin2048]

I know of no such country; but if anybody really wants to set up an Independent Sovereign State, then they could pass such a law.

There's always Sealand.

I haven't heard much about them recently, and their web site hasn't changed in a while. Wonder what they're up to.

Re:Violated?

[Wheely]

Actually, I think what's clever about the GPL is that distributing the software automatically binds you too it.

Or, in other words, if you re-distribute GPL'd software, you are breaking copyright law if you haven't agreed to the GPL.

Not sure if it works but it sure is a clever license.

Re:Violated?

[cpt kangarooski]

The fee was just an example of one type of agreement; there's no agreement necessary and no obligation.

A fee is never an agreement. The idea doesn't even make sense. Rather, money paid by one party to the other might be part of the objective of one party (e.g. I'd rather sell my house for money than for something else) and can be the consideration required for contract formation. But it's not necessary for either of those things. A binding promise can be sufficient for both purposes.

For example, we could be trading houses. I promise to deed you mine, and you promise to deed me yours. The date of the swap isn't for another month (which is why we're promising, instead of just doing it) but the promises are binding and we are obligated to fulfill our ends of the deal when the time comes.

precludes the possibility of there being an "agreement" because there is no means of negotiating terms, or monitoring or enforcing said agreement

Contracts can be formed sans negotiation. Many contracts are offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. So the GPL is arguably adhesive (although no one is stopping you from negotiating an alternative) -- that still doesn't stop it from being a contract.

Monitoring procedures would be nice, but again, not necessary for a contract to exist. Enforcement is perfectly available by going to court. I mean, how do you think contracts are normally enforced?

Even if you decide to distribute binaries with only an OFFER of source code, that is a promise made to the recipient of the work, not to the author.

You're conflating parties to contracts with beneficiaries of those contracts. If I make a contract for life insurance, the insurer isn't promising to give me a penny. Instead, the money goes to whomever I designate, even though that person has no other involvement at all.

The promise of the GPL licensee is that he will distribute or offer to distribute, the appropriate materials, under the appropriate terms, if certain conditions arise. Maybe they never will. But he is still obligated to fulfill his promise if it happens.

Again, you don't HAVE to distribute your derived work in any way.

Provided that the conditions that require that (or an offer to do so) don't arise. Still not an impedement to a contract. Another insurance contract example: I could get a life insurance policy that only covers against death by plane crash. If I never die by plane crash, the insurer never pays out. But they are still obligated to pay the beneficiary if I die in the appropriate manner. They can't argue that there is no contract because whether or not they had to take action was conditional, or because the person who benefits is not me.

Re:Violated?

[cpt kangarooski]

He may CHOOSE to distribute or not distribute the work.

Yes, I know that, and I've been saying this. However if he does distribute, then his obligation kicks in. Distribution -- which is his option -- is just a condition, just like the earlier example of the life insurance that only pays out if you die in a certain way.

The only "promise" is to not distribute a derived work you don't have permission for

That's not really correct. The promise is that if he distributes a modified work that he will also distribute the modifications. The latter distribution is not a requirement of copyright law.

Re:Violated?

[cpt kangarooski]

That's not a good analogy, because with the insurance you promise to PAY in exchange for the payout if you die that way. With the GPL, you don't have to do anything.

The insurance example is meant only to illustrate that a contract may exist even where the obligation to perform under the contract is conditional. Don't read too much into it.

The insurer enters into a contract under which it will only have a duty to perform if a condition arises. In the case of the GPL, the licensee assumes an obligation to do something, but only if a particular condition arises. In both cases, it is possible that the condition will never arise. Nevertheless, that doesn't impede contract formation.

The fact that you CANNOT distribute an unauthorized derived work IS a requirement of copyright law.

Which is why violations of the GPL are both breach of contract and copyright infringement. You seem to be the only one here who thinks that the GPL's contractual nature would preclude a cause of action for copyrigt infringement. I'm saying that a GPL licensor/copyright holder can go after violators for both.

Re:Violated?

[cfulmer]

I'm going with Cpt Kagarooski on this one, more-or-less. The GPL isn't really a contract, per se. It's an offer to enter into a contract. Once somebody has accepted the offer, then there is a contract and the terms of the contract are spelled out in the GPL. There is an exchange as follows:

(Copyright owner(s)): "We agree to allow you to distribute the software."
(Later user): "We agree to distribute our changes and make the same offer to others that you made to me."

The acceptance need not be communicated back to the copyright holder -- there's such a thing as "acceptance by performance."

[That's not exact, but it's close enough.]

RMS & Co have taken this weird position that because it's a 'license,' it's not a contract. Their example is that you can give somebody a license to cross across your property, and that certainly isn't a contract. However, the license to cross is basically a gift which can be typically revoked at any time. If you had said "I will let you cross whenever you want if you give me $10," there still may be a "license," but it's also a contract. If you had said "I will let you cross whenever you want if you give my town $10," it's still a contract all the same.

Re:Violated?

[jfdawes]

You are failing to read between the lines.

If you spend eternity with 72 virgins then you never get to have sex with any of them, or they would not be virgins.

You also need to wonder how the hell they got to heaven and remained virgins? Those would have to be some severely unattractive people.

So, there you are in "heaven" with 72 ugly and/or obnoxious women who you are never ever going to have sex with.

You need to ask yourself: Whose heaven is this? Perhaps you shouldn't have gone around killing people/violating software licenses

Re:Violated?

[cfulmer]

Um, under U.S. copyright law, the original author does not own a full copyright in derivative works. He has the exclusive right to create derivative works, but may license others to do so. In that case, the others own the copyright in what they added and the author owns the copyright in the original.

For example, consider a song recording: it has two copyrights, the right in the underlying music and lyrics and the right in the recording. If you copy the recording, you infringe both. If you listen to the recording and copy the words, you only infringe the underlying copyright.

The GPL isn't going to be thrown out on mutual obligation grounds -- the exchange of "You let me redistribute your software" for "I distribute my source code with that software" is sufficient. I'm not forced to accept the bargain, but once I redistribute your code, I have either accepted the GPL's terms or have infringed the copyright.

Linus once said

[biocute]

Never trust someone who writes GPL with a stylized L.

A more important question is, what can the Open Source community do about it? Legally and Koreanly?

sigh....

[dr_labrat]

You will resp*ect*
Mah Authora*taih*.
gad dammit

Another blog. another bloog.

Only to be expected

[pilkul]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't South Korea, like China, a place where lots of piracy goes on without being taken seriously? If so, we can't expect the reverse-copyright jujitsu of the GPL to be taken seriously in their legal system either.

Re:Only to be expected

[Dionysus]

So, basically, South Korea or China is the ideal when it comes to GPL, since FSF doesn't believe in ownership of software, and neither do these guys

Re:Only to be expected

[vchoy]

"...like China, a place where lots of piracy goes on without being taken seriously? If so, we can't expect the reverse-copyright jujitsu of the GPL to be taken seriously in their legal system either."

Ahhh but in China, I would assume they treat GPL seriously:
You see, because all GPL source belongs to the "PEOPLE"... ...of China....

hmmmm...yes....I mean no...I mean.... ...move along nothing to see here!

Re:Only to be expected

[Tyrant Chang]

I don't know about China but it seemed that at least in my experiences, the big companies in Korea are cognizant about GPL licensing issues and are pretty good at complying with the license.

For example, when I was working there a year ago
(1) Korea-equivalent of BSA would conduct random audits of software licenses. Actually one consulting company that my company hired had to stop working for couple days because apparently they didn't have proper number of licenses for Visual Studio. The company I worked for also ran in-house audits from time to time to detect not only licensed software but unauthorized software like MSN, mp3, etc.

(2) The company actually had an entire group devote to GPL and there were several initiatives to educate engineers and product planners about various licenses including GPL (I attended several presentations on it) and I belive we also purchased (or acquired) several software that was supposed to detect presense of popular GPL software in our sources.

(3) Engineers and markets usually talked and argued about including GPL stuff in the product we developed. We would usualy opt for commercial libraries because we usually didn't want to go through the hassle (we were big enough not to care about costs most of the time - if we had to think about cost, it probably meant that marketing guys weren't doing a good job in product planning)

(4) Last group that I worked in actually forbade usage of linux because of GPL license and we spent couple mil buying commerical RTOS and was in the process of coverting linux to that OS.

So, while I don't think Korean companies are up to standards of U.S. companies, I think it is a mischaracterization that all Asian countries don't care shit about IP stuff. Maybe private citizens might not care (there weren't too many cases of Korean-equivilant of RIAA suing people but Korea is a much less-litigious society) but I think most companies by far are pretty good about complying with GPL.

