Well, we can't say that it is GPH's fault that we don't have the full Mplayer source. It's MagicEyes fault.

This post should be void, closed, and deleted if the GPL doesn't cover this or I'm mistaken in some way, but I think we should Slashdot the GP2X again, for the source of the binary that MagicEyes has for Mplayer that gives access to the hardware. I seriously don't know why it is and should be closed source, and it would probably help all of us if we have access to this hardware, not only for much improved codec support, but also for real number crunching like a FPU.

I think we deserve it...

You could always report it to gpl-violations.org if you think there's undisclosed GPL source code..

Err, we do have the full Mplayer source, and we have everything that is under the GPL.

If your talking about the 940 binary that mplayer uses, then this isn't under the GPL, and isn't open source. There's nothing you can do about this. Mplayer can be built and used without the source code to it, as it's not linked to it. It's a completely seperate part.

ehm.. if it isnt linked to it, where is it then?

also, dont they have a binary kernel module or something?

and regarding the kernel, the i2c code has been REMOVED from the kernel svn..

You just answered your own question, the binary module provides a SERVICE to the mplayer that does the decoding.

The i2c code is missing because it holds the serial number and they don't want those out in the wild because of the DRM and the need to lock a game to a GP2X.

to clarify, the i2c bus has a chip with the serial in the chip.

close this thread and make a sticky announcing that code under gpl has been released. this was a sore point in the scene for a while and i would really not want any more of this kind of negative publicity of the gp2x or for anybody new to gp2x and just finding out about it to get the wrong idea.

it took gph a while but they finally have all source code released that they are obligated to release. there were delays but there was intention to release the full source code from a while before it was released. there were lots of arguments about the gpl but i remember one part where a company can allow people to ask them for the source code and they have to send it. time really isnt specified. obviously the best way to be safe it to release source code at the exact same time you release any binary that uses gpl code but considering that gph said they would release the code and made good on their word i don't hold anything against them for taking a while. i mean they even set up a dev website and svn repository and such.

basically all wrongs have been righted and the gp2x is currently fully compliant with the gpl liscense. please don't try to make anyone else think otherwise especially since it took a while to get to this point.

It's not even a binary kernel module as such, just a binary lump that is loaded into the arm940. You can disassemble it if you wish, and it does contain other peoples work, but it does not seem to contain anything that has been GPL'd - just freeware.

Magiceye's are unlikely to release the source code as it uses undocumented registers, which MagicEyes don't want public.

sorry to respond after so long, but


just because they dont want people messing with that, doesent give them the right to remove the code.



but its made for mplayer, does anything else use this blob? i doubt they made this binary blob, and then afterwards thought "hey, now we need to modify mplayer, lets use our previous work!"
and that is then a derived work of mplayer, be it in a separate file or not.

and you say it contains work of others too, well.. why is their work more important than those of mplayer? mplayer has a license too, the GPL

Yes, that's why the MPlayer Code has been released but not the rest which is not under the GPL.
So... where's the problem?

But if they do not release the source code to everything required to make the exact same mplayer binary they distributed, then they MUST release the non-GPL object files instead to allow re-linking a modified mplayer with whatever they added. Of course, source would be nice, but they legally may not be able to do that.

Now, if whatever license they have for the 940/hardware decoding stuff doesn't allow them to redistribute the object files, then they are, to use a technical term, fucked.

you have evrything to make an exact copy, the hardware stuff is in a kernel module.
There is allready an alternate version with ac3 support and more added in the archive.

Oh ok. Yeah I think then they're good provided that the code inside mplayer to interface with the kernel module is there.

Yes, the 940 code is completely seperate - you can build mplayer without it, and a recompiled mplayer will work in exactly the same way as the official version with the same features, which includes the 940 optimisations.

Also, they do allow you to rebuild the 940 kernel module, just as most of it is simply a binary lump.

