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 Reluctantly, they finally did so, releasing an early, out-of-date prerelease version of the source, which is useless to the developer community who would like to hunt down some of the current bugs.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.
Tags: gameparkholdings, dignsys, gp2x, linux, gpl
Posts
89 comments:
Would be nice to see the kernel source code.
Perhaps you could contact Harald Welte, who has quite some experience dealing with corporate GPL violations. Perhaps he has some useful hints on what you could do to get the source code released.
I concur - source would be nice.
Also, fair warning - you're about to get Slashdotted.
Fuck the GPL, fuck the FSF, and fuck Linux. BSD or death!
Slashdot worthy?
I think not.
In all honesty...who cares.
wank
They must deliver the source!
Esta es La Ley!
blogs suck
BinaryIdiot.com > Your Blog
Seems like a delicate situation. One one hand, it's a cool looking system, and you'd certainly want to encourage further vendors to pursue linux handhelds and tools, but at the same time bring to their attention the requirements that the benefits of Open Source bring.
It's hard to tell what their real attitude is, through the cheerful marketspeak on the website, but I would hope that they are cognizant of at least some of these issues. I should imagine that this sort of thing could be stifled by management who are kind of distant from the situation.
I think a little legal pressure should be put on the company. Maybe file a lawsuit but don't take them to court. (Kinda like the RIAA.)
w00t
Yea i mean. totally penis.
If you already own one and want to force them to comply with the GPL all you need to do is file a suit against them stating just that, in so many words. It is your legal right, and their legal obligation, being a customer of theirs that they comply with the GPL at this point.
If you already own one and want to force them to comply with the GPL all you need to do is file a suit against them stating just that, in so many words. It is your legal right, and their legal obligation, being a customer of theirs, that they comply with the GPL at this point and distribute the code which you paid for.
Get Harald Welte of gpl-violations.org involved.
Linus should get involved and be backed by the companies making money off of his creation, like red hat...
Linus should get involved and be backed by the companies making money off of his creation, like red hat...
Dude, I really don't think you need to warn someone they're about to be slashdotted when their blog is hosted by blogger. I don't think we can slashdot google, no matter how hard we try.
Under the rules of the GPL don't they have to release the source?
evidently. this was /. worthy, as I just read it from there. Hopefully someone can get them to release the up-to-date source code-- unless they'd really enjoy fixing every single last bug, and making every single feature people would like to add.
You need a Korean lawyer who understands the GPL and who will work for free.
Is Korea an signatory o hte Berne convention? (yes.)
If so, then Korean copyright law is consistent with said convention, Therefore, each binary copy of the code constitutes a separate violation of Korean copyright law, for each copyright holder the has granted a GPL licence in the kernel. THis includes e.g. IBM. IBM surely has a Korean law firm on retainer.
They should have used BSD, because it is far better to begin with than Linux will ever be..and besides Linux:Unix as Idiot:Computer
;)
Long Live BSD...Down with the crappy viral GPL and Linux
You should be glad to get anything at all.
You cant force people to be helpful.
The GPL will have to give up its viral elements before any commercial manufacturers will really embrace it.
Sorry boys by i work for a company like this.. we used GPL code internally and we will NOT realease the product OR the source code... why?
1) we need money to survive
2) GPL forces us to release ALL the code.. even code that isnt an advancement of or the original GPL
3) GPL directly cotests Patent rights of IP owner.. while claiming it doesnt...
4) GPL is legally flawed...
GPL needs to be rewritten in a more company friendly mannor.. allowing them time to make money out of the advancement and then later releasing the source to the public AS A CHARAITY!... OPEN SOURCE=CHARAITY.. and charaity that is harshing its contributors dies very quickly!
AND it must be more careful about its contesting of patents and ownership of indirectly related sections of code.. it should allow precompiled libs to be part of the system and not require code for them
Now here is an experinment for u... in theroy GPL can be used to claim rights on most of M$ OS.. if u dont believe me try to distrubute some GPL code with a some of the new openM$ stuff.. and then watch how fast M$ sues u into the void and rips GPL to shreads..
Who has standing to enforce the GPL? IANAL, but I think I am right on this. The GPL is fundamentally a permission to copy, under copyright law. The only persons who have a right to enforce the GPL are the copyright holders to the code in question. These would be the authors of the code, unless they have assigned the copyright to someone else. Purchasers of the handheld do not have standing to enforce the GPL.
