I'm just doing my part to try to educate people on the problem. Seems like I got a few replies on my last post, I'll do my best to answer all points.
Winterkid said:
DigiTao, about being lied to, sorry to be a downer, but chances are, you've been lied to at least 2 or 3 times in some way in the last week, at some point. The human race as a whole isn't the most honest.
Correct but irrelevant.
Winterkid said:
I think saying the IP of the GPL has been "stolen" is a bit strong.
I agree, stolen isn't the correct word. What GPH has done is a crime, but not theft.
Winterkid said:
When something is stolen, it's taken without permission. The GPL itself gives it's consent from what I understand, but not all the conditions have been met. If anything, the IP you're talking about has been "borrowed" and just not "returned" in good condition.
Incorrect. While GPL'd code can be received and used at no cost, there is a cost to give it away. That cost is very cleared outlined in the terms of the licensee. The terms of the licensee are very easy to comply with and that makes GPH's non-compliance all the more a mystery.
Mr.Jabberwocky said:
Smooth. Nothing like a bit of name calling to add weight to a viewpoint.
Please see “Pot calling the kettle black ” @
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_idiom...nglish_language
Mr.Jabberwocky said:
Since GPL was a major selling point for you, why didn't you return it for a refund as soon as you recieved it and saw it failed to meet one or other of the relevant conditions before investing further in it ?
I had pre-ordered the GP2X, Screen Protector, and TV-Out Cable well before it's release, my 2Gb SD card was purchased once my GP2X shipped since I knew you couldn't do much without one. We have been told several times now since the release of the GP2X that GPH will come into compliance with the GPL, and I do believe they will eventually comply given the alternative. It is however only educating GPH on that alternative that they will act.
Mr.Jabberwocky said:
Given the moral high ground you are arguing from, how can the cost of a few bits and pieces outweigh the lofty principal you have been so mouthy about ?
2Gb SD cards aren't cheap, and as stated, I believe that they will have to come into compliance one way or the other. However, the approach of “Let's do/say nothing and just hope GPH comes into GPL compliance” doesn't seem “effective”.
Chip said:
Nobody's IP was "stolen". How do you steal something that is being given away?
Already answered that above.
Chip said:
It's not like they ripped off commercial software and started selling it as their own.
Actually it is.
Chip said:
It's not even like they took free software and said they're keeping their extensive modifications secret forever.
Every time they've said they would remedy this situation they have fallen quite short of doing so. If GPH were to publish a road map to GPL compliance, and that road map included many individual goals with specific dates on which they would be meet, and then we saw them actually sticking to it – then you would have a point. As of this moment, my confidence that GPH has even read the GPL is fairly low.
Chip said:
It's indignant, chest-thumping reactionism like this that turns people off to the GPL ideal. Yes, the GPL is a good idea, and it has rules for a reason.
If an individual or company doesn't like the terms of the GPL they shouldn't use GPL'd licensed software. There are plenty of great alternative programs with far less restricting licensees. GPH would have been far more comfortable with a BSD style licensee. In fact – get this, I don't even think the GPL is that great a licensee, I actually think the LGPL is better in many respects, but that's another long rant in and of itself.
Chip said:
But the mature and rational approach to this whole thing would have been to give them time to create a stable final product to release, which was their stated intention from the beginning.
Releasing the source code – in whatever state it's in, however unstable, buggy or whatever it is, right now – should be absolutely trivial to do. However, as I've said over and over again, as long as GPH doesn't make another binary release, until they are ready to also make a source release, there really isn't much to bitch about.
Chip said:
At the absolute worst, GPH is guilty of borrowing with intent to return. Even that's a bit of a stretch, since this is FREE software we're talking about.
You really should read the GPL, it's a simple document:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
Calling GPL software FREE really misses a lot of the point.
Chip said:
What angers me the most is how Craigx, DJWillis, and other "inside" folks have been treated. These are people who work their asses off for the love of open hardware. Sure, Craigx sells the things, but I'm sure he's not getting rich from it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I have nothing but respect for DJWillis. With Craigx I don't know what to think. I believe he really is doing a lot to try to fix this situation, but continuing to sell the GP2X right now given the licensee issue just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. At the very least, I wish he would change his website to reflect the situation. A Tux inside picture right now is just plain wrong.
Chip said:
It's really disheartening to have good guys like this shat upon by people who know nothing more about the situation than what they read in two misleading paragraphs on slashdot.
It's also disheartening to have people come to conclusions on how the GPL works based on a couple of misleading statements made in these forums. I'm trying to spread some education on the matter but it's difficult.
Chip said:
What I mean is that there are maybe 8 hardcore developers that would either use the information in the code to create better apps, or modify the code to create new and better firmware.
I really would like to play with the firmware. I'm certainly not a hardcore developer who's going to come up with anything great, but I'm not totally clueless either. Professionally, I'm a “Programmer Analyst” who spends a great deal of time in QA. When I do develop it's usually just making small fixes so the people with more talent can focus on the big problems, I don't see why this would be any different.
Chip said:
Those screaming loudest about how GPH MUST release it NOW have no intention of using it or even downloading it. You are right though, in the end we will all benefit.
If by that you mean the Slashdot readers who don't have a GP2X, and never intended to get one, then you've almost got a point. However, consider that if it wasn't for people throwing a fit any time anybody broke the GPL, infractions would just be all the more common. Is it such a stretch to believe that by allowing any one piece of GPL'd software to be infringed on is to make the GPL licensee itself weaker? Yes, believing that with a passion is being a zealot – but there is some logic to it all the same.
GeminiDomino said:
DISCLAIMER: I refuse to edit/develop GPL software, because I loathe the political agenda of the FSF. For those who wish for software to be truly "free" ("as in freedom", to quote the holy church fo Stallman), I suggest the "New BSD License" or the "MIT license." However, those who wrote and contributed to Linux DID choose to use the GPL, and their wishes should be honored.
If I really wanted to do some ranting I'd start up a GPL vs. LGPL vs. BSD debate... But your right on the money when it comes to honoring those who choose the GPL.
There's more I could reply to – but this is more than enough typing for me.