For example: http://opensrc.sec.samsung.com/ has the sources for linux used in this product: http://linuxdevices.com/articles/AT7933085076.html (pretty decent product, although concept-wise, it is a knock off of japanese products)

The reason why Korean companies would care is that while chances are low they will be sued in Korea, they will be sued in U.S. and almost all companies need to sell their crap in U.S. to make money. So basically U.S. law becomes more-or-less de facto "international" law.

Re:Only to be expected

[pilkul]

Thanks for the information. I stand corrected.

Actually, I purposely made a claim I thought might be false in the hope of prodding someone into replying with information on the topic :). Sorry, I guess that's technically trolling but it works rather well.

Re:Only to be expected

[ClamIAm]

Yeah, actually Korea and Japan are probably the most US-like in terms of copyright.

Re:Only to be expected

[typical]

South Korea and Japan are also probably the most wealthy.

I think that a lot of copyright infringement derives more from the fact that the incentive to pirate something is an awful lot higher if the item costs, in terms of your buying power, two or three or four times as much.

Re:Only to be expected

[Secrity]

South Korea enforces intellectual property laws as well as any other nation does. In any event, US and Euro laws prohibit the importation of pirated items, this is one of the reasons why you do not see very many copies of XP or "Munich" that were pirated in China on sale in the US and Europe.

Just having laws is not enough, the laws must also be enforced and the laws are NOT being enforced against violators of the GPL. Microsoft, Apple, movie studios, and record companies are getting the laws strictly enforced to protect their intellectual property. Work needs to be done to educate commercial users of Open Source licensed property and to get the laws enforced to protect Open Source licensed intellectual property.

Re:Only to be expected

[Is0m0rph]

4-5 years ago when I worked in South Korea a lot you could walk into a store and have the walls lined with $2 pirated Sony Playstation games.

f3\/\/L slashdotting ur 0\/\/N blog....before..

[atarione]

signing up for adsense...? just kidding... it is a good question the device itself looks pretty badass... I want one... but it is pretty weak that they are not complying with the GPL.... and of course if it came to legal actions then they might well get driven under then nobody could have one to Hack in the first place... Hopefully they will see the error of their ways and post up the source...

Re:f3\/\/L slashdotting ur 0\/\/N blog....before..

[syberdave]

What would be so wrong with posting a blog entry on slashdot even if there were ads?

As long as the content is good and worth it, it's better than those sites that publish pre-written articles just to get indexed by Google.

Dignsys not Gamepark Holdings

[chrisrx]

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?

Re:Dignsys not Gamepark Holdings

[penguin-collective]

No, it's the fault of the people distributing it. Since GPH is distributing the hardware, which contains the binaries, GPH is responsible for making available the sources that correspond to the binaries they are distributing.

Re:Dignsys not Gamepark Holdings

[Kayamon]

Who interlaces an LCD? Uh, Nintendo?

I suggest you look very closely at your GBA next time you use it...

Re:Dignsys not Gamepark Holdings

[harlows_monkeys]

No, it's the fault of the people distributing it. Since GPH is distributing the hardware, which contains the binaries, GPH is responsible for making available the sources that correspond to the binaries they are distributing.

In this case, they probably do, but there is a case that falls through the cracks that I bet we are going to see before long, considering the increasing use of embedded Linux. That case is this:

(1) Vendor A makes a hardware device that contains Linux. A sells this device to other vendors, shipping them the device and a CD with the source code.

(2) Vendor B buys these hardware devices from A, and customizes them by adding application software and data. B does not modify or copy the software that came from A. E.g., Linux from A is in ROM, and B is adding their stuff to hard disk, or Linux is on the hard disk, and B is just adding a user account to run their application, or something like that. B sells these devices to end users.

Vendor A is making copies of GPL'ed software, and needs to satisfy GPL. They satisfy GPL by including the source code CD.

Vendor B is not making copies, but just redistributing the copies they obtained from A. This redistribution falls under the first sale doctrine of copyright law, and does not require the permission of the copyright holder. B is under no GPL obligation whatsoever with regard to the end user who buys B's device.

Net result: no one is obligated to provide the end user with source for the GPL'ed code in the device! B is off the hook because they were never on the hook, as they have not done anything that requires permission. A is off the hook because they accompanied each binary they distributed with the source code.

Re:Dignsys not Gamepark Holdings

[penguin-collective]

Under your argument, when I buy a PC with Windows preloaded in a store I would be under no license obligation to Microsoft. That's not the way software licenses work; maybe they should, but they don't.

Theoretically, there could be a bug in the GPL that opens up such a loophole. If there were, it would be fixable in the same way that Microsoft ensures that end users are bound by their license terms even though there are intermediate vendors.

Re:Dignsys not Gamepark Holdings

[Aim Here]

"Under your argument, when I buy a PC with Windows preloaded in a store I would be under no license obligation to Microsoft. That's not the way software licenses work; maybe they should, but they don't."

GP is more or less right. Providing you dont click 'I agree' anywhere, you're under no license obligations to Microsoft. However, before you rush off to your warez site with your 0-day Vista isos, remember that all that really means is that you can't be sued for breach of contract for reverse engineering Windows.

If you don't have a Microsoft license, you're merely saddled with your default rights under copyright law, and that means you can't copy the code anyway - your default rights are fairly similar to your rights under the Microsoft EULA.

With the GPL it's different, in that the GPL's license rights are vastly different from your defaults and allow all sorts of copying and whatnot.

The right of 'first sale' only applies to passing on lawfully acquired physical copies of GPLed code, and you pretty much lose the rights to do anything else with GPLed code if you use it to make binary-only copies of your GPLed whatchamacallit, and some legal jurisdictions, like the UK, have complicated exceptions in their versions of 'first sale' to take into account when one party is a distributor of the code (as is the case if you're working round the GPL)

Oh and in Germany, a hardware manufacturer failed to stop an injunction taken out by the iptables people despite arguing that they had the German equivalent of 'first sale'. The judges just said that the GPL wasn't an onerous condition, and granted the injunction.

So don't worry too much. It's a complicated loophole to use, it only applies to physical media, not to digital distribution (so unless you're bundling code with your hardware, you'll lose in the marketplace anyways), some legal jurisdictions don't allow the loophole in quite this manner, and the guys running the law might not allow it anyway even if it does.

Re:Dignsys not Gamepark Holdings

[ad0gg]

You just found the achilles ankle of GPL. As long as gpl works off just a copyright licenses with no protections from EULA(like eula would be even enforceable). It can never get enforced, first sale rights triumps the GPL agreement or any other copyright license. Not only does your scenario show the flaws, check out this scenario. I buy a redhat cd, make a bunch of changes. Diff the binaries and make a patch. I can release the patch and not release the source changes i did since I'm not making copies of the GPL code. I could even in theory distribute a device with an unchange version linux and have it run my patch on first boot. This would be much like adding pages to a book a reselling it. Of course slashbotter wouldn't think highly of it. And before people flame me, this post isn't pro or anti GPL. Its just a logical look of copyright laws that exist today and how companies had to add EULAs(though most got thrown out of court) to cover things protected under first sale rights.

Re:Dignsys not Gamepark Holdings

[temcat]

Look for the word "aggregation" in the GPL and GPL FAQ. The situation here is not very clear-cut, but you're far from being guaranteed to get away with this.

Re:Dignsys not Gamepark Holdings

[Aim Here]

First sale isn't a huge problem since all that lets you do is push out your binary-only GPLed code on a physical medium (so the loophole is only really worthwhile for device manufacturers) and in doing so, the manufacturer probably loses the right to do anything that only the GPL allows. It's rather fiddly to get the loophole working properly, doesn't work everywhere and in the only court case where the subject has been brought up, German judges ruled in favour of the GPL and the netfilter team, and against the hardware manufacturers claiming their first sale rights.

And yes, you can apply binary-only proprietary patches to your GPL code, but you can't distribute the GPLed code itself, so basically that's a method of making life annoying and difficult for the end-user. Those sweet debian people are hardly in the business of killing of the GPL, and they've an entire 'contrib' section devoted to stuff like that.

So these are hardly GPL-killers.

"I could even in theory distribute a device with an unchange version linux and have it run my patch on first boot."

I think you're pushing it too far. Here's a similar example.
It's a criminal offence to distribute gcc with the copyright notices deleted, for example. It's lawful to delete the copyright notices yourself. Is it legal for you to distribute a computer with gcc installed that deletes the copyright notices as soon as the user switches it on, before the end user sees it? Under your theory, yes, but I don't see that one getting past a judge.

My guess is that, at the very least, the end-user would have to play a conscious, active part in the process of applying the patch. Putting some sort of patch-applying boobytrap or timebomb in your device to get round the GPL would probably still count as an act of the distributor, not the end-user. I await the rather fanciful test-case on this subject, however.

