Gph/digisys Gpl Compliance W/ 1.3.0 Firmware


Thanks DijiTao.

While it may seem strange to ppl who have been following the thread to post a summary like this (myself included), it is most certainly beneficial to those that haven't. Again, while this is only your view, I can't help but agree with all but a few of your conclusions about this mess.

BTW, has anyone else been singled out by a person on these boards, named 'unlucky', and recieved PM's from him complaining about your points of view on this matter?

I have... and I don't like it. Here is his message (and my response) for you all to see.

PM from unlucky
its not gamepark holdings that has the firmware source code is dignsys its not gameparks doing they just have a contract where dignsys write the firmwares for them. Stop giving gamepark a bad name its not their fault. Why are you so bothered anyway the people who seem to complain the most about the source code couldn't even do anything with it. It'll be so hacked togeather and crappy it will hardly be worth it

My Reply
Yo dude.... I hope to all high hell that you sent one of these msg's to everyone else on the boards. Don't think that by sending me a PM telling me you point of views that gives you any justification for your misinformed views.

Secondly, GPH IS at fault. Read the forums again. When I enter a contract with another company (and I have) I make sure that myself and the other company are on the same page. I make sure that if my advertising campaign says "open source OS" and "community based" that I will be able to back those claims up. I know full well the status of the code. I know that Dig are the ppl making the kernel for the 2X... that doesn't remove any of the blame from GPH at all. If anything it puts them in even more trouble for distributing a console/OS that ignores an international copyright license and breaks the law. The only ppl I sympathise with are the vendors. Craig and others have always appeared to be the middle-men/women between the community and Dig/GPH. They are in a tights spot too, if GPH and Dig don't release the source soon, they also could come under attack from the GPL enforcers.

I didn't start this GPH/GPL thread.. but I do support it fully. We are the ones being screwed here. I am sick of the waiting game.

Also, I would be the first to admit that my coding skills are not all that great and that I have not much skill in the areas of kernel hacking or module scripting, I do however, intend on using and possibly contributing to any kernel releases by Open2X and other projects that would be made possible from such a source release. Are you so missinformed as to the situation with the Kernel Source that you don't see that its release can and will benefit every single GP2X user/owner. While you may have no intention of kernel hacking, some ppl do and they have these intentions to help make you GP2X experience all the more better.

Do some better fact searching before you decide to single out one person and try and make a point so you feel more important.

BTW, This has been posted on the boards for the rest of the community to read, just incase you didn't feel the need to send everyone else a PM like you did me.

-Timbobsteve

Damnit!!! That PM has totally put me in a shitty mood now. I hope you all feel the same way. NOTE: I think thise was sent to me simply because of my Sig, though it is hardly a justification for this intrusion.

-Timbobsteve
 
unlucky posted this reply shortly after mine.

Yeah you argued back pretty brilliantly i think i'm just tired of all the talk of gpl and i'm more or less scared of the gp2x being destroyed as a result of it.
Sorry about the PM i think i am a retard (with a 104fahrenheit temperature i seem to have the flu)

that calms me down a little... I hardly think that a personal PM was worthy for his feelings. I am however feeling a little bad for the 'frank' and 'harsh' reply I sent him.
 
I think we’re all on edge because we don’t want the GP2X to fail. We’re all on the same page in that regards, we all want it to be a success. The differences occur in terms of how much we let GPH get away with. Some people couldn’t careless about the GPL, others think it’s ok as long as eventually GPH comes into compliance, yet others want some specifics about when and how GPH will come into compliance, and finally a few people don’t want any more excesses they want compliance immediately.
 
I've been on the sidelines for quite a while (and I'm only putting my opinion out there because I feel like I have to, not that it'll further discussion in one direction or another...) and have changed my mind several times about this issue. At first, when I had no idea what all the fuss was about, I thought that any action against GPH would've been the pits. Because of a misunderstanding of the lisence with which they have to comply with, I thought that any sort of forceful action would've been devatstating, both to the community, and to GPH themselves.

But of course, as time wore on, and nothing happened but the release of a partial, outdated code, I began to wonder exactly what was going through their heads. Now, I understand that it may not be GPH's fault, but the release of the source about a month ago was due, probably to their somewhat of an understanding of the lisence.

I'm learning about how to run Linux, as I'm getting tired with Windows all of a sudden. Last night, I sat down and started to read the Linux Bible by Christopher Negus. Part of the introduction is dedicated to the GPL and other lisences. After reading that small bit, I understand WHY it is that people are getting miffed.