Someone who holds a copyright on code in the kernel needs to threaten legal action. It's the only way they'll listen. If they don't comply with the terms of the license then they are infringing on the copyright. That's breaking the law. A letter from a lawyer to the company, or the US distributor, will get action quickly. If they ignore that then you can file suit in court and seek a prelemenary injunction to stop them from selling athe devices. That will affect their bottom line and at that point they'll want to talk to you about a settlement rather than go to court.
Hmm
How about this link, took only a few seconds to surf to this area of the website. Not the best-designed website I've ever seen, but it wasn't that bad.
http://archive.gp2x.de/cgi-bin/cfiles.cgi?0,0,0,0,46,934
Commit to releasing up to date source code and I'll consider buying one to replace my Sharp Zaurus. Otherwise I'll take my money elsewhere.
Isn't it already relased?
http://www.gp32x.com/board/index.php?showtopic=22650
Actually - this is rather sad... as an owner of two ebookmans I have been looking for a replacement. I have been watching this with a lot of interest. It looks like it has a LOT of potential. However - I wont be pushing this over here - or getting on my self until they do comply with the GPL
- A slightly saddened Aussie !
You should check out the Internet more often. The source code has been released indeed:
http://www.gp32x.com/board/index.php?showtopic=22650
No wonder BSD is less popular than linux, you people are mean!
BTW /. effect was in full force when I posted this, blogger was DOGGED
and hopefully GP2X will develop a system of releasing source with each binary. However look at the legacy of Linksys (now cisco) in releasing source for their routers. Abysmal! Even with eventual compiance, the toolchain, build procedure, etc is not published.
Its a slow process, but slowly Linus' prediction of world domination is coming true.
Now you BSD people be nice!
./ed
You got my attention.
Keep us posted!
Yes, I'm aware of the source code release that the last couple of posters have pointed out. In fact, I mentioned it in the original article.
Unfortunately, it's not the correct code. It's an old version of Dignsys' prior port of Linux to the same CPU. It doesn't even match the initial release of the GP2X kernel, let alone the current release. You can't compile that source and have it run on the GP2X.
What's with all the BSD comments - you certainly weren't asked for your opinions, even if they mattered.
The reality is, BSD is GREAT if you want a bare-bones, poorly supported, no-strings-attached OS. However, if you are also interested in wider acceptance, MUCH more hardware support, and are willing to follow the rules, Linux will do fine.
Here's a hint: If you don't like the GPL - DON'T USE IT! And while you're at it, stop bitching because there are those who don't want to write a video, sound, and network driver everytime they code a simple game of 'Minesweeper'.
It really is a shame slashdot was involved...as the comments above show, the majority of slashdot participants immature and uninformed, IMO. About 5 comments above this, bjimba remarks that someone posts a comment without having read the article. This is Slashdot in a nutshell since 2004 (IMHO), unfortunately.
Although I don't have a constructive answer for you, as this is outside my area of expertise, I would definitely recommend looking outside the slashdot universe for help. Most of what you get back is people who like seeing their comments magically appear after hitting the "submit" button, rather than actually trying to help the original poster or respond to the original question.
From what I have read, Harald Welte may be a good resource, but I suspect you will be best served taking care of this yourself or appealing for help to a crowd that is not slashdot.
Actually, I think the Slashdot link did exactly what I hoped it would do -- call attention to the issue. I don't mind the folks posting their minds. One of the first Slashdotters to post brought up Harald Welte, and a lot of them have had constructive things to say.
As far as mistakenly thinking the source was already released, I had the same mistaken impression until I saw the developers griping on the gp32x.com board.
The story has now been dugg as well
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Linux-based_Portable_Gaming_Device_Manufacturers_Not_Following_GPL
The GP2X is doomed to failure, look at the GP32, how many gamers actually know about this cool little device? I looked at importing the GP2X direct from GamePark, they took ages to respond to emails and when they did it was with broken English (albeit better than my Korean) about how much better the GP2X is than the PSP, i.e. "The GP2X has a 3.5" screen which is better than the PSP's larger screen as it fits better in your pocket". Korea makes some great stuff its just so poorly marketed. The GP2X's main selling point is that its Opensource, its the only way it has a chance in this competitive market segment!