Of course, IANAL, I just talk crap about this stuff on the internet.

Re:Dignsys not Gamepark Holdings

[Aim Here]

If the supplier A got 1 source disk and a huge pile of devices with binary-only Linux on it, from supplier B then supplier B isn't infringing the GPL, since B provides source.

If supplier A then gives away those devices (which is his right under 'first sale' - see 17 USC 109 if you're a USian) then he is not infringing anyone's copyrights, merely passing on a physical device with software on it. He's not copying code, after all, merely passing on a lawfully acquired physical copy of it, and his right to do so comes not from the GPL but from 17 USC 109, if he's in the US.
No copyright license can deprive him of his first sale right. That's the whole point of the law.

First sale is an important right, designed so that you can lend, give away, alienate yourself of, sell second-hand copies of books, records and computer software. It interacts with the GPL in odd ways though, since you can lawfully acquire copies of GPLed code in more ways that were thought of by the guys framing the original copyright law.

As I say, the one case where this cropped up went in favour of the GPL.

Re:Dignsys not Gamepark Holdings

[arafel]

Except that the GPL explicitly says that vendor A must make the source code available to anyone who has the binaries they redistributed, regardless of whether they came directly from A or through B.

Violators be warned - Slashdot is coming!

[Mr. Flibble]

FTA: Someone with a bit of PR clout must be brought into the picture. But who? Linus? RMS? Cory? Larry? CmdrTaco?

Hmm. Perhaps Slashdot? I have a feeling they are about to get an earful from a bunch of non high profile people. Call it a hunch.

they don't understand?

[revery]

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.

Re:they don't understand?

[ankhcraft]

I couldn't agree more. I've worked for types of people like this. Always trying to find some way around the licensing agreement for software that they receive for FREE. In my opinion, this is tantamount to stealing from a charity.

I'm sure they understand, too. What's more, I'm sure that they also understand that others are getting away with the same illegal actions everyday, without facing any legal ramnifications. And this is the real problem: NOBODY WHO MATTERS IS DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT. The GPL needs to be tested in court.

And to think that I wanted to buy one of these. Now, I just want them to comply or fry.

Re:they don't understand?

[Tony Hoyle]

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.

Re:they don't understand?

[MichaelSmith]

And to think that I wanted to buy one of these. Now, I just want them to comply or fry.

Buy one then ask for the source. Include a copy of the GPL to back up your claim. Maybe GNU Korea can help.

Re:they don't understand?

[ankhcraft]

I don't think that past ignorances will have an effect on future lawsuits. That's like saying "How can you arrest me for breaking into your house for the 3rd time? You didn't say anything the first two times!"

Re:they don't understand?

[typical]

Or rather "I ignored you the first two times you told me, so I should get to keep ignoring you!"

Re:they don't understand?

[abbamouse]

That makes no difference. There is a legal duty to defend your trademarks in order to prevent them from being diluted or becoming common words. However, there is no such duty to defend copyright. The best example of this is "Happy Birthday" which was publically performed without royalty payments for something like 40 years before the copyright owner finally decided to start suing restaraunts and other venues that performed it without authorization. The rightsholders are raking in the dough to this day, despite their half century slumber.

Re:they don't understand?

[kfg]

Allowing willful infringement is, in effect, the granting of a limited license to the infringer. It has no effect on future enforcement against the infringer, let alone some unrelated party.

Copyright ain't trademark.

To the extent that either can be considered property at all trademark always remains to a large degree the property of "The People," who get to define who they ascribe association of the mark with, whereas copyright is assigned by law as a title to the holder.

If someone takes your car and you allow them to continue driving it that is simply a tacit grant of permission. However, that has no influence on your right to withdraw that permission as you wish, because it's your car.

KFG

Re:they don't understand?

[rm69990]

So Party A can't sue Party B for breaching the GPL because Party C failed to sue Party D before for willful infringement, all because both pieces of software use the same license?

You should go work for SCO's legal team me thinks.

Re:they don't understand?

[Courageous]

It's going to be hard to test the GPL in court when ...

There's nothing to test. If no license has been agreed to, then there is nothing at all that granted the rights to use the software. In the copyright law of virtually every country in the world, the rule of copyright law says that "nothing expressly granted is entirely withheld." So when you're surfing the internet for coding examples, and you take some, if there is no statement saying you can, you're committing a violation. Whether or not this is a material violation is questionable, but that it is one is a simple matter of fact.

"Test the GPL in court". As if!!! These are not the droids you are looking for, move along, move along.

C//

Re:they don't understand?

[neutralstone]

The GPL needs to be tested in court.

Eben Moglen (the FSF's general counsel) feels differently. Almost two years ago, while speaking at Harvard Law School, at he had this to say on the subject:

"To those who like to say there has never been a court test of the GPL, I have one simple thing to say: Don't blame me. I was perfectly happy to roll any time. It was the defendants who didn't want to do it. And when for ten solid years, people have turned down an opportunity to make a legal argument, guess what? It isn't any good."

You can read the entire transcript or watch the speech (but make sure you'll be free for the following 90 minutes or so).

Re:they don't understand?

[houseofzeus]

You are of course correct.

I do however find it somewhat disturbing that these guys have basically broken the licensing on the most widespread and well known piece of GPL'd software there is and appear to have gotten very little stick for it thus far.

Re:they don't understand?

[DrSkwid]

Seems YOU don't understand the GPL.

Re:they don't understand?

[DrSkwid]

just to be specific, they have 2 choices :

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

        a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

        b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

As they haven't done a), to comply they must do b)

Re:they don't understand?

[ccady]

And if they do not give you the source code, then they are out-of-compliance with their license, and therefore do not have the right to distribute the code--binary or source--which is an infringement of the *author*s copyright, not yours. So you have nothing that you can sue for. Only the copyright holder(s) can bring any legal action.

First time I have heard of GP2X

[JPriest]

For the other that have never heard of GP2X, they have a vid section here with demos. Just don't rape their bandwidth :)

Re:First time I have heard of GP2X

[Bromskloss]

Just don't rape their bandwidth :)

Nooo, we, the Slashdot horde, wouldn't treat the GPL infidels like that, would we?

Re:First time I have heard of GP2X

[OneSeventeen]

Fair warning, the "Linux Powered GP2X" demo videos are in Windows Media Format. Be sure your windows machines are patched, rebooted, and sprinkled with holy water.

(I thought I remember hearing there was a security hole in the *insert core function of an operating system* engine of the windows kernel that could allow malicious scripts to take control of your computer and potentially give you cancer... Fortunately Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer, unfortunately he never cries.)

Re:First time I have heard of GP2X

[XO]

Could you troll around some more?

  The "WMF bug" relates to "Windows MetaFile", not "Windows Media File".
  Hardly anyone anywhere uses WMF.

Re:First time I have heard of GP2X

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Isn't it only an infringement on Intel's logo if people could reasonably be expected to mistake the one for the other? It is hard to imagine someone seeing Linux Inside next to that *cute* xrayed tux, and think somehow that they were getting Intel. (Or I could be wrong :-))

Unsure about GPL but it is a great console

[YokimaSun]

Im not sure about GPL but what i do know is that the GP2X i brought is the best homebrew handheld out of all of them, the releases are fantastic for fans of emulators and ported games alike. Every day i check out Emuholic and GP2X News for new software for my beloved console.

Re:Let that be a lesson to device makers

[fishbowl]

"Using GPL carries a very high risk that your company will be attacked by socialist whiners when you do anything out of lockstep with their beliefs."

Violating any software license carries a risk that you will be litigated against by the copyright holder whose license you refuse to honor. Doing this is not "going out of lockstep with beliefs", but is *BREAKING THE LAW.*

Gee, color me surprised!

[pla]

Seriously, no trolling or flamebait here...

A company released hardware that makes it easy and convenient to run all your favorite emulated copyright violations on portable hardware.

Does anyone really think they gave a damn about the GPL as a philosophy rather than a means of getting a cheap OS, for which a port of most emulators already exists?


I want one of these toys too, but don't mistake the manufacturer for "good guys" just because they chose Linux.

Re:Gee, color me surprised!

[m50d]

If as you're implying they don't care about other people's copyrights, why do they care about not releasing their code?

Re:Gee, color me surprised!

[snuf23]

"A company released hardware that makes it easy and convenient to run all your favorite emulated copyright violations on portable hardware."

It just makes it easy write homebrew applications and run them on it. It doesn't have DRM to prohibit this. Much like oh say a computer? Or maybe... a PocketPc? Or a Palm handheld?