Linux itself depends on the community. The very thing that makes an open source project better than a proprietary project is that whoever modifies any code to work under a new sircumstance, others can build off of it, improve it, do whatever. But the brilliance of this is that hundreds of minds with different points of view can contribute to the project, and help it grow and become something better than ever conceived. To me, the work of hundreds of minds, fueled by a passion for their project is much better than a few, fueled only by money. That is what makes Linux and the Open Source community tenfold times better for everyone.

I just didn't fully grasp that concept. And, I'm sure many of the people here arguing needlesly about protecting GPH really don't. They may understand it, but they certainly haven't adopted it.

My worry about GPH going to the dumps due to legal action completely flew out the window when I read this:

Christopher Negus said:
The EuroLinux Alliance is a group dedicating to "protecting software freedom based on copyright, open standards, open competition, and open source software, such as Linux." EuroLinux is filing a petition in the European Parliament and European Council to warn about the dangers of Software Patents. To find out more, go to http://eurolinux.org

+AND+

OSDL.org has prepared a legal defense fund to protect Linux end users and other Linux litigants (including Linus and OSDL itself).

Upon reading this, and doing more research into how "they" (The numerous GPL enforcement groups) go about getting compliance, they are not at all dirty. They're not looking for compensation, just compliance. Listen to this; Something amazing caught my eye while visiting the FSF site, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html:

An entire industry grew up around free software, all of whose participants understood the overwhelming importance of the GPL--no one wanted to be seen as the villain who stole free software, and no one wanted to be the customer, business partner, or even employee of such a bad actor. Faced with a choice between compliance without publicity or a campaign of bad publicity and a litigation battle they could not win, violators chose not to play it the hard way.

I think the reason that I and many others here wanted to see some of this stop is because one of the first threads about this was very militant in it's approach to the situation. We need to understand that doing this will benefit us in the long run. Faced with the decision to go to court or comply, Dignsys will most definitely comply. They cannot win. It's up to someone to tell them to start making things happen, and that's why we're here, as a community. To make things work for us, and in turn, everyone who uses this wonder of a GP2X.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I sat down and started to read the Linux Bible by Christopher Negus. Part of the introduction is dedicated to the GPL and other lisences. ...snip... Linux itself depends on the community. ...snip... I just didn't fully grasp that concept. And, I'm sure many of the people here arguing needlesly about protecting GPH really don't.

Well done for this entire post Rayek, good points well made. Many people here really haven't grasped how crucial the GPL and compliance is to the whole open-source society.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the post Rayek, it’s one of the better ones I’ve read in awhile. To me the best part of the GPL isn’t so much collaborative aspect, although that is important, but rather giving end users the freedom to control the software they use. With closed source products often I find “features” that I don’t want, not just would never use, but actually don’t want. As in the feature was not included in the product because the end user would want it, but because it’s good for the company. There is no greater example of this then DRM. DRM is bad for the consumer, but yet everyday it getting more and more prevalent. The HD-DVD vs. BluRay fight over who can dick the consumer over harder is a comical example of this:

“Our format is uncopyable – o yeah well our format is not only uncopyable but every time you play a disc the player has to connect to our central server for authentication, umm o yeah, we’ll we changed are format so now ours does that too and if we detect a pirated disc we can remotely self-destruct the users player”

With GPL’d software that sort of problem just doesn’t exist. When users have the source code, it’s near impossible to force unwanted features onto them. Better still what about features users want but proprietary software won’t give them because “it’s bad for business”. The OpenDocument format is a great file type, but despite some very heavy pressure from users, Microsoft Office can’t read or write to this format.

The bottom line is that the GPL grants users freedom, and people tend to get miffed when there freedom gets taken away.
 
I, personally, don't know how anyone but a capitalist rightist could bash Linux and the GPL. Honestly, and I mean this in a good way: It's the way Communism was meant to be, but was always poorly executed. That's all I'll say about that, but just think about it.

I don't know if I would ever use the community-made firmware. And honestly, that shouldn't matter. The license is there for a reason. It's better that it remains open, and only good can come from it. That's why, when and if GPH releases 2.0.0 version of the firmware and the 'official release' happens, and it's ready for prime-time (and they still haven't complied), we (or someone) need(s) to give them a nice tap on the shoulder.
 
Back
Top