Thats my two cents Scottiedog
This is not a surprise considering the area from which it came. I have found many companies that use Gpled software without the proper lic. and without any credits or info about where to find the original apps. Most of these came either from China or there-abouts. Not to lose focus on what is being discussed but kinda relavant.
those of you being very vocal about NOT releasing GPL code, that's all fine and good.
but if your bosses were smart, they would avoid GPL'd code completely...if they never had intentions of complying.
cause down the road, your company is going to get it's ass in a real crack, and little pissants like you are expendable.
Can anyone say CRACKER? If GP2X doesn't release the code, someone should do it for them!
Crackers get lots of publicity when someone tries to make an example of them, but they sometimes do some good too. (Remember the slashdot story "Hackers Forced Announcement of 10th Planet?")
Linux steals EVERYTHING. Why bitch about someone using your code when every single Linux app is a STOLEN IDEA from a commercial windows app.
Linux: We steal ideas, not code.
Does the GP2X ship with a copy of the GPL? If so, I think ordinary users might have some legal leverage. If not, you would probably need to get someone involved who owns the copyright on code in the kernel (as others have already said).
On another topic, I don't want to feed the trolls, but I feel the need to point out that the GPL is not really "viral". If I embed GPL in my closed-source application, it will be a violation of the GPL, but it does not make the rest of my code magically GPLed. The only way for code to be released under the GPL is for the copyright owner to do so explicitly. (Detailed commentary on the nature of the GPL is here.)
duckmonster: you are mistaken. The GPL is a distribution licence - no release of source code is necessary unless you distribute the binaries. I like and use the GPL, but let's be clear about the facts.
As for the original anonymous poster - cry me a river. If you want to use other people's code you play by their rules, or write your own. There are plenty of ways to make money with open source code, but don't expect to be able to take others' work as your own. You are wrong in asserting that open source is a charity - it's not. It's a cooperative effort.
[Yes, I realise I probably just responded to two trolls, and yes, I'm comfortable with that.]
bjimba and other GP2X users: get in touch with Harald Welte if you haven't already. I wish you the best of luck. The only encouraging thing is other companies have been doing the same thing in the past and many have complied after a bit of pressure in the appropriate manner.
Exactly how do you know they have even done anything to the kernel?
In case you missed it, check this thread:
http://www.gp32x.com/board/index.php?showtopic=22650
No violation.
You said that it might have bash on it. If it does, Bash code is owned by the FSF, and they have their own enforcement arm, the GPL Compliance Lab. As another copyright holder, they also have the right to enforce their licensing, as does Harald Welte for netfilter (who's already been mentioned a number of times). I'm not sure if FSF and gpl-violations are coordinated yet, although they announced that they would start coordinating a year and a half ago.
To the person who posted this:
"Now here is an experinment for u... in theroy GPL can be used to claim rights on most of M$ OS.. if u dont believe me try to distrubute some GPL code with a some of the new openM$ stuff.. and then watch how fast M$ sues u into the void and rips GPL to shreads.."
1. what on earth is your company doing hiring you?
2. what the heck are you talking about? your posts barely makes sense.
3. Linux should _not_ be made company friendly. If you want company friendly, use something else. There are plenty of alternatives. Linux got its fame and fortune from the hard work off the backs of people who did it precisely so it would not be company friendly, but friendly to everyone. Linux is for the community. - Community - Not for $$$'s.
4. False statements like this: "GPL forces us to release ALL the code.. even code that isnt an advancement of or the original GPL" doesn't do much for you.
As for the blog, its a tough choice, but I really think that you could convince the company through negotiation and community pressure. Quite clearly, they must release the source code, but most likely they aren't worried about it because open source ethics aren't quite as strong in asia and legal enforcement the same. but, if worst comes to worst (and i hope its not the case), the GPL should be enforced and shown to be respected for what it is, otherwise sure abuse will continue and spread/grow.
Yes, that's the thread from early December, when the developters thought that they had gotten the correct source code released. It turned out not to be the case.
In the original post, I referenced a later thread on the same message board, where the community realized that they didn't get what they thought they did. Read this thread:
http://www.gp32x.com/board/index.php?showtopic=24269
... and you'll see what I mean.
