Sign In
Register
Help
Posted 15 January 2006 - 05:13 AM
I have seen on the GP2X site that someone claims that the 1.3.0 firmware will have the sources simultaneously released with the patch. Can anyone validate these claims, I am very dubious of them.
The sources are supposed to be going here:
http://source.gp2x.de
Any info, someone must be in the know.
Gph/digisys Gpl Compliance W/ 1.3.0 Firmware Will 1.3.0 come with Source??
MultiQuote
#2
- Miku wants you to have a good day.
-
- Group:
- GP32 Hardcore
- Posts:
- 1,160
- Joined:
- 29-March 05
- Location:
- Canada!
- Interests:
- You.
Posted 15 January 2006 - 05:23 AM
Series-8, on Jan 14 2006, 09:13 PM, said:
I have seen on the GP2X site that someone claims that the 1.3.0 firmware will have the sources simultaneously released with the patch. Can anyone validate these claims, I am very dubious of them.
The sources are supposed to be going here:
http://source.gp2x.de
Any info, someone must be in the know.
The sources are supposed to be going here:
http://source.gp2x.de
Any info, someone must be in the know.
Yeah some legal lawsuit thingy.. If they dont release their source then the company will get sued.
#4
- UK GP32 & GP2X Owner
-
- Group:
- GP Guru
- Posts:
- 2,696
- Joined:
- 18-October 03
- Location:
- UK
Posted 15 January 2006 - 07:00 AM
#5
- GP32 Hardcore
-
- Group:
- Members
- Posts:
- 137
- Joined:
- 23-September 05
Posted 15 January 2006 - 07:02 AM
Series-8, on Jan 15 2006, 05:13 AM, said:
I have seen on the GP2X site that someone claims that the 1.3.0 firmware will have the sources simultaneously released with the patch. Can anyone validate these claims, I am very dubious of them.
The sources are supposed to be going here:
http://source.gp2x.de
Any info, someone must be in the know.
The sources are supposed to be going here:
http://source.gp2x.de
Any info, someone must be in the know.
There has been a very large discussion about this (see Slashdot once more). Towards the end of that discussion, someone (search for muncher666 in the thread) stated that they had been told that the sources for 1.3.0 would be made available next week. We're now waiting to see if they turn up.
This post has been edited by evening2005: 15 January 2006 - 07:14 AM
#6
- GP Mania
-
- Group:
- GP32 Hardcore
- Posts:
- 339
- Joined:
- 24-December 05
Posted 15 January 2006 - 10:42 AM
Woah there dude.. I have confirmed that they are indeed sending the source code to EvilDragon's space, but I can't tell you for sure that we are being given everything - we'll have to wait till monday for a reply to confirm this.
Allan.
Allan.
#8
- Mega GP Mania
-
- Group:
- GP32 Hardcore
- Posts:
- 572
- Joined:
- 04-August 05
Posted 16 January 2006 - 04:22 PM
http://www.gbax.com/gplgp2x.html
...
Personally I think Craig's message there is kinda lame, there is plenty of blame to spread around here. Sure DignSys are the ones who have to release the source, but GPH could have put a lot more pressure on them to do it. It's obvious that GPH was more interested in getting firmware patches out the door then complying with the GPL. I'm sure that for the vast majority of GP2X users that's was for the best, as they couldn't give a rats ass about GPL compliance, but that doesn't mean that what GPH was condoning wasn't illegal. As for Craig and the other resellers, if they wanted to put pressure on GPH all they had to do was stop selling GP2X's until this was resolved -- you know instead of selling a copyright infringing device. We'll whatever, as long as it gets resolved soon. It just seems lame to me to blame the Slashdot crowd when your the ones who are actually in the wrong. Sure, you got some childish harassing emails/phone calls, but then again you are supporting a company (directly or indirectly) that is pissing on the rights of countless programmers. So just understand that a horde of pissed off (and possibly figuratively pissed on) GPL zealots start annoying you, it's just motivation to get the problem solved, not an excuse for why the problem happened in the first place, or why the problem has existed for as long as it has.
...