Just because it doesn't have DRM, the company is a bunch of evil people seeking to enable mass copyright violation? It plays videos and mp3s too without DRM! Oh no! Wait, now come to think of it Apple lets you play non-DRM MP3s on an iPod! Oh the humanity!

You should take a look at the GP2X software, in addition to the emulators there are a lot of nice homebrew games.

Re:Gee, color me surprised!

[pla]

Much like oh say a computer? Or maybe... a PocketPc? Or a Palm handheld?

While true, and as a geek I would even use a GP2X for more than gaming, spare me the insult of playing dumb. They MARKET the thing for its ability to run emulators, with a mention of "lots of native games" at some vague point in the undefined future.

So yes, any PC can run MAME. Any modern handheld can run emulated original GB and GG games. But Palms don't come with GBulator preinstalled, and Dell doesn't sell boxes preconfigured with an X-Arcade pad and raving about how well they run even those pesky CHD games at full frame rate.


in addition to the emulators there are a lot of nice homebrew game

Uh-huh... And most people run Snes9x for the wonderful collection of Anthrox demos available.


Apple lets you play non-DRM MP3s on an iPod! Oh the humanity!

Sarcasm aside... Most people can realistically rip their legal CDs to MP3s. Very few people know how to rip their SNES carts to a playable ROM image, and even fewer have the (admittedly not all that expensive) hardware needed to do so.

Re:Gee, color me surprised!

[jmorris42]

> A company released hardware that makes it easy and convenient to run all your favorite
> emulated copyright violations on portable hardware.

If you aren't Nintendo or Sony and want to launch a new handheld, your initial titles are going to be the easy ones, i.e. ports of existing titles. A port of MAME gets you a buttload of stuff for people to play with. If it is to survive beyond being a toy for a few leet types more content will be needed.

Sounds kinda interesting, but like the new Nokia gadget, not quite where I'm ready to drop the cash yet.

Re:Gee, color me surprised!

[snuf23]

They market the device as a handheld media box which can do video/audio/text and gaming including emulation. And emulators are not illegal. If you have a stack of NES carts - is it illegal to use a ROM image?
Do you think everyone just rips their own CDs for use in an iPod? Or uses iTunes? How do you think that breaks down percentage wise? Realistically, most young kids I've talked with are well versed in the art of burning CDs, ripping MP3s and sharing with their friends. I would certainly argue that the iPod and related ripping software such as iTunes have caused way more copyright violation than the GP2X ever will.
So yes they released the GP2X as an open platform fully knowing that some people would make use of it to violate copyright. Just as Apple released the iPod with MP3 support with full knowledge that some (at the time of launch most) people who purchased it would use it for copyright violations.
I would argue that it is certainly possible that the GP2X developers:

1. don't understand the GPL
2. don't understand that what they are doing is wrong
3. don't really care either way

Perception of copyright law in parts of Asia is very different from in the US. The GP2X is a Korean product. You know Korea, the country that made the Rollex watch popular. They are notorious for producing shameless knock off products that violate trademark, and they really don't seem to care about it.

Re:Gee, color me surprised!

[zsau]

Most people can realistically rip their legal CDs to MP3s.

Not in Australia they can't've. Yet Apple (and Creative and iRiver and whoever else you care to mention) still sell their MP3 players in Australia. In fact, Apple was selling iPods without even their iTunes Music Service available in Oz. What did they think we were going to do, fill it up with 20 GB of indy-rock?

WMA?

[Trip Ericson]

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.

Re:WMA?

[BrookHarty]

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.

Re:WMA?

[howlingmadhowie]

as far as i know, mplayer is covered by the gpl. mplayer (like xine) come with out-of-the-box support for a number of free-codex. the codex one can choose to install are of course proprietry. therefore it is in principle illegal to download and install these codex (in some countries, when it comes to libdvdcss).

Re:WMA?

[Kjella]

"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?

Re:WMA?

[BokLM]

Do you have to pay a license to play MP3 and WMA ?
I don't know for WMA, but I thought it was free for MP3, except for encoders ...

how to get them to comply

[penguin-collective]

The copyright holders should a preliminary injunction halting the distribution of the device in the US. That will get their attention. I suspect that once they have been served, they will comply quickly.

Serious question

[Anonymous Coward]

All the text says the device is called the GP2x but if you go to their website http://www.gpx2.co.uk/ you can clearly see the units logo says GPX2 but the website and literature says GP2X.. its so confusing.. is this even dodgier than first assumed?

-Sj53

Re:Serious question

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Plagued?

[PhakeDC]

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.

Re:Plagued?

[daOrR]

Slow video playback? That's one I haven't heard before... Battery life isn't that bad. 4-5 hours but you can just switch to another pair then, that's the great thing about having standard batteries. There are some issues and the irony is that most are probably firmware related and would already be fixed by our awesome dev community if the proper sources were out...

Mine is on the way

[wobedraggled]

So they better get thier stuff sorted in due fashion, There are multiple issues with the device that can be EASILY remedied but they are not releasing source.

Korean contact for gpl violations

[mattr]

Found a page, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.ko.htm l which links to http://korea.gnu.org/ and mentions this email address (embedded in a lot of hangul which I can't read).

license-violation@gnu.org

Anyway it looks like a translation of this page which mentions the same email address, so why not just email them there in English?

Re:Korean contact for gpl violations

[arodland]

so why not just email them there in English?

Because it's irrelevant. The most important part of that page is "With software for which the Free Software Foundation holds the copyright".

Re:Korean contact for gpl violations

[Kadin2048]

So, forgive me for asking the obvious, but who has the copyright in this case? It's the Linux kernel sources that are in question -- therefore the copyrights are held by whom? Linus Torvalds? Or just by the innumerable individual authors?

The GNU people seem to have the enforcement stuff pretty well taken care of, but if they don't hold the copyright to the kernel their hands are pretty much tied. Given that the kernel is fairly important to the GNU/Linux OS, and as a piece of Free Software just in general, I would have thought that somebody had put some thought into how to enforce the GPL in regards to it before.

Anyone want to fill me in on what the story is? I just scanned around kernel.org and there's nothing there that I can find about license enforcement.

Re:Korean contact for gpl violations

[tepples]

The most important part of that page is "With software for which the Free Software Foundation holds the copyright".

You mean things like glibc?

Re:Release Source before binary?

[idonthack]

But the source releases don't match thier binaries - it's a buggy and incomplete prerelease version.

News Flash!

[BobNET]

This just in: someone doesn't understand the GPL! Dog bites man! Details at 11!

Re:News Flash!

[supun]

I'll have to catch it at 12, too busy ripping DVDs from my local video store, downloading MAME ROMs, and sharing my MP3s to catch it. But how dare they don't follow the GPL. Don't they have respect for other peoples licenses!

Re:Let that be a lesson to device makers

[Rakishi]

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.

Hackerslab

[mattr]

I posted above with gnu address for gpl violations. Also found an interesting looking site, HackersLab.org at least the link to the Korean page looks like there are people who might listen to what you want to say. They are doing security and hacking of some time and maybe if there are bugs on this device it could be a security problem and that would also be up their alley? Good luck.

Matt

Re:Hackerslab

[Slashcrap]

They are doing security and hacking of some time and maybe if there are bugs on this device it could be a security problem and that would also be up their alley?

It's a handheld game console! Exactly what kind of security bugs are you expecting? I can just imagine the security advisory :

Risk: Critically high with bells on

Summary: Slashcrap Sec Labs have discovered a priviledge elevation flaw in the version of the Linux kernel distributed with the GP2X console.

Attack vector: By manufacturing a specially crafted game cartridge and persuading users to buy it (e.g by means of an e-mail or web site), a malicious attacker can gain root priviledges which could lead to the theft of the user's save games and possible disclosure of high scores.

Mitigation: A successful attack would require that the user connects their GP2X to the Internet with a publicly routable IP address. This may also require persuading the user to buy and install additional hardware, which could be accomplished through "social engineering".

About Slashcrap Sec Labs: Slashcrap is the manufacturer of the industry leading Snake Oil(TM) product, the world's premier security pacacea. By covering your GP2X in Snake Oil(TM) you will be immune to this attack and any that may be discovered in the future.

GP2X or GPX2?

[dogbreathcanada]

What the hell is this thing called? Website uses GPX2.co.uk, but on the main website they call it the GP2X. Yet the branding on the unit itself says GPX2.

Could someone make up their mind what to call this thing?

Re:GP2X or GPX2?

[Jacius]

It used to be called the GPX2, but the name was changed to avoid potential trademark conflicts with a Japanese printer called GPX. The final, official name is GP2X. The domain name and product photo were, for whatever reason, not updated.

The way you said it does make them sound more like a scam, though, and less like a tech startup trying to avoid potential lawsuits. Microsoft likes the way you spin things, and would like to offer you a job in PR.

(Maybe I am assuming maliciousness where ignorance could explain it, but the name change is not a Great Mystery, particularly in this era of magical search engines. If the parent is not purposefully trying to put Gamepark Holding in a bad light, and instead is just dumb or lazy, I sincerely apologize.)

Lesson 1

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Lesson 1: Read the GPL.

Re:Lesson 1

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Lesson 1a: Read the unofficial Korean translation.

Re:Lesson 1

[hobbesx]

Well! Why didn't someone say anything sooner?
Here's your problem:

??(copying)? ??(modification) ? ??(distribution)? ??? ???? ??? ???

Re:Lesson 1

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

It looks fine to me. Maybe you should get one of these

Re:Let that be a lesson to device makers

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Using GPL carries a very high risk that your company will be attacked by socialist whiners when you do anything out of lockstep with their beliefs.

And using MSFT carries an even higher risk that your company will be attacked by capitalist lawyers when you so much as think anything out of lockstep with their beliefs.

MSFT is a great investment - if your goal in the world is simply to make money and help people make money.

What don't I understand here?

[twitter]

Tony Holye posits:

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.

Re:Instead of Linking to your Blog....

[Bjimba]

>> Why didn't you just post the contents of the entry as the story?

Simple. I had no way of knowing whether Slashdot was going to pick it up or not. As I said in the post, my intent was to summarize the issue, submit the link to some relevant high-readership sites, and hope one or more would consider it.

By the way, thanks, folks. There's been some good ideas in some of your responses.

Re:GPL

[zcat_NZ]

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.

Re:The Solution:

[ZachPruckowski]

Re-post daily until GP2X concedes.

But that raises a giant moral issue: "Is duping OK if done for a good reason?" Man, that's deep.

Instead of why release, "why not release"?

[typical]

Does anyone really think they gave a damn about the GPL as a philosophy rather than a means of getting a cheap OS, for which a port of most emulators already exists?

First of all, directly and publically violating a well-known license is quite different from providing a general purpose system which can, as it happens, be used to violate licenses.

Second, I want to know what the benefit to them is in holding back. It's a safe guess that their kernel tweaks are pretty specific to their hardware. It's not *that* hard to do some Linux kernel work to get a new handheld going -- Nokia did the 770, and there are tons of other folks who have built embedded systems based on Linux. I just can't see a huge competitive advantage in *not* releasing their source.

I could maybe understand it if their source code infringed on someone else's copyright, but this is the Linux kernel -- there aren't that many places to crib things from to stuff into it.

Why can't the silly build script just pack up a tarball of the sources? It's not rocket science, and it doesn't seem likely to hurt them much.

Finally, it seems like most of the people who might develop for this machine are exactly the same people who would be offended by a manufacturer ignoring the GPL.

Re:Instead of why release, "why not release"?

[XO]

of course, if they have no kernel modifications, or their modifications are in modules outside the kernel, that are completely seperated, then there's really nothing to biatch about here.

Re:Instead of why release, "why not release"?

[typical]

No, they still violate the GPL:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

        a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
        source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
        1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

They aren't doing this.

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
        years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
        cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
        machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
        distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
        customarily used for software interchange; or,

They don't seem to be doing this.

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
        to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
        allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
        received the program in object code or executable form with such
        an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

They aren't noncommercial. Thus, they're violating the GPL.

Best Outcome?

[putko]

Is there some "best outcome" for the GPL/FSF that they are aiming for?

E.g. does Stallman want to go to court, get the GPL upheld and get a recall of some hardware? Would that be the best thing?

Or is the best thing to get the HW manufacturer to give up the source, promise to be good and so on?

I'm hoping that Stallman and the FSF have some big plan in mind, so that things eventually wind up being better.

Re:Best Outcome?

[geminidomino]

Is there some "best outcome" for the GPL/FSF that they are aiming for?

Can't speak for the FSF and their agendas, but as the owner of a GP2X, I can tell you that, in my eyes, releasing the source would be the best outcome. Why? Because Dignsys makes Microsoft software look reliable. At least gung-ho amateurs have a CHANCE of making it better.

Re:Best Outcome?

[dido]

Historically, the FSF has always aimed for compliance more than anything else. As Eben Moglen, chief counsel for the FSF and the main guy in charge of enforcing the GPL for FSF-copyright software writes:

In approximately a decade of enforcing the GPL, I have never insisted on payment of damages to the Foundation for violation of the license, and I have rarely required public admission of wrongdoing. Our position has always been that compliance with the license, and security for future good behavior, are the most important goals. We have done everything to make it easy for violators to comply, and we have offered oblivion with respect to past faults.

The FSF has always worked with the goal of furthering the cause of software freedom. If Moglen and Stallman won a judgment that caused a recall of the hardware and damages paid, it might be a victory in the courts for them, but a net loss for free software, as nobody would get to see the changes that had to be made to get the devices to work. On the other hand, making them comply with the license and promise to be good, as you have put it, has always been their policy, as it has the effect of strengthening software freedom.

By the way, there's a Korean translation of the page...

Some of what the FSF has on GPL Violations

[twitter]

How does the GPL get enforced?

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:

• A primer site on violations, which importantly notes that only the copyright holder can enforce their license. From this it can be inferred that an individual lapse in GPL enforcement is not globally fatal to the GPL.
• Information on how to avoid problems.
• A link to the compliance lab which provides consulting and information services.

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.

Re:Why? (Source w/ binary)

[karlto]

It doesn't really matter what your philosophy is on whether the GPL is right or not though - if you choose to use this software, which has this license, you must comply...

This guy should check the web more often!!!

[h2o888]

Check this out: http://www.gp32x.com/board/index.php?showtopic=226 50 The source code has been released 1st Dec 2005.

Re:This guy should check the web more often!!!

[daOrR]

Those are not the complete sources, they are not up to date. Maybe you should have read the blog post more carefully.

Re:Release Source before binary?

[nurb432]

Ok, that would change my statement if true.

Re:GPL

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Sigh. If you have time to read Slashdot, you have time to read the GPL.

Re:GPL is not viable for coprate usage

[CaptainPotato]

Correct me if I am wrong (and stop me feeding trolls...), but the GPL does not insist that you release modifications to the source that are used internally - only when the binary use is available publicly.

Firstly, if nothing is released publicly, how the hell is anybody meant to know that you've made changes, and secondly, it's the distribution that is the ket issue. Don't distribute binaries created from modified sources, no need to distribute changes. Cannot say fairer than that.

Anyway, as others have pointed out, the source code is available. There's no story here.

Re:Why? (Source w/ binary)

[mrsbrisby]

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!

I can't believe all these posts

[soloha]

that are complaining about the GPL and how wrong and how business unfriendly it is for the GPL to mandate the release of source code. You know what? Those are the terms of the licence. If you don't like the terms - don't use the GPL as your license. Use closed source tools to build your close source program and use a closed source licence. Problem solved. But, if you want to use and benefit from open source tools that other people put hard work into by not having to pay for the proprietary ones, then having your source inherit the GPL is the price you pay. There is plenty of software out there though, that runs on Linux - including kernel modules - that is closed source. NVidia's driver is just one example. They shouldn't have used the licence if they weren't prepared to comply with it's terms. There are any number of more business friendly licences out there.

Re:I can't believe all these posts

[XO]

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.

Re:I can't believe all these posts

[soloha]

I was under the impression that if you used GPL'd tools to build your software, your software kind of inherited the GPL. That's why some people refer to the GPL as being a "viral" licence". I guess I'll have to re-read the licence more carefully/fully. Perhaps this is a common misconception?

Re:I can't believe all these posts

[cyborg_zx]

It certainly is.

If I use a GPL text editor to write a program in C I am under no obligation to distribute the C source to the program as well as the binaries - no different to how it'd be if I used notepad.

If I edit a GPL text editor and release a binary I am obliged to provide the edits I have made on request. I can't do that to notepad so that's not even an issue.

So I can use the text editor just like any other and do whatever I like with what I produce with it. I can't edit the editor and do whatever I like with it though.

It's ironic to me though that this sort of complaint often comes from entities that would probably happly use a EULA to implement the former (i.e. restricting what you can do with the products of their progam).

Re:I can't believe all these posts

[IntergalacticWalrus]

No. The "viral" argument is that GPL code can only be integrated in GPL software (or GPL-compatible software, see the FSF site for a list).

Re:Release Source before binary?

[Lord Kano]

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

Re:Did anyone Look Around the ******* Website?

[Vaevictis666]

I assume that the problem is that as Dignsys releases updated firmware to (hopefully) fix bugs, they are not updating the sources they posted at the beginning of Dec.