By the way, thanks for all the comments, everyone! I've been spending most of the night clearing them all for posting. (I have moderation turned on for this blog, but I'm determined to let everyone's post be published, except for totally off-topic expletives.)
It's almost 1 AM here in New Jersey, so I'll be going to bed soon. I'll clear any new comments in the morning.
[quote]Linux: We steal ideas, not code.[/quote]
Windows: We steal everything!
Apple: We used to steal, but we actually had a few good ideas recently so we're waiting for someone else to come up with something we want to steal.
SCO: Everyone steals from us.
BSD: We don't steal, we just whine about all the great products made by everyone that does.
IBM: We never stole, and you can't prove we did.
The solution is to contact the Linux kernel authors.
You do NOT HAVE ANY LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DEMAND THE SOURCE CODE.
You request it, you get denied, you tell the copyright owners of the software that their copyrights are being violated.
This is the only thing to do. This is the right thing to do.
Gamepark holdings could tell you to sit and spin on a flagpole and you can't sue them. You can't get a injunction against them.
You have no legal rights.
This is how it works.
The only people with rights are the copyright owners. This is how the GPL works.
If Linus and friends don't give a shit then your powerless.
Linux:Unix as Idiot:Computer
Most Unix owners are Linuxes?
Idiots are patterned after computers?
The owners of computers are suing IBM based on spurious charges of Big Blue smuggling computer code into idiots?
I'm curious, what was your SAT verbal score? Because that's the most incomprehensible analogy I've ever seen.
Fuck all who dis the GPL. Lets all take Richard Stallman's advice and Boycot Harry Potter!!!
Another interesting fact is warranty.
At least in Europe warranty is to be 2 years by law.
They provide only one!
lol... but I'm going to make one ammendment
Apple: We steal other peoples ideas that failed and somehow turn it into something that works. Then we take credit for it and claim we thought it up to begin with.
0x2F2E
0x2f2e
Now it contains ads ;)
(ok, only to my website but still!)
Anyway, it seems to me some companies try to "abuse" the goodwill by saying they are GPL-compliant while they are infact not/avoiding or otherwise cheating their way out of GPL-disclosure.
Or alternatively, you could get a Neuros 442, they made good on open-sourcing the firmware and hardware of their earlier product, and are working on a linux-based firmware for the 442 so they can open-source it as well.
I'm sure someone will port Mame over to it as soon as the linux kernel is done.
http://gpl-violations.org/
I guess only old people use GPL in Korea.
If GPX2 wan't release the source, then they must use BSD Operating Systems.
Linux is GPL, if don´t like you... use another OS.
Ummm...the obvious answer would be to contact VA Linux/Japan and have them explain the GPL to these fellows.
For everyone yelling "sue them, sue them", sush! We're FOSS advocates, not certain 'litigious bastards' whose only thought is to sue any thing that moves. Explain things to them, and let them have a chance to make it right. This is about compliance, not extracting a pound of flesh.
They can always be sued, if they fail to perform.
For the legal genius who says that the GPL is "legally flawed", maybe you'd like to offer your services to Cisco? remember that they knuckled under and gave up the source rather than take their chances in court...I'll allow that the $500-$250K statutory copyright damages *per* violation was probably highly daunting.
You do NOT HAVE ANY LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DEMAND THE SOURCE CODE.
If I told you that I was going to sell you a Ford sedan, and then I delivered the chassis and wheels of a Ford sedan, without the engine, would you be stuck without legal recourse?
I doubt it. You as a customer have a right to receive a product you purchased as it was represented to you. If the seller of the car tried to go into court and say "well, when I said I'd sell him a Ford sedan, I don't consider the engine to be part of the car," do you think he'd get away with it, or do you think the court would say "No, a reasonable person would expect that unless it's specifically stated otherwise, a car has an engine"?
Likewise, because an entity which distributes binaries of GPL'ed software has a clear legal obligation to provide the source of those binaries, a customer who knows he is purchasing those binaries has a reasonable expectation of receiving the source as well -- and he has the legal recourses available to him that any customer who buys a misrepresented product has.
All these pro-BSD "death to GPL" comments are pretty amusing just for their cluelessness.
So, what does BSD get you here? Absolutely nothing. If this code were BSD licensed, there would be no hope of *ever* getting the source, making the device hopeless for ever being more useful than it was as shipped.