Personally I think Craig's message there is kinda lame, there is plenty of blame to spread around here. Sure DignSys are the ones who have to release the source, but GPH could have put a lot more pressure on them to do it. It's obvious that GPH was more interested in getting firmware patches out the door then complying with the GPL. I'm sure that for the vast majority of GP2X users that's was for the best, as they couldn't give a rats ass about GPL compliance, but that doesn't mean that what GPH was condoning wasn't illegal. As for Craig and the other resellers, if they wanted to put pressure on GPH all they had to do was stop selling GP2X's until this was resolved -- you know instead of selling a copyright infringing device. We'll whatever, as long as it gets resolved soon. It just seems lame to me to blame the Slashdot crowd when your the ones who are actually in the wrong. Sure, you got some childish harassing emails/phone calls, but then again you are supporting a company (directly or indirectly) that is pissing on the rights of countless programmers. So just understand that a horde of pissed off (and possibly figuratively pissed on) GPL zealots start annoying you, it's just motivation to get the problem solved, not an excuse for why the problem happened in the first place, or why the problem has existed for as long as it has.
#9
- GP32 User
-
- Group:
- Members
- Posts:
- 76
- Joined:
- 19-January 05
- Location:
- Animeworld
Posted 16 January 2006 - 05:15 PM
DJWillis, on Jan 15 2006, 03:43 PM, said:
Let's put this in perspective,
I have no commercial arrangement with anything to do with the GP2X (Other then a free development kit, given to me by CraigX at his expense (Not GPH) and support from GBAX and GP32x.de in various endeavours to do with source).
I hack on the GP2X (and GP32, and may other things :D ) for fun, I set Open2x up for fun (before I realised what I was letting myself in for) and I worked with DignSys and MagicEyes to get the original MMSP2 Linux kernel and U-Boot source so that people could hack around with it and review it for fun, to get a feel for the hardware etc., the same applies for the GP2X Linux source that is currently out in the wild. This device has cost me an ungodly amount of time, heartache and no small amount of cash in pursuing that ‘fun’.
I have, with others (Including GBAX and GP32x.de), been trying to get DignSys (and it is DignSys who hold all the GPL code in question after all) to comply with the GPL in a more pro-active manor. Anybody who has taken the time to ask me about this has got full, detailed mails about the situation and my personal feelings on the matter.
Again this is all in my own free time and going to the effort to get Korean friends helping me with document translations (both ways), making calls at 4am in the morning to Korea and speaking at length with lawyers. I know Craig, ED and others have been very much in the same boat and it is why I have nothing but praise for them (and can emphasise), they are both suppliers and are to varying degrees at the mercy of GPH and co. and in turn (in this case) GPH’s suppliers.
I am not for one minute defending DignSys and co. in the matter, it’s wrong, I have big problems with it and I feel very uncomfortable supporting it (why do you think there are no Open2x kernels to test things like USB host on the EXT and such, it does not seem ‘right’ to support the device in that way in the current climate). If it’s open source then it’s open source, not ‘yes, but, hmmm, nope, maybe, can we check with legal’ source ;) .
For some background information just to put the current position in context. I have been contacting and negotiating with a number of people with standing (in the GPL sense, i.e. a claim to copyright) on all the GPL connected items that ship on a stock GP2X, this is not just the kernel but libs, U-Boot, SDL, mplayer, tools etc. the list goes on. The reason for requesting support from people with standing is simple. They are the only people who have legal recourse to enforce the GPL on there individual items of copyright.
To that end there are legal ‘cease and desist’ notices being drawn up to be served on GPH, DignSys and potentially suppliers if it came to that. All of these people with standing are prepared to put there names to these letters and GPH, DignSys and co. where recently warned about there impending dispatch. The next stage after that would be a timescale for compliance and then seeking a judgment to enforce the letters if needed and believe me when I say that these people are very passionate about protecting there copyright and would not have any problems with killing GPH/DignSys and co. over this (and frankly if it got/gets to that stage then I am all for sitting back and watching the show). You would have to go a long way to get to the last point and the whole process is set against dialogue and there is an overriding feeling among people (not all) who contribute to big GPL projects that education and ongoing compliance is better then law suits and bankruptcy.
As for me being elitist or not, I don't really care and I apologise if I come across that way. I just like people to be more pro-active rather then jumping on there soap-box to have a good rant without anything helpful to add. With that in mind my recent frustration is perhaps tainted by the number of e-mails Open2x have (and it’s a fair few) on the back of that Slashdot article and others that are unpleasant rants, rude and in some cases seek to accuse me of withholding source (and worse) falsely assuming Open2x have a commercial connection with GPH and co..
It always amazes me how many people can write War and Peace on a subject but can’t chuck a few line e-mail asking if anybody knows the current score or if there is anything they can help with. I know full well not everybody is so inclined and I have received some invaluable help with parts of this process. I do apologise for maybe not making the whole process more public but once to start talking to lawyers and gathering material like that above it can become a little sensitive.
I have no commercial arrangement with anything to do with the GP2X (Other then a free development kit, given to me by CraigX at his expense (Not GPH) and support from GBAX and GP32x.de in various endeavours to do with source).
