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

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 Reluctantly, they finally did so, releasing an early, out-of-date prerelease version of the source, which is useless to the developer community who would like to hunt down some of the current bugs.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

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

[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.

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?

[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?

[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.

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: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: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: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: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.

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: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

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.

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...