You BSD people need to get a clue. Your license sucks, and this case is the poster child for why it sucks. Nothing against your OS, it's a fine OS. But your license encourages selfishness, and that's exactly the kind of behavior we see here with the GP2X. If it were BSD licensed, there would be no recourse.
Well, I dont see it as a big deal, as they prolly didnt modify much, I imagine if they did add some support, they modularized it. They can legally make the modules closed. IIRC, nvidia and ATI does this.
Anyway, I think someone who's fluent in korean should talk to them, instead of english speaking geeks, to prevent future issues, I think the GPL should be translated to other languages if it hasnt been already to prevent issues like this, after all they're selling the hardware, not the software so it shouldnt be a huge issue for them to open up, especially if they want to encourage the hacking of this device. After all, that's pretty much the only group that will buy this thing while everyone else buys a psp or DS, plus with OSS behind them 100% they can get more added life out of their system.
I just think it's a language barrier and a miscommunication, some infamous breaches of the GPL have been misunderstandings, you almost need a lawyer to get the full gist of the GPL license.
You want a company to attack?
check out these guys:
http://www.actiontec.com/
I know for a fact they use busybox 0.60 on their dsl wifi router (it's a modem, router, and wifi device, nice hardware, but it uses gnu utils and busybox, and possibly even linux, I couldn't get a uname)
'The reality is, BSD is GREAT if you want a bare-bones, poorly supported, no strings-attached OS'
When was that? Educate yourself on what UNIX is. Someone often forgets that it takes genius to understand simplicity.
Open source projects have been reinventing the wheel for so long that is not even funny - it's scary. You can't choose good when all you have is bad options.
Definition of freedom does not imply or state 'dependency' to something - that's why GPL is NOT a free license. Even if its trying to enforce the former, no exceptions.
After all the world belongs to these who understand it.
On the subject: They should probably release the source code - but I doubt there would be anything useful there.
G'day.
You guys have to understand that, like most Korean companies these guys are fly by night operations. The Koreans don't care because they don't have laws that protect these sort of things and that is not accidental. So what this fly by night operation is doing is basically tell all of you "uninitiated about Asian culture" people that there is nothing that you can do and so @#)$ off.
This is the typical business structure in all of Asia, but some countries such as Korea and China where the legal system is broken they can do what ever they want.
Even if you go after them, good luck, they will change thier business name and be in operation under a different name in 24hrs.
So your screwed and there is nothing legally you can do. The Korean government does not support GPL or any other non-Korean legal contract. Because it is not in the interests of their people.
If you want to understand what I am saying - take a look a Samsung as a good example.
"Sorry boys by i work for a company like this.. we used GPL code internally and we will NOT realease the product OR the source code... why?"
To the Anonymous who wrote this.
You don't understand much.
If you don't want to release your source code, then don't use GPL code. But if you use code that's under the GPL and somebody sues you for not releasing your code, then that's your problem. Do what the law says, and quit whining about it.
And if you don't want to give out your code, or get sued, then do it all from scratch and licence it however you want.
I've always wondered how compagnies can live by selling products by giving competitors their production secrets. This is why I've never wanted to use any GPL code for any commercial software.
But is the Linux kernel a secret? What's the most importand there? The device or the internal software?
Maybe the company should understand that it cannot prevent people from getting the source code. However, it can protect its device using patents with its hardware...
i was about to buy the GP2X, so i opened the webpage to buy and i was reading the mail,i saw something with text GP2X in the mail, guess what i read "GP2X without source Code". that's it im not buy the GP2X without the source code.
if u don't get the source code, then u r killing the console.
this is not gud for GP2X.
To all the BSD apologists out there...
I will avoid using stuf based on your code and won't contribute to a BSD licensed project because doing so is a waste of effort on my part.
There are no truly free countries in which there are not laws enforced to ensure freedom continues. The BSD license is less free because there is nothing in it restricting others from denying people freedom.
Anyway, thanks bjimba for warning me about this so I don't accidentally go out and buy one of these things. I hope you can find a good way to put pressure on this company. Maybe the South Korean government needs to be educated on why (even if no other IP law is enforced) things like the GPL need to be enforced.
http://www.gizmosforgeeks.com/index.php/articles/1828
Congrats it seems that they are finally going to post up the source code GO Bjimba and /.