I hack on the GP2X (and GP32, and may other things :D ) for fun, I set Open2x up for fun (before I realised what I was letting myself in for) and I worked with DignSys and MagicEyes to get the original MMSP2 Linux kernel and U-Boot source so that people could hack around with it and review it for fun, to get a feel for the hardware etc., the same applies for the GP2X Linux source that is currently out in the wild. This device has cost me an ungodly amount of time, heartache and no small amount of cash in pursuing that ‘fun’.
I have, with others (Including GBAX and GP32x.de), been trying to get DignSys (and it is DignSys who hold all the GPL code in question after all) to comply with the GPL in a more pro-active manor. Anybody who has taken the time to ask me about this has got full, detailed mails about the situation and my personal feelings on the matter.
Again this is all in my own free time and going to the effort to get Korean friends helping me with document translations (both ways), making calls at 4am in the morning to Korea and speaking at length with lawyers. I know Craig, ED and others have been very much in the same boat and it is why I have nothing but praise for them (and can emphasise), they are both suppliers and are to varying degrees at the mercy of GPH and co. and in turn (in this case) GPH’s suppliers.
I am not for one minute defending DignSys and co. in the matter, it’s wrong, I have big problems with it and I feel very uncomfortable supporting it (why do you think there are no Open2x kernels to test things like USB host on the EXT and such, it does not seem ‘right’ to support the device in that way in the current climate). If it’s open source then it’s open source, not ‘yes, but, hmmm, nope, maybe, can we check with legal’ source ;) .
For some background information just to put the current position in context. I have been contacting and negotiating with a number of people with standing (in the GPL sense, i.e. a claim to copyright) on all the GPL connected items that ship on a stock GP2X, this is not just the kernel but libs, U-Boot, SDL, mplayer, tools etc. the list goes on. The reason for requesting support from people with standing is simple. They are the only people who have legal recourse to enforce the GPL on there individual items of copyright.
To that end there are legal ‘cease and desist’ notices being drawn up to be served on GPH, DignSys and potentially suppliers if it came to that. All of these people with standing are prepared to put there names to these letters and GPH, DignSys and co. where recently warned about there impending dispatch. The next stage after that would be a timescale for compliance and then seeking a judgment to enforce the letters if needed and believe me when I say that these people are very passionate about protecting there copyright and would not have any problems with killing GPH/DignSys and co. over this (and frankly if it got/gets to that stage then I am all for sitting back and watching the show). You would have to go a long way to get to the last point and the whole process is set against dialogue and there is an overriding feeling among people (not all) who contribute to big GPL projects that education and ongoing compliance is better then law suits and bankruptcy.
As for me being elitist or not, I don't really care and I apologise if I come across that way. I just like people to be more pro-active rather then jumping on there soap-box to have a good rant without anything helpful to add. With that in mind my recent frustration is perhaps tainted by the number of e-mails Open2x have (and it’s a fair few) on the back of that Slashdot article and others that are unpleasant rants, rude and in some cases seek to accuse me of withholding source (and worse) falsely assuming Open2x have a commercial connection with GPH and co..
It always amazes me how many people can write War and Peace on a subject but can’t chuck a few line e-mail asking if anybody knows the current score or if there is anything they can help with. I know full well not everybody is so inclined and I have received some invaluable help with parts of this process. I do apologise for maybe not making the whole process more public but once to start talking to lawyers and gathering material like that above it can become a little sensitive.
#10
- Bloke with a brick on his head
-
- Group:
- GP32 Hardcore
- Posts:
- 402
- Joined:
- 27-September 05
Posted 16 January 2006 - 05:44 PM
DijiTao, on Jan 16 2006, 04:22 PM, said:
As for Craig and the other resellers, if they wanted to put pressure on GPH all they had to do was stop selling GP2X's until this was resolved
Yeah Craigix, give up your livelihood so we can get better emulators quicker. I am sure DijiTao will take unpaid leave from his job, to set an example for us all, until we have source for every release so far.
#12
- GP32 User
-
- Group:
- Members
- Posts:
- 83
- Joined:
- 23-November 05
Posted 16 January 2006 - 08:38 PM
I couldn't be happier to see extensive pressure being applied until full compliance occurs. Keep up the good work DJWillis, DijiTao and anybody else fighting this cause.
It is clear that many people on these forums have no concept of how crucial the GPL, and compliance to it, is to open source development. The software running on your precious gp2x is based on countless hours of work by thousands of individuals, nobody has the right to infringe these individuals rights to their work, which they so generously provided in the first place. No infringement can or should be tolerated.
