OESF | ELSI | pdaXrom | OpenZaurus | Zaurus Themes | Community Links | Ibiblio

IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> guylhem rom & possible GPL issues?
muesli321
post May 15 2005, 11:02 AM
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 15-May 05
Member No.: 7,142



1.)I don't care what you're doing but you should clarify one thing. What you do is not about Free Software. You're not interested in your personal Freedom and will die in slavery. Russell King would tell you to better use the other Windows based Embedded Operating System, but as I don't care I don't mind....

2.) Your SDK is illegal. You distribute GPL/LGPL binaries. Either remove it or get into conformance with the Software included. See http://www.gpl-violations.org/
To get into conformance with the licenses publish the source in the same place and the build tools you used to create your binaries and distribution.

3.) Tearing apart original copyrighted applications and redistribution the result is illegal, you do not respect the intellectual property of thirds. I get the bitter test of being surrounded with script kiddies, having their own winftp based warez server. Please tell me I'm wrong and show your written copy of Sharp, Opera any other provider that you're allowed to redistribute their property

4.) I'm looking forward for your maintaining efforts, providing security fixes and similar...

I leave 5.) to n.) for future comments and I hope you find your way into Freedom, forcing slavery onto other users is not an option.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
muesli321
post May 15 2005, 02:32 PM
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 15-May 05
Member No.: 7,142



Update: Hmm. I see that muesli321 just joined the forum today. Could it be I've been trolled? : blink.gif
*

[/quote]
No, I normally dislike forums but this time I needed to sign up as I can't stand people comparing something that is in accordance with Free Software Ethics and Licenses and something that is obviously illegal and disrespects licenses and intellectual property of thirds.

Saying oh here is the great SDK and OE should have provided that in the first place where the binaries are clearly illegal warezed. The SDK fails to comply with GNU licenses (not even considering the proprietary bits in it). It fails to answer under which license resulting code has to fail. Does that Qtopia code allow commercial development at all?
Is that the 150$ SDK from Trolltech?
And I really hope it is obvious why OpenEmbedded or handhelds.org can't host nor provide such illegal binary blobs.

It might be good and easy for you, but it is illegal. I just want to make you aware of that fact.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
adf
post May 15 2005, 02:54 PM
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 2,821
Joined: 13-September 04
From: Wasilla Ak.
Member No.: 4,572



QUOTE(muesli321 @ May 15 2005, 10:32 PM)
Update: Hmm. I see that muesli321 just joined the forum today. Could it be I've been trolled?  : blink.gif
*

QUOTE
No, I normally dislike forums but this time I needed to sign up as I can't stand people comparing something that is in accordance with Free Software Ethics and Licenses and something that is obviously illegal and disrespects licenses and intellectual property of thirds.

Saying oh here is the great SDK and OE should have provided that in the first place where the binaries are clearly illegal warezed. The SDK fails to comply with GNU licenses (not even considering the proprietary bits in it). It fails to answer under which license resulting code has to fail. Does that Qtopia code allow commercial development at all?
Is that the 150$ SDK from Trolltech?
And I really hope it is obvious why OpenEmbedded or handhelds.org can't host nor provide such illegal binary blobs.

It might be good and easy for you, but it is illegal. I just want to make you aware of that fact.
*


qtopia provides a free sdk. You really ought to look things up before you rant

I kinda thought you were from OE. Are you sure it isn't that you usually use a different name?

I had heard some rumors rumblings about rude oe folks on irc, and some suspicions that OE was tainted with commercial developers doing sabotage so that no stable releases ever reached the public... forcing reliance on commercial software in the guise of promoting open source. I'm still not sure I believe the latter part, though muesli (isn't that a '70's breakfast cereal?) helps demonstrate that it might be possible. The former is evidently true. I like OE considerably less than I did 10 minutes ago.

edit: ORG, would it be a good idea to remove those posts by and referring to muesli that do not apply to this rom development nor to any actual state of affairs legal or developmental? I.e. Where he mistakes what is and is not the case in the Qtopia SDk license, shouldn't his assertions re this state of affiars be removed as possibly injurious, and certainly misleading?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hbo
post May 15 2005, 03:24 PM
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 95
Joined: 5-March 05
Member No.: 6,576



QUOTE(adf @ May 15 2005, 02:54 PM)
...
muesli (isn't that a '70's breakfast cereal?) ...
*


It's a generic name for a Swiss cereal, a brand of which hit California around 1969. It may have taken a while longer to reach Arkansas. 8)

So it appears that mister breakfast cereal is blowing smoke out his sugar and milk. Unless he can point to a specific piece of that tarball that
  1. isn't included in what is freely downloadable from qtopia.com or trolltech.no, AND (
  2. is either a binary of some GPL code provided without source, OR
  3. a commercial binary whose license doesn't allow redistribution.)
Then I say he either was misinformed or malicious in his accusation.

However, I still have big problems with patching binaries, from legal, ethical and practical perspectives.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
muesli321
post May 16 2005, 03:19 AM
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 15-May 05
Member No.: 7,142



QUOTE
Here are the top 24 lines of the LICENSE file in the root of the Qtopia.tgz on externe.net:

CