Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GP2X Linux Handheld Makers Don't Understand GPL

Posted by samzenpus on from the please-release-me dept.

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."

52 of 284 comments (clear)

  1. He's right about one thing by Mateito · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!

    --
    Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
    1. Re:He's right about one thing by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Informative

      Works here, TFA in full :

      I mentioned some time back that I was going to get myself a GP2X for Christmas. And so I did. Well, actually, under the Rules of Christmas at our house, my wife officially "got" it for me, just like I "got" her present for her. After seventeen years of marriage, shortcuts are allowed.

      First impressions: I love this little unit. Runs a Linux 2.4 kernel, plays movies with mplayer, already has MAME ported to it... Really, it has everything in a handheld game/media machine that a hacker-in-the-old-meaning could want. Except for one thing. The kernel source code.

      How could this be? This is Linux we're talking about! The open source poster child! (It most likely is GNU/Linux at that. I haven't poked around enough to see what other components surround the kernel. At the very least, bash is present.)

      Well, it seems that the company that created the GP2X, Gamepark Holdings, is a couple of guys in some office space in Seoul. Perhaps some of you who follow the popular blogs remember Cory Doctorow's posts on BoingBoing.net when the GP2X was announced. He noticed the dreaded acronym DRM on their website, and raised alarms. Later, it was explained by the only person at Gamepark Holdings who speaks English that they didn't really understand what they were saying.

      Apparently, they don't seem to understand the GPL, either. They (and their subcontractor Dignsys, who actually did the Linux port for the GP2X) have been approached repeatedly for release of their modified version of the Linux kernel. Reluctantly, they finally did so, releasing an early, out-of-date prerelease version of the source, which is useless to the developer community who would like to hunt down some of the current bugs. There are active discussions on the GP2X developer boards on the topic, as people try to find the best way to get Gamepark Holdings and Dignsys to comply with the GPL by releasing source concurrently with each new release of the GP2X kernel. Of course, as these sorts of threads tend to do, accusations have flown about all parties involved, most of it totally speculative.

      So, herein lies the problem. This handful of early adopters, mostly in Europe and the Americas, is searching for a way to convince Gamepark Holdings and Dignsys to do what the GPL requires of them, without taking down the companies. This is a niche product, and they could complain until the cows come home and never get timely releases of the source. Someone with a bit of PR clout must be brought into the picture. But who? Linus? RMS? Cory? Larry? CmdrTaco?

      After puzzling for a while (and yes, my puzzler was sore afterwards), I figured it was time to test the blogosphere. I decided to write a post about the situation as I saw it. This post. Now, I'll submit it to the tastemakers and see if anyone is interested.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:He's right about one thing by Oscaro · · Score: 3, Informative

      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).

    3. Re:He's right about one thing by jekewa · · Score: 3, Informative

      He's wrong about one thing, too.

      After two minutes searching, I found the link to the file archives, in which there is gp2x Embedded Linux Source. I'm downloading now, so it may be the case I eat my words, but it looks like the peeps behind the kernel have released the source.

      --
      End the FUD
  2. Violated? by Mr.Dippy · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    --


    -Dipster
    1. Re:Violated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative


      "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!

    2. Re:Violated? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    3. Re:Violated? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Informative

      Okay, Sherlock, if it's a bilateral contract, where do I sign it? What, nowhere? Sorry, NOT a contract then.

      Who ever said that you have to sign a contract for it to be valid? Hell, you can even have oral contracts -- no writing or signatures there. You need to read up on the necessary elements for contract formation.

      If you don't abide by the terms (which you are not required to do, and there is no mechanism for ensuring your agreement) then it is COPYRIGHT LAW which binds you, not GPL.

      No, if you distribute a GPL'ed work improperly, then you are infringing a copyright and breaching a contract. (unless you argue that you never agreed to the GPL, which may or may not be true, depending on circumstances)

      I hate to pull rank here, but I am a copyright lawyer, and I do write licenses and other agreements for a living. I know what I'm talking about.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  3. Linus once said by biocute · · Score: 3, Funny

    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?

    --
    Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
  4. sigh.... by dr_labrat · · Score: 2, Funny
    You will resp*ect*
    Mah Authora*taih*.
    gad dammit

    Another blog. another bloog.

    --
    The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake those, you've got it made. (Marx)
  5. Only to be expected by pilkul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Only to be expected by Tyrant+Chang · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  6. Dignsys not Gamepark Holdings by chrisrx · · Score: 2, Informative

    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?

    1. Re:Dignsys not Gamepark Holdings by penguin-collective · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Dignsys not Gamepark Holdings by Kayamon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Who interlaces an LCD? Uh, Nintendo?

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

      --
      Kayamon
  7. they don't understand? by revery · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:they don't understand? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:they don't understand? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    3. Re:they don't understand? by ankhcraft · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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!"

      --
      ...
    4. Re:they don't understand? by abbamouse · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Make cheese not war 8:)
    5. Re:they don't understand? by rm69990 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  8. First time I have heard of GP2X by JPriest · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    --
    Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
  9. Re:Let that be a lesson to device makers by fishbowl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.*

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  10. Gee, color me surprised! by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Gee, color me surprised! by pla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Gee, color me surprised! by jmorris42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > 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.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
  11. WMA? by Trip+Ericson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:WMA? by Kjella · · Score: 2, Informative

      "This may seem offtopic, but does anyone know if this company has paid the proper royalties to be able to sell a device that plays MP3 and WMA out of the box? From a company that feels like it can do what it's doing with GPL-ed software, it wouldn't surprise me if they haven't."

      Since it uses Mplayer is already GPL'ed, this is the "viral licensing" that people talk about. A piece of GPL'ed software that first might not have the right have the legal right to exist in binary form. The same reason Xvid is source only.

      There are a few programs and codecs people tend to overlook, same reason mplayer, css, divx isnt included in some linux (gpl'ed) distros, they respect the copyrights.

      First, using a GPL'd application does not make the entire device GPL'd. And you could still have proprietary applications on top of the linux kernel.
      Second, I don't know of any software which is illegal in source form and legal in binary form, only the opposite. There's nothing stopping them from shipping source.
      Third, mplayer is an original work and doesn't violate any copyright, neither does XviD. The XviD codec is covered by many software patents, and mplayer can't be distributed with codecs written by others without permission.
      Fourth, your post completely failed to answer any of the questions raised by the parent. Have they paid MP3 and WMA licenses?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  12. how to get them to comply by penguin-collective · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  13. Korean contact for gpl violations by mattr · · Score: 2
    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?

  14. Re:Let that be a lesson to device makers by Rakishi · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  15. Hackerslab by mattr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Hackerslab by Slashcrap · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

  16. What don't I understand here? by twitter · · Score: 3, Informative
    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.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  17. Re:GPL by zcat_NZ · · Score: 3, Informative

    The GPL says (and has said ever since the very first version) that you must distribute the SAME version of the sources that was used to compile the binaries. Not a barely-working BETA version from 6 months ago, not the version before this one, not even a later version, but the exact same source code used to build THIS binary.

    Which they're apparently not doing.

    If they want to add DRM and not give out the source, they're going to have to do it as a standalone binary application or module, similar to the NVidia drivers, Macromedia's flash plugin, or Acrobat Reader.. there are ways of doing things like this that _don't_ violate the GPL.

    --
    455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
  18. Re:The Solution: by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  19. Re:f3\/\/L slashdotting ur 0\/\/N blog....before.. by syberdave · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  20. Some of what the FSF has on GPL Violations by twitter · · Score: 4, Informative
    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:

    There would not be any confusion over the issue if there were not for a massive propaganda effort by people who prefer their power and wealth to your freedom.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  21. Re:Why? (Source w/ binary) by karlto · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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...

  22. Re:Why? (Source w/ binary) by mrsbrisby · · Score: 2, Informative

    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!

  23. Re:Release Source before binary? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 4, Informative

    RTFA.

    The complaint is that the sources that were made available do not match the current binaries. The released source is a pre-release version and doesn't help the people who want to fix the bugs in the current binaries.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  24. Re:How does GPL promote R&D and Inventions? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Informative

    May be GP2X does not want to release their R&D work and Inventions to the world to use it for free which they invested considerable amount of money to develop.

    If that's the case, they shouldn't have used code that forbids just that. They were free to write all of their own code from scratch. But they didn't. They took GPLed code that requires that they share any distributed changes.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  25. You can post feedback here: by Bodhammer · · Score: 3, Informative
    GPX2 suggestion site

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

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
  26. Re:Lesson 1 by hobbesx · · Score: 2, Funny

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

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

    --
    This rating is Unfair ( ) ( ) Fair (*) Funny
    Sigh... If only. Modding would be so much more fun.
  27. Inflationary trends in virgins by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  28. Re:I can't believe all these posts by XO · · Score: 2, Informative

    Or use open source tools to build a closed source program with a closed source license.
    Or use closed source tools to build an open source program with an open source license.

    Because, ya know, you can.

    --
    "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
  29. Re:Let that be a lesson to device makers by Rakishi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  30. Re:how do we know... by Bob+of+Dole · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    --
    I respond to your sigs
  31. An australian GP2X owners view by Fez001 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  32. Speak politely to your distributor... by mtdnelson · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, I rang the UK distributor, and spoke to a very friendly and helpful lady there. I told them I was interested in the GP2X but was concerned about the availability of the source.

    She told me that she had just read the news herself. She said that 'Craig' - it sounds as though he is her colleague who deals with the manufacturer - was going to contact them himself. She said that she was sure he would put a post on the front page of their website http://www.gp2x.co.uk/ when he had some news. It does look as though they keep the news up to date on their front page.

    So, if everyone gets their local distributor to help, maybe we can sort this out...

    --
    Michael Nelson
  33. I think it's going to be more complicated... by Benanov · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  34. Re:Why? (Source w/ binary) by mrsbrisby · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.