Re:How does GPL promote R&D and Inventions?

[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

You can post feedback here:

[Bodhammer]

GPX2 suggestion site

Don't be afraid to let them know how you feel!

Re:Let that be a lesson to device makers

[fishbowl]

>So, even if you violate Microsoft EULA's?

Can you provide a legal argument that distinguishes a GPL violation from a violation of the Microsoft EULA?

They live in precisely the same space: Grant of certain rights that would otherwise be reserved under copyright law.

Inflationary trends in virgins

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I swear there is some kind of virgin devaluation thing going on here, last I heard it was said that there were 7 virgins to be had for perishing in some jihad de jeur. Now its 72. Makes me wonder. Either the quality of the virigins is not what was expected and they are trying to make up for it in quantity, there is waning interest from the would-be jihadis and the ante has to go up (unlikely judging by the news), or the jihadis are being influenced by the Great Satan of the Internet and have concluded after watching some of the moving pictures present there that 7 naughty women is what every godless westerner gets without even having to read the Qur'an. Someone figure this out, it might be of a profound geopolitical significance.

Re:Inflationary trends in virgins

[Hal_Porter]

Yup, 72. Islam is remarkably resistant to inflation in such things, since no fundamentalist would change the numbers in the original passage.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,55 2388,00.html

BTW, does anyone else see the resemblance between Richard Dawkins and Oolon Colluphid in Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy?

Re:Inflationary trends in virgins

[aug24]

It's stupid anyway, after all (1) virgins are crap lays and (2) 72 virgins isn't going to last that long, then they'll all be, err, non-virgins. More of a ten-week-sex-fest than an eternity (maybe a bit longer if you take a few days off). Or one-week if it's 7 virgins.

Mind you, it'd still be fun, so long as I could come back afterwards. Maybe I need to invent Islamic-Jihad-Buddhism.

I'm not sure this post makes any sense - and I've been awake for hours. Perhaps I am drunk.

Justin.

Re:Inflationary trends in virgins

[FictionPimp]

i'll trade 6 of those virgins for one porn star who knows what she is doing,

Re:Inflationary trends in virgins

[Luscious868]

I swear there is some kind of virgin devaluation thing going on here, last I heard it was said that there were 7 virgins to be had for perishing in some jihad de jeur. Now its 72.

It's always been 72 virgins. Why 72 you ask? In Arabic the number 72 is used much like we would use the phrase "hundreds". That is to say that it means that there is a large amount of them, not necessarily exactly 72. I always found the 72 virgins thing strange until that was explained to me.

Re:Inflationary trends in virgins

[geminidomino]

What the hell has happened to slashdot? A Hitchhiker's Guide reference is "Flamebait?" Whoever did that needs to turn in his geek creds.

Re:Inflationary trends in virgins

[aminorex]

I heard that. I also heard that the word could easily mean "raisins" instead of "virgins".

Re:Let that be a lesson to device makers

[fishbowl]

"The way you wrote BREAKING THE LAW in ALL CAPS, you'd think it was significant or something."

I was expressing outrage at the idea that it's somehow nothing but a moral issue, becuase the material in question is under a GPL, as opposed to any other software license. So there's one law for the GPL, where anything goes, and another law for all other software licenses, where publishers can make a federal case out of a violation? I don't think so. If you can get a judgement to that effect, it would be much more likely to have the effect of invalidating other software licenses, than to nullify the GPL. (Nullify the GPL in a supreme court decision, and copyright reverts to the holder, and no further distribution rights are granted unless a new license is agreed to. But whatever argument serves against the GPL must be applicable to any other license backed by copyright law.)

I say it can't be done, but the company in the original article will have no consequences, since the FSF and other Linux copyright holders have no significant interest in litigating against GPL violators.

Re:Let that be a lesson to device makers

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

The people who invest in MSFT do, because if MSFT stock goes up it's because Microsoft has been selling more software. Besides, I think they pay dividends, which gives you a small fraction of the world's blood money for pre-installed Windows.

how do we know...

[XO]

...that they've done anything out of the ordinary to the source code?

Re:how do we know...

[Bob of Dole]

They ported it to a new system. Methinks that requires a bit more than a recompile...

Re:Let that be a lesson to device makers

[fishbowl]

"I don't see what the problem is, the GPL isn't very strict and you simply need to release the source code. "

The GP2X people are demonstrating that there are no significant consequences to ignoring the GPL. At least so far, and unless an affected copyright holder chooses to litigate, then in the forseeable future.

Re:GPL is not viable for coprate usage

[geminidomino]

Distributing the Linux-based firmware pre-installed is still distribution. Q.V. Linksys' linux-based routers.

Anyway, as others have pointed out, the source code is available. There's no story here.

And as still others have corrected those who claimed this is the case: that source does not even match the originally-released firmware, much less the current version.

Re:GPL is not viable for coprate usage

[rohan972]

they are distributing binaries (on the device), and the source code they published is not the source used to compile the binaries, therefore not useful for bugfixing etc, and not GPL compliant.

Re:Let that be a lesson to device makers

[Rakishi]

That has been well known for a while; you get some bad PR and a potential lack of good PR but little else. See it's not cheap to sue people and I doubt linux using companies see much advantage in funding it, sending cease and desist letters doesn't matter unless there is bite behind them. Someone really should show some teeth, however I doubt it will ever happen.

My point was more along the lines of it seeming like an utterly idiotic business decision in this case. They sell hardware, not software (in the later case I can at least understand why they don't release the source, although of course don't agree with it). The software seems to have bugs, why the heck don't they release the source so other people create fixes for them for free (or whole new versions). It's like "stupid management 101" or something; probably some guy in charge is paranoid about giving anything away and as a result is hurting their own sales. Maybe they don't release the source code because if the public version is too good, the software company may lose their contract.

Re:The Solution:

[x86eon]

Personally I think that links in slashdot articles should be automatically coralized (or something similar to that, maybe using a different system) in order to avoid taking down all these sites.

Re:How does GPL promote R&D and Inventions?

[rohan972]

Nobody compelled them to use GPL software. Since they chose to they have to comply with the GPL for that code.

Reporting Suspected Violations?

[marciot]

I bought one of these "IP Drives" on eBay:

      http://www.kingbyte.com/index.php?PA=product_list& class_parent=75&mainclass=1

They are made by KingByte and I have reason to suspect that it is Linux based. It would be nice to have the source since the IP functionality is absolutely hiddeous (in other words, I never really got it to work, although USB functionality works fine).

So what's the procedure for pressuring a manufacturer to comply with a GPL? Can I report suspected violations someplace?

-- Marcio

Re:Reporting Suspected Violations?

[DrSkwid]

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-violatio n.html/view?searchterm=violations

Re:Reporting Suspected Violations?

[marciot]

Thank you. I have posted to the appropriate places and have someone from the Samba project looking into this for possible violations. Hopefully some good will come out of this and we can have some more open hardware to tinker with. Long live the GPL! :)

-- Marcio

Could this be an opportunity to fund Open Source?

[AgentCharlieBrown]

Could this be a way get money for open source projects, by hunting down these kind of infringing organizations? (i.e. if a legal firm, representing Linus sue these guys, get the money for the kernel project and until certain point really enforce the GPL)

Re:Could this be an opportunity to fund Open Sourc

[Majik Sheff]

That's akin to funding hospitals and schools with cigarette taxes. At some point you become dependent on the violators.

Re:GPL is not viable for coprate usage

[protektor]

If you hate how the GPL license works then for GOD'S SAKE DON'T USE IT! You wouldn't complain how a commercial library had all kind of licensing fees if you used in a commerical product, yet your more than willing to complain about how you picked a GPL package and then don't like the license. If you don't like the license the easy answer is then don't use the code. DUH!!

The difference is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:How does GPL promote R&D and Inventions?

[protektor]

If your going to build a whole business on your own R&D then don't pick a license of software code that puts you in debt to someone else to build your business on top of it. You wouldn't complain about a commercial library that makes you pay royalties for each copy of a program you sold because you picked that software to build your software on top of...so why would you complain about the GPL license when you picked that license to build your software on top of? DUH! Common sense people! Know what license your building your software on top of and don't complain about the license your building on top of. If you don't want to build on other people's liceneses then build everything yourself from scratch...DUH!

Clout...

[Puzzles]

Man, I was pretty pumped about this system when I first heard about it. I've been planning on getting it too. But with this sort of cloudy negativity with their developers, I'm not so sure I'm gonna make the jump to buy one.

FSF

[FrankDrebin]

The FSF administers the copyrights for a whole host of GNU software, a large portion of any GNU/Linux distribution. There is likely GNU software in the GP2X. The FSF has a Free Software Licensing and Compliance Lab that seems to be set up to help resolve the issue described.