The UK GP2X site has something to say about the GPL issue....
Due to some inaccurate internet reporting, I will clarify what on earth all this GPL business is about.
Firstly its pointless phoning up my staff or writing emails and giving abuse about the fact the latest source of the GP2X firmware has not been released, we didn't make the firmware, nor did Gamepark Korea, it was made by DignSys and I as well as several people from the GP2X scene have been working hard to make them comply with the GPL.
We did succeed in getting them to release incomplete source code, and were days away from getting everything sorted out. We are now trying to patch up the damage done by idiots who read the slashdot post and decided the best course of action was to write childish abusive emails to various people not even connected with the software development. Smooth guys, real smooth.
Anyway, that aside, we hope to have all source by next week, either that or a new solution.
My view: this machine is still in it's infancy and already people are trying to pick it apart, which won't succeed, just be patient and WAIT for the damn code to come out instead of whinging. As the guy said 'smooth guys, real smooth'.
Oh and as for the nature of these Korean companies being fly-by-night ops, by that logic the GP32 wouldn't have been the success it was - and in the homebrew scene (it's target audience) it IS a major hit as the GP2X is becoming.
To another 'anonymous' poster who was going to import but had problems, perhaps you should have done a search first AND JUST BOUGHT ONE DIRECT FROM THE UK!!! sheesh! some people.....
I also have to say this, directly to people who say they won't buy one BECAUSE the current source wasn't released properly:
IT'S PATHETIC! Really, really childish and a pathetic over-reaction to a problem which doesn't really impact 99.999% of GP2x users and developers of games etc. for it.
Get a grip.
Well, the GPL sucks anyways and is in no way legally binding. Now, if linux was copyrighted (which I'm sure it was), then its a different story.
And secondly, the Linux source is at kernel.org, so quit yer complaining. Even though that source won't work on a GP2X, the source is there.
If anything happens, I hope it happens to you for starting this confusingly stupid blog that is a major distraction from all the good that has come out of the production and support of the GP2X.
Was that last comment supposed to make sense? If so, it failed miserably.
Things did happen. Good things. Gamepark Holdings dumped Dignsys, and opened up a Subversion repository containing the kernel source code. You are far behind the times, you stupid lemon-eater [1].
I never said that Gamepark Holdings were bad people -- I said that they needed to learn what their responsibilites were regarding the use of other people's work to make money. And so they have.
Oh, and as far as blaming me for being a distraction from "all the good that has come out of the production and support of the GP2X", maybe you might want to read some of the other posts on this blog rather than commenting on a two-month-old post. You may find that I'm in some small way one of the contributors that you think you are supporting.
[1] This is a reference to Scott Adams' blog. I don't really think you're stupid. Unless you are, in fact, a lemon-eater.
Those idiots who say gph must not release source code is clueless, anyone receiving a binary created from code distributed under the GPL are entitled to get a copy of the sourcecode if they request it, that is how the GPL works.
People need to be patient about this thing, the source code will eventually released, that is all you need to know, now go find some other blog that touches on the great BSD vs Linux debate. On that note BSD users should be proud of their operating system, thanks to BSD we have Mac OSX and we all know much Apple have given back to the BSD community, don't we now? ... Suddenly GPL doesn't sound so bad.
I considerd buying one this christmas
but now won't because there still seems
to be gpl issues.
We have the GPL for a reason. If people
don't understand the reasons, by all
means use only commercial software or
BSD. GPL is a great license and is a
huge reason why linux has magnitudes
more uses, users and developers compared
to BSD and others.
It is important to enfore GPL
complience. And to people who think that
GPL is not leagally binding, are either
in denial, stupid, smoking bad crack,
possibly all of the above. D-link
learned this the hard way.
Hmmm... code not released = DRM shity code
Did you hear the rumours that the word that gp2x production has ended is a lie by craigx and gp32x staff in order to promote their new device named pandora ? I think it makes sense, that guys always seemed to hate gp2x . I really don”t think a few lame american/english kids make a device like that , all is a lie to make people not to buy gp2x…
What do you think ?
This is one of the excellent post.Your blog information is highly developed and good.I like your post detail.
Android app developers
Post a Comment