So, no violations as far as I can see...

its not always enough to distribute enough to recreate the exact same binary, the mplayer port and this blob was created to be a single product, which doesent constitute them advertizing it as a separate work


where can i get so i can build the kernel module myself (i know, with the blob being without source)


edit:
and also, didnt the binary blob for the 940 use to be inside the mplayer binary, where they only later (in 2.0) moved it out? in that case, they already need to give it, since they have distributed THAT version to many, including me i believe.

OK guys, I personally don't know whether it was ever distributed inside the mplayer binary, but you are not going to get them to distribute the source of that blob ever I'm afraid, due to higher-up licenses. Making an issue of old versions now is just a waste of time.

I am interested if the new version is GPL compliant, though it sounds to me as though it is.

Whether or nor it is or isn't, I hate to say it but it would benefit the community if we did have the source, for FPU/MP? decoding purposes.

but it is a fairly big issue, by not forcing them to release it, they are (incorrectly) getting confirmation that the license from their third parties, are more important than those of mplayer.

As much as I'd love to get the source, when the issue is between getting yelled by a few in the community and being sued by DivX it seems to be an obvious choice I would love it, but it's not worth having GPH sued to death.

how can divx sue them if we cant? if korea has laws it should also apply to gpl software.

this kind of prioitizing between importance of gpl vs proprietary must be thought at the highest level, they had the license, they should have chosen back then, and they did, they choose to use gpled software, thereby choosing that they will release the source, it was THEIR choice, they could have simply chosen not to use gpled software, they must now face the consequences.

even though i may get flamed for this, i believe they should not be allowed to ship any more gp2x's out before they have given the source, how they will explain it to divx is their problem, however im sure divx would be willing to sell the rights to gpl any code there might be for them.

I hope that nothing that I say here is interpreted as flaming, because I agree with you in principle. But this is the sort of thing that scares a large number of people away from open-source... a mistake like this can truly put a company between a rock and a hard place.

GPH has made attempts to comply with the open-source licenses, which is much more than other companies do. I would like to get full sources for the proprietary stuff but I know that realistically it isn't going to happen.

im sure that if gph was forced with the choice of going out of business, or simply complying with the license they would choose to live, besides, if they have the source, they can simply blame it on dignsys/magiceyes or whomever did the license violation and sold it to gph.

and then if its impossible to get the source for it, they should face the consequences and have it rewritten (and then release source). it simply is unacceptable that they be allowed to do this, and some time, it will backfire on the distributors.

As far as I'm aware, GPH do not have the source code to the 940 binary lump - only the binary, and it's licensed differently to the rest of the magiceyes stuff.

From what your saying, anyone who distributed a closed source module with a linux kernel would be breaking GPL? Which is clearly false. M.E are doing the same with mplayer - the 940 binary lump is optional.

Methinks Redeeman is talking out of his backside. Methinks Redeeman has gotten either the GPL or the nature of the aforementioned "binary lump" (or possibly both) around the back foot, as we say in swedish. That is, has misunderstood them. Methinks.

Don't tell the kernel people that

You can try to sue them, but you won't have any success.
A law firm in Germany tried to do that, but as everything shipped with the gp2x that is under the GPL has its sourcecode released, there's no chance.

WHAT do you want to sue?
GPH doesn't have the old sourcecode (MagicEyes did the firmwares, and that's the reason GPH quit them), and the sourcecode for the 2.0.0 firmware is completely released, old versions are not anymore available in any binary form.

There's no GPL violation here from GPH.



Errm - that's exactly what they did with FW 2.0.0
That's why we have all the GPL'ed sourcecode of that FW.

actually it is, why do you think nvidia doesent do this? and ati? they are distributing a binary blob, and then some source to link it to the kernel, its actually the user who creates the actual kernel module, but any user is allowed to do whatever they want to gpl'ed work, all they must do is observe the gpl while redistributing.

so for GPH to distribute a kernel module in binary form that is not gpl, is a violation of the license.