Re:GPL

[zcat_NZ]

Simple solution; they could have based the thing on any of the BSD's and completely avoided any requirement to release source code. They could still run as much GPL code on top of that as they like. A huge amount of the code that runs on Linux has also been ported to BSD.

Or they could have simply used the WinCE Shared Source code. That's public domain too, isn't it? I'm sure Microsoft would be far more understanding about a simple little licence snafu like this..

Re:Why? (Source w/ binary)

[PeterBrett]

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.

Not true: 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.

Re:Why? (Source w/ binary)

[geminidomino]

Not true: 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.

In what country? "GPL" isn't a registered trademark according to the USPTO. The only entry that comes up on a search as registered by the FSF is "GNU".

Re:Status for contesting this in South Korea?

[Yvanhoe]

We are not even asking for "releases". A public access to their CVS, or SVN or whatever source versioning tool they use would be fine ! The only cost is two minutes of the admin time to put a public account, and, maybe, one day to put this on a public server. That's not much considering that not doing this angries most of their target who are probably mostly techies.

Re:LOL

[Marce1]

Good flamebait: Die, troll.

Re:Why? (Source w/ binary)

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"Is the OSS cause materially harmed by not including the source itself in distributions? They don't have to do that though. That's just normally the easy way. What they do have to do is to provide the source code by some reasonable method when asked by someone who receives the software."

And if they do a binary only distribution, don't forget about the third parties who also have the right to the source code :-)

Re:Let that be a lesson to device makers

[Rakishi]

I hopefully haven't confused myself here; please correct me if I have.

To add to what the other poster said, the GPL clearly grants rights beyond copyright law. The MS EULA however REMOVES rights which you would otherwise have, for example it restricts how you may USE the product not just how you may DISTRIBUTE the product. The difference is that the EULA is a "contract" (or so those who use it wish it to be) while the GPL is a "license." As such you need to specifically agree to the MS EULA to use the product, while this is not true for the GPL (if you don't then you default to copyright law, which if I understand correctly lets you use the product as you "own" it but you cannot distribute it).

In a more sane world (ie: one where corporate lawyers do not rule), one would have to agree (probably sign) the EULA before buying the software. If you consider them in this light then it is easy to see that they are two very different creatures.

You don't need authorisation...

[Phil John]

...to perform any copyrighted song, you must simply pay the performance royalties. Many venues, however, will be covered by a blanket license which procludes even having to do this for every performance.

Re:You don't need authorisation...

[tepples]

you must simply pay the performance royalties.

Only if the music publisher is a member of one of the major performance rights organizations (BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, and foreign counterparts).

Then why Linux?

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

It seems that everybody doesn't want the GPL anyway. Then why don't they simply use something legal, like NetBSD, instead of adapting Linux to the device and dealing with lots of legal trouble? This sort of thing seems to happen every year or so.

An australian GP2X owners view

[Fez001]

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.

The Language

[LKM]

It's encouraging to hear that people programming handheld devices, which could possibly end up being things like GPS/sat-nav, don't understand the language.

Oh, they probably do understand the language. Just not your language.

Maybe you should try talking to them in C? :-)

whatabout this?

[iogan]

http://archive.gp2x.de/cgi-bin/cfiles.cgi?0,0,0,0, 46,934

--------------
http://www.doyoulikemyface.com/

Re:whatabout this?

[Fez001]

Well then this link proves the article topic is a non issue.

Re:whatabout this?

[iogan]

actually i had another look at it, and might be that this links to an old (non-working?) version of the kernel, which doesn't compile or run. in which case it's still a violation of the GPL.

Speak politely to your distributor...

[mtdnelson]

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...

Re:The Solution:

[DrSkwid]

We've seen the coral cache servers down too

Re:The Solution:

[DrSkwid]

and, iirc, they don't cache the images

My big chance

[DrSkwid]

In South Korea, only old people take the GPL seriously !

Re:Status for contesting this in South Korea?

[BokLM]

The thing we need is AT LEAST the source code from their last release (and they have to do it, because it's required by the GPL). If we can get a CVS or SVN with their current source code, it's even better, for us, and for them, because then we can work on improving the thing.

Re:GPL is not viable for coprate usage

[DrSkwid]

The GPL doesn't need to be any more "company friendly". If you like GPL'd software it is quite clear what you need to do to use/distribute it. You are getting raw material and your only responsibility is if you add value to that raw material, you must contribute more of the same, you got it for "free" and "free" it will stay.

If you want to make a living selling software then by all means, write your own.
But don't take what I have given to you and ask me to buy it back.

I think someone beat me to it

[DrSkwid]

Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server error '80040e31'

½Ã£ Á¦ÇÑÀÌ áǾú½ÀÏÙ.

//global.asa, line 72

Re:What do you expect from a communist state

[Hal_Porter]

Calm down my friend, it's the other way around.

I think it's going to be more complicated...

[Benanov]

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.

Re:I think it's going to be more complicated...

[ctid]

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.

No such contractual obligations can exist under the GPL. If there is any impediment to the distribution of the source per the terms of the GPL, GPH's licence to distribute the software is automatically revoked. In other words, the only thing that permits GPH to distribute GPLed software is their willingness to offer the source code for the software in its entirety. If they're not willing to distribute the source (because they'd get sued by A.N.Other company), they don't have the right to distribute the GPLed software.

Re:I think it's going to be more complicated...

[Benanov]

I knew I forgot *something*. Thanks!

Re:Release Source before binary?

[nurb432]

How about you actually read my fucking post? I clearly stated i was unable to read the idiot's blog.

Talk about the ability to read? Try it sometime yourself.

Re:Why? (Source w/ binary)

[mrsbrisby]

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.

Obligatory

[nemik]

I guess in Korea, only old people abide by the GPL.

Re:Why? (Source w/ binary)

[nodnarb1978]

Overall we absolutely agree. However, one of your points actually has nothing to do with what I posted. I totally agree that people are within their rights, morally, ethically, and legally, to have access to the source code -- this is not in dispute.

My only point of contention is on the topic of how to comply with this requirement; the current standards seem somewhat problematic, again, from a purely "end-user" perspective.

It just seems to me that the way it's being done now is contrary to the community's ideals and interests. Access to the source code is certainly the sine qua non of OSS; however, there are many ways to skin a cat, and I'd like to see better, more organic methods of disseminating the source.

Re:Why? (Source w/ binary)

[nodnarb1978]

It doesn't really matter what your philosophy is on whether the GPL is right or not though - if you choose to use this software, which has this license, you must comply...

That sounds like the sort of logic the MPAA would apply to the Sony rootkit to me. Retort made, I'll continue the discussion in a non-trolling vein below.

I'm very disappointed that this post (parent) of mine got modded "troll". My intent was certainly not to troll, and the replies, other than this one, have been very educational. It's sad to see the "groupthink" aspect of this community working against ongoing education.

All that said, I continue to posit that this clause will work against the OSS community in a multitude of ways, and that further clarification and revision is required to this clause of the license to prevent confusion.

I absolutely agree that those benefitting from OSS software should provide some token payback to the cause, and that the easiest and most productive way for that to happen is to provide disclosure as to the source code. My only bone of contention is the way that's currently being done as of now.

I've yet to re-re-re-read the GPL, as suggested by MrsBrisby in another reply to my initial post. I keep posting to threads on this topic, and continually get modded troll, when my only intent is to keep the overall discussion on this topic open in the hopes that a more natural, organic solution to this problem will eventually take root and flourish.

For what it's worth, my solution to this issue would be to include a link to source repositories within the GPL itself. I would be interested to know other's thoughts on this idea.

This always puzzled me.

[locoluis]

I mean. You're in heaven. You're not going to die anymore.

And since no one else in heaven is going to die, you don't need to preserve the species via reproduction.

Why would you still need to have sex?

Re:How does GPL promote R&D and Inventions?

[frause]

How does GPL promote R&D and Inventions? Or do you want everybody to reinvent the wheel?

That's just it! If nobody released source code (for free or for a fee), everybody would have to reinvent the wheel.

Now, they distributed software licensed with the GPL. The "fee" here is you have to give away the source on which the binaries you distributed were built.

Re:Let that be a lesson to device makers

[fishbowl]

"Maybe they don't release the source code because if the public version is too good, the software company may lose their contract."