Everybody should read the long DJWillis quote above, it is clear he has taken a very well thought out and sensible approach to this issue. DijiTao has continued to detail the argument on these forums against much opposition, which should also be applauded.
As DJWillis states 'there is an overriding feeling among people (not all) who contribute to big GPL projects that education and ongoing compliance is better then law suits and bankruptcy'. DJWillis and DijiTao are both aiding education in these forums. That said, I fully support legal action for non-compliance particularly once other approaches have failed - i'd join others in sitting back to watch the show :)
It is clear that many people on these forums have no concept of how crucial the GPL, and compliance to it, is to open source development. The software running on your precious gp2x is based on countless hours of work by thousands of individuals, nobody has the right to infringe these individuals rights to their work, which they so generously provided in the first place. No infringement can or should be tolerated.
Everybody should read the long DJWillis quote above, it is clear he has taken a very well thought out and sensible approach to this issue. DijiTao has continued to detail the argument on these forums against much opposition, which should also be applauded.
As DJWillis states 'there is an overriding feeling among people (not all) who contribute to big GPL projects that education and ongoing compliance is better then law suits and bankruptcy'. DJWillis and DijiTao are both aiding education in these forums. That said, I fully support legal action for non-compliance particularly once other approaches have failed - i'd join others in sitting back to watch the show :)
#13
- GP32 Hardcore
-
- Group:
- Members
- Posts:
- 125
- Joined:
- 16-June 05
- Location:
- Italy
Posted 16 January 2006 - 08:49 PM
furikuri, on Jan 16 2006, 07:15 PM, said:
DJWillis, on Jan 15 2006, 03:43 PM, said:
Let's put this in perspective,
I have no commercial arrangement with anything to do with the GP2X (Other then a free development kit, given to me by CraigX at his expense (Not GPH) and support from GBAX and GP32x.de in various endeavours to do with source).
I hack on the GP2X (and GP32, and may other things :D ) for fun, I set Open2x up for fun (before I realised what I was letting myself in for) and I worked with DignSys and MagicEyes to get the original MMSP2 Linux kernel and U-Boot source so that people could hack around with it and review it for fun, to get a feel for the hardware etc., the same applies for the GP2X Linux source that is currently out in the wild. This device has cost me an ungodly amount of time, heartache and no small amount of cash in pursuing that ‘fun’.
I have, with others (Including GBAX and GP32x.de), been trying to get DignSys (and it is DignSys who hold all the GPL code in question after all) to comply with the GPL in a more pro-active manor. Anybody who has taken the time to ask me about this has got full, detailed mails about the situation and my personal feelings on the matter.
Again this is all in my own free time and going to the effort to get Korean friends helping me with document translations (both ways), making calls at 4am in the morning to Korea and speaking at length with lawyers. I know Craig, ED and others have been very much in the same boat and it is why I have nothing but praise for them (and can emphasise), they are both suppliers and are to varying degrees at the mercy of GPH and co. and in turn (in this case) GPH’s suppliers.
I am not for one minute defending DignSys and co. in the matter, it’s wrong, I have big problems with it and I feel very uncomfortable supporting it (why do you think there are no Open2x kernels to test things like USB host on the EXT and such, it does not seem ‘right’ to support the device in that way in the current climate). If it’s open source then it’s open source, not ‘yes, but, hmmm, nope, maybe, can we check with legal’ source ;) .
For some background information just to put the current position in context. I have been contacting and negotiating with a number of people with standing (in the GPL sense, i.e. a claim to copyright) on all the GPL connected items that ship on a stock GP2X, this is not just the kernel but libs, U-Boot, SDL, mplayer, tools etc. the list goes on. The reason for requesting support from people with standing is simple. They are the only people who have legal recourse to enforce the GPL on there individual items of copyright.
To that end there are legal ‘cease and desist’ notices being drawn up to be served on GPH, DignSys and potentially suppliers if it came to that. All of these people with standing are prepared to put there names to these letters and GPH, DignSys and co. where recently warned about there impending dispatch. The next stage after that would be a timescale for compliance and then seeking a judgment to enforce the letters if needed and believe me when I say that these people are very passionate about protecting there copyright and would not have any problems with killing GPH/DignSys and co. over this (and frankly if it got/gets to that stage then I am all for sitting back and watching the show). You would have to go a long way to get to the last point and the whole process is set against dialogue and there is an overriding feeling among people (not all) who contribute to big GPL projects that education and ongoing compliance is better then law suits and bankruptcy.
As for me being elitist or not, I don't really care and I apologise if I come across that way. I just like people to be more pro-active rather then jumping on there soap-box to have a good rant without anything helpful to add. With that in mind my recent frustration is perhaps tainted by the number of e-mails Open2x have (and it’s a fair few) on the back of that Slashdot article and others that are unpleasant rants, rude and in some cases seek to accuse me of withholding source (and worse) falsely assuming Open2x have a commercial connection with GPH and co..
It always amazes me how many people can write War and Peace on a subject but can’t chuck a few line e-mail asking if anybody knows the current score or if there is anything they can help with. I know full well not everybody is so inclined and I have received some invaluable help with parts of this process. I do apologise for maybe not making the whole process more public but once to start talking to lawyers and gathering material like that above it can become a little sensitive.
I have no commercial arrangement with anything to do with the GP2X (Other then a free development kit, given to me by CraigX at his expense (Not GPH) and support from GBAX and GP32x.de in various endeavours to do with source).
I hack on the GP2X (and GP32, and may other things :D ) for fun, I set Open2x up for fun (before I realised what I was letting myself in for) and I worked with DignSys and MagicEyes to get the original MMSP2 Linux kernel and U-Boot source so that people could hack around with it and review it for fun, to get a feel for the hardware etc., the same applies for the GP2X Linux source that is currently out in the wild. This device has cost me an ungodly amount of time, heartache and no small amount of cash in pursuing that ‘fun’.
I have, with others (Including GBAX and GP32x.de), been trying to get DignSys (and it is DignSys who hold all the GPL code in question after all) to comply with the GPL in a more pro-active manor. Anybody who has taken the time to ask me about this has got full, detailed mails about the situation and my personal feelings on the matter.
Again this is all in my own free time and going to the effort to get Korean friends helping me with document translations (both ways), making calls at 4am in the morning to Korea and speaking at length with lawyers. I know Craig, ED and others have been very much in the same boat and it is why I have nothing but praise for them (and can emphasise), they are both suppliers and are to varying degrees at the mercy of GPH and co. and in turn (in this case) GPH’s suppliers.
I am not for one minute defending DignSys and co. in the matter, it’s wrong, I have big problems with it and I feel very uncomfortable supporting it (why do you think there are no Open2x kernels to test things like USB host on the EXT and such, it does not seem ‘right’ to support the device in that way in the current climate). If it’s open source then it’s open source, not ‘yes, but, hmmm, nope, maybe, can we check with legal’ source ;) .
For some background information just to put the current position in context. I have been contacting and negotiating with a number of people with standing (in the GPL sense, i.e. a claim to copyright) on all the GPL connected items that ship on a stock GP2X, this is not just the kernel but libs, U-Boot, SDL, mplayer, tools etc. the list goes on. The reason for requesting support from people with standing is simple. They are the only people who have legal recourse to enforce the GPL on there individual items of copyright.
To that end there are legal ‘cease and desist’ notices being drawn up to be served on GPH, DignSys and potentially suppliers if it came to that. All of these people with standing are prepared to put there names to these letters and GPH, DignSys and co. where recently warned about there impending dispatch. The next stage after that would be a timescale for compliance and then seeking a judgment to enforce the letters if needed and believe me when I say that these people are very passionate about protecting there copyright and would not have any problems with killing GPH/DignSys and co. over this (and frankly if it got/gets to that stage then I am all for sitting back and watching the show). You would have to go a long way to get to the last point and the whole process is set against dialogue and there is an overriding feeling among people (not all) who contribute to big GPL projects that education and ongoing compliance is better then law suits and bankruptcy.
As for me being elitist or not, I don't really care and I apologise if I come across that way. I just like people to be more pro-active rather then jumping on there soap-box to have a good rant without anything helpful to add. With that in mind my recent frustration is perhaps tainted by the number of e-mails Open2x have (and it’s a fair few) on the back of that Slashdot article and others that are unpleasant rants, rude and in some cases seek to accuse me of withholding source (and worse) falsely assuming Open2x have a commercial connection with GPH and co..
It always amazes me how many people can write War and Peace on a subject but can’t chuck a few line e-mail asking if anybody knows the current score or if there is anything they can help with. I know full well not everybody is so inclined and I have received some invaluable help with parts of this process. I do apologise for maybe not making the whole process more public but once to start talking to lawyers and gathering material like that above it can become a little sensitive.
I just want to say a BIG THANK YOU to DJWillis.
These are the people that make this community the best I've ever been into.
Thanks again for all your efforts !!
This post has been edited by weirdocollector: 16 January 2006 - 08:49 PM