@evildragon:
so are you saying that magiceyes created the binary blob, and then later decided to alter mplayer to use it? cause otherwise its stll a derived work..

you are not allowed to simply take a gpl'ed work, and then conveniently add a way for it to use your own binary blob, be it loaded to a second cpu or not

I think linux is GPL, I also think their is plenty closedsource binary only modules for linux, and I also think that those module don't break any license.
That's the exact same thing here.

there are not plenty, but linux is gpl, but, a module can be "closed source" while being legal, while others can be illegal.

what makes nvidia and ati legal is that they dont actually distribute a derived work of the GPL, since they dont distribute a kernel module.

its the persons downloading nvidia and ati drivers that does this, by compiling it, and linking it together.

distributing as binary form, without the source is illegal, the GPL is quite simple.

Is it just me, or do you seem to be the only person here who cares about this small technicality?

its not only me, and its certainly no small technicality.

its as much a technicality, as whether i choose to go into a car dealer, gets in a car, and drives out, instead of going into the car dealer, pays for the car, and drives out. now its a single small step, but it makes a whole lot of difference.

i realise that alot of the gp2x users doesent care about linux or licenses or anything of the sort, but violating the license of gpled software is just as bad as that of proprietary, only difference is that the companies have lots of lawyers. but that doesent make it right.

to give another realworld example of how this is not a small technicality. its currently legal and possible in almost all countries to go out and buy the materials to create a bomb, though separately, and its entirely legal to sell these materials, however if the shop decides to compile it for you, they are in serious trouble, violating dozens of laws. can you see the parallells?

but no matter what, that is how the GPL is, no matter how ridicoules it may seem to some, its how the license is, and they had a choice about using works covered under that license.

You argue that the license of some other company should not be put above the GPL, but why should the GPL be put above the license of another company?

I still have doubt that any license violation is still present at this point, whereas releasing source for the binary blob (that GPH probably doesn't have anyway) would definitely be a license violation.

you are right, releasing as gpl would also violate divx's license, which would be just as unfair to them, but as i suggested before, then the only thing they can do is negotiate with divx, or have it rewritten.

if you still have doubts about if a violation really exists, then go read the gpl, or call a lawyer with knowledge of the GPL, its really quite simple.

OK, first off... I do not believe that the binary-blob that mplayer links to is a GPL violation. As I understand it, VLC Player and I believe even the x86 version of mplayer are linked against some binary codecs and no one has brought up serious issues with that.

Second, do we have confirmation that the 1.x firmwares had the binary blob statically linked? That might be considered an issue, but not one that I would think is worth pursuing.

GPH had a threat of a court case over mplayer before 2.0 and source was released, since then the case has been dropped and the people behind the case are happy with the current release and source code. I don't want to go into more details on a public forum as i'm not sure what is out in the open about that incident.

But anyway, Case closed.

Well, given the fact that we had someone here in Germany trying to sue and I am from Germany, I read the GPL and talked to various lawyers (yes, even the ones who successfully sued someone else because of a GPL violation, they knew what they were talking about).

As said by craig, everything worked out and the devs are happy now.

Everything that is under the GPL has been released by GPH. There is no more violation.
According to the GPL, you have to release the sourcecode to each program that derived from a GPL'ed program. It has to be complete enough that you can recompile it and it does run.
In this case, this is the MPlayer and parts of the Linux that's being used by GPH.

You can recompile everything without any problems. The only thing you can NOT recompile is the binary blob - but that is NOT under the GPL. If you provide the binary blob, your own compiled MPlayer or Linux will run perfectly on your gp2x. No violation done.

Heck, imagine someone codes some program that relies on binary libraries (Windows DirectX, etc.) and releases under the GPL. Does he have to release the sourcecode of the binary libraries as well?
No. He can't and he doesn't have to.

the directx thing i cannot answer with 100% actually, but i believe the gpl allows usage of the systems base things, which is also why linux has two sorts of symbol declarations, those who are internal things, and those who are standard OS interfaces.