Or maybe they did something that if revealed, will expose them to some party that *will* litigate, like maybe Sony or HP? (And conjecture like this is possible because of the GPL chicanery ;-)

Re:Let that be a lesson to device makers

[fishbowl]

"The MS EULA however REMOVES rights which you would otherwise have"

No, it does not. All rights reserved under copyright law may be granted under a license. The license cannot take away rights that you have by default. It may try to do that with its language, but such a clause would never withstand judicial review. The MS EULA tries to be a contract, but no case has ever been adjudicated which holds it to have the force of a contract, anywhere. The defense "I never signed that" would probably suffice. If MS really wanted the EULA to be mutually binding, they should negotiate it individually with each user. (The last thing I want to hear is how that's hard or expensive for them!)

Maybe another reason for the lack of source code

[goldcd]

Is that they subcontracted out the develpment of the code to a third party.

Now this third party is, I assume, being paid on a regular basis to provide new versions.

If they give GamePark the source and GP just slap it on SourceForge then I'm quite convinced a team would spring up around it and it would rocket off down its new branch.

In fact, not only would this improve the code, it'd save GP cash - they only make money on the hardware anyway.

I'd be quite interested to know what the contract was like between GP and their developer.

This article is just plain incorrect

[abigsmurf]

God how about some quality control? the original article is plain wrong. 1: GPH are not responsible for the source code of the version of linux used by the device. It is subcontracted to these guys : http://www.dignsys.com/eng/ . 2: you can get the source code at http://www.gp32x.com/board/index.php?showtopic=226 50 3: read the GPL at somepoint. It only says companies must make the source code available on request, not the time scale in which it has to be provided (as long as they make reasonable efforts to provide it) Can we get the original post either deleted or modified to reflect that the writer getting hysterical about the supposed GPL violations just didn't check the facts?

Interlace

[tepples]

I mean who interlaces an lcd screen?

Game Boy Color, Game Boy Advance, and Nintendo DS screens are semi-interlaced. Every other scanline is drawn darker in every other frame in order to improve the apparent response time of the LCD.

Which means FSF and OSDL have grounds

[tepples]

Only the copyright holder(s) can bring any legal action.

True, but if you notify FSF (owner of glibc) and OSDL (employer of owner of Linux) of what's going on, then standing becomes easy to establish.

What color are your bits?

[tepples]

They market the device as a handheld media box which can do video/audio/text and gaming including emulation.

Video/audio/text are thought to be adequately covered by existing widespread rippers and existing fair use laws.

If you have a stack of NES carts - is it illegal to use a ROM image?

If you make the backup yourself using a tool such as Kevin Horton's CopyNES mod, then it likely falls under the necessary modification exemption of 17 USC 117 and foreign counterparts. But if you download the ROM from (say) Edge Emulation, it's not (except in the rare case of commercial ROMs that have become freely distributable, such as Elite for NES). What color are your bits?

Do you think everyone just rips their own CDs for use in an iPod? Or uses iTunes?

A trademark such as "iTunes" is an adjective and must be used with a generic noun such as "music store" or "software" to avoid confusion. If by "iTunes" you meant "iTunes software": You don't need to use iTunes to rip a CD; you can rip .wav using any app and encode to .mp3 or .m4a using iTunes, or if you live in an area that does not recognize Fraunhofer's MP3 patent, you can rip .wav using any app and encode to .mp3 using LAME. If by "iTunes" you meant "iTunes Music Store": You don't even need to buy music through iTMS. Other music stores are available, such as mp3tunes and (if you live in Russia) allofmp3.

Disregard for whose copyrights?

[tepples]

The GP is (IMHO) just pointing out that this company shows a general pattern of disregard for copyrights [by marketing the emulation capabilities of its device]

Disregard for whose copyrights? What's so infringing about taking a GPL'd NES ROM such as Pin Eight Tetramino (or anything else on pdroms.de) and running it in an NES emulator?

Re:The Solution:

[Ironsides]

Why bother reposting? Just put a small frame on the main page, so that whenever someone visits slashdot.org they visit GP2X's website simultaniously? That should be a pretty effective DDoS right there? Hmmm.... Now if you excuse me, I'm off to hack the /. main page to add a frame that points at microsoft.

Re:Release Source before binary?

[idonthack]

From TFA:

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.

The link stated that the released build doesn't even actually work on the system. RTFA next time, please.

Re:Why? (Source w/ binary)

[mrsbrisby]

My only point of contention is on the topic of how to comply with this requirement; the current standards seem somewhat problematic, again, from a purely "end-user" perspective.

What the?

You said it was because redistributors had to include the source with the binaries that end-users were confused/abused/malnourished/etc.

I'm saying they don't have to include the source with the binaries, so what I understood to be your point is completely moot.

All you do is include an offer that has to be valid for three years. You can put this in the about box, or in a COPYING.txt file, or in a WHERE_TO_GET_SOURCE_CODE.txt file, or in the place you'd normally put a EULA- it doesn't really matter. What matters is that the OFFER needs to accompany the binaries (obviously, so that people who are interested in the offer can lay claim to it).

It just seems to me that the way it's being done now is contrary to the community's ideals and interests. Access to the source code is certainly the sine qua non of OSS; however, there are many ways to skin a cat, and I'd like to see better, more organic methods of disseminating the source.

How? What does "more organic methods" mean? What is presently being done now, what are the communities' ideals and interests? How are they in conflict?

If you have to pack up a bunch of files the user doesn't understand and can't read, then yeah, that's confusing. Just like including Chinese instructions to the Spanish. It doesn't mean anything to them, it just adds to clutter.

But as I pointed out, this isn't required. What's required is an offer that describes who to contact (postal address? email address? url?) that is valid for three years. Users that aren't interested can trivially ignore such a notice.

Re:Why? (Source w/ binary)

[nodnarb1978]

Well, there we have it. I've read so many contradictory blurbs on the matter of source disclosure vis a vis the GPL that you could tell me the GPL said you have to provide paper copies by request and I'd almost believe it. I'd thought the method you outline was one of the "unacceptable" methods, so it's nice to finally get a definitive answer here, rather than folks simply assuming I'm attempting to troll and downmodding me into oblivion. I do continue to believe that the controversy surrounding this clause is ripe for exploitation by proprietary FUD, but that's where we go from "narrowly on-topic" to "entirely off-topic". Thanks for the edification.

GPL issues worked out

[jmetal88]

Dignsys, developer of firmware for Gamepark Holdings has agreed to post up the source code for the newest (so far, unreleased) firmware 1.3.0 on http://source.gp2x.de/ next week. Their only problem was bandwidth, and a GP2X reseller was kind enough to offer them free FTP. Now you can all go home happy.

Re:Why? (Source w/ binary)

[goldfndr]

Okay, I'll bite, since you seem to be honestly seeking discussion.

For what it's worth, my solution to this issue would be to include a link to source repositories within the GPL itself. I would be interested to know other's thoughts on this idea.

I'm not sure you've thought this through - are you saying that there should be a specific set of repositories hardcoded into the GPL, and people releasing source code must upload to one or more of them? In that case, they might start charging exhorbitant prices or have restrictive policies (e.g. frequent subscriber- or publisher-renewal requirements, limited availability). That could be legally excepted, but then that's a lot of legalese. I daresay, a list of repositories is unduly restrictive. But maybe I've gotten the wrong impression - did you have any specific wording (i.e. constructive criticism) in mind? Without specifics, replies may be forced into the strawman realm, thus earning you a "troll" moderation.

To me, one thing that you haven't yet differentiated is a fully software redistribution (e.g. a Linux distro) vs embedded software distribution (e.g. a PDA) - to me, the latter would be simple enough by including a DVD or VCD demonstrating the product and having a .zip or .tgz of the GPL'd source code. One single file ought to be enough to avoid confusion.

Re:Why? (Source w/ binary)

[nodnarb1978]

Essentially, what I was advocating was a sort of Wikipedia of Source. (Or a Sourceforge, perhaps? ;) ) However, mrsbrisby's posts in response to my posts have convinced me that my conception of the source-distribution requirement was erroneous, thus rendering my opposition moot.

Just as long as there's more than one way to skin the cat on this issue, I see no problems. I'd been under the apparently mistaken impression that one was required to package and distribute the source itself in all derivative packages/works. I viewed that as problematic and confusing to non-technical end-users. Linking the source and/or disclosing where it can be found is no big deal at all.

I continue to maintain that further education is necessary on this issue; I even took the "GPL Test" and came out more confused than ever. And I definitely feel that it's only a matter of time before this clause is used in proprietary FUD. That, of course, is another issue for another day.

Thanks for the reply, though; I'd been getting the karma stomped out of me for even daring to innocently (and erroneously) question the policy. For those of you reading this now-old thread, please remember this little snippet the next time you go to down-mod someone who might simply need some education.

Re:Why? (Source w/ binary)

[karlto]

Note that my intent wasn't to disagree with your post, merely to point out that it is a bit late to want to change the license after already agreeing to it (in this instance).