After some research: mplayer for x86 links to binary files for WMV, quicktime, and realmedia. mplayer for GP2X is just as legit legally as mplayer for x86.

This pisses me off, who the hell would have sued GPH over this bullcrap? Are those people insane, do they relaly think that GPH delaying the release of sourcecode is the greatest evil in the world today? Do they really have nothing else driving their lives? This burns me, GPH is a small company, not some software behemoth stepping over licenses. They were brave enough to venture in the market with a new handheld that made thousands of users and developers happy and this is how they're repaid, with nerd lawsuits?

- Alex

not true, mplayer plays wmv, quicktime and realmedia just fine without, however it offers the ability to load vfw, directshow, and proprietary api quicktime and realmedia dlls.. but it most certainly doesent link against it, and it certainly isnt required.


so small companies may violate licenses, but huge companies may not? you seem to miss the point. just because you dont care anything about having the source for these things, some do. im sure you'd agree that its equally unacceptable for an economically poor person to steal a car as for a rich guy that lives in a castle

You forgot to get in the car in the second scenario how did you drive it? ...


But being on topic....
http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735
It's old talk about kernel modules, but for the most part, since I am not looking at the source and have not been given an example of the linking you describe Redeeman I can't say I can see condemning them. I know this is just a forum and not a court of law, but I am just saying a bit more reference material from both sides would help. Right now, I am not sawyed in either direction, but I have a hint of leaning to no violation since from what I am understanding is that the mplayer devs are happy. But again, I don't have much more than here say evidence.

I just think that referenced "facts" would go a long way, but right now the arguments seem circular.

They didn't purposely violate them, it was a delay and nothing more. The fact that certain people would go to such extremes as suing them really speaks pages about the fanaticism of some.


How can you compare stealing a car with slightly delaying the release of some bloody code? Stop taking things to such extremes. And yes, I do think that we should cut GPH some slack, because, as you said, they are a small company, and they have done us all a favour by releasing this niche product, the GP2X.

- Alex

And we will never see any products like this again should GPH be put out of business due to a technicality in the GPL. I'm not saying that people who use GPL'd software shouldn't have to follow it, I'm saying that those who make attempts to follow it should not get in trouble for a technicality like this, it will make linux-based embedded products entirely unviable.

for anyone to distribute nongpl'ed kernel modules are illegal, lawyers with experience in the gpl will tell you this, and so will greg kroah hartmann, a linux kernel developer: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html

and so will any other kernel developer.

but that is not what im trying to have them stop, as its a mere technicality.

however its my understanding that back in time, it wasnt a kernel module, it was linked into mplayer.. now.. if this changed in >=1.4, i still got the gpl'ed mplayer with the gpl'ed blob, only that i didnt get the damn blobs source code when i asked for it, and even if its a technicality, its binding, they made the mistake, they have to face up to that.

but even further more, i believe the blob to be a derived work of mplayer. i think the blob was created to have mplayer use the second core, meaning its one work.

a vendor is NOT allowed to take a gpl'ed work, and then add the ability to load binary plugins, and then create a proprietary plugin for it to load, that is STILL a derived work.

Okay... LAST TIME... as you simply don't seem to understand.
I don't even know how it has been done with pre 2.0.0, but... THEY DON'T HAVE THE SOURCECODE AND THEREFORE THEY CANNOT RELEASE IT!

There WAS a GPL case already, it has been solved (no more binaries of non-sourcecode-software is being distributed).

And to say it in the words of Greg Kroah Hartmann:

"If you have legal questions about license issues, talk to a lawyer, never bring it up on a public mailing list like linux-kernel, which only has programmers. To ask programmers to give legal rulings, in public, is the same as asking us for medical advice. It doesn't make sense at all."

So, any problems? Talk to your lawyer. We did. GPH did. Both told me, everything's fine (I don't know if the blob is even a kernel module or some other binary stuff).
But please don't try to convince anybody here at the board as nobody can help you here. Nobody from GPH is here.

Case closed.

Hard facts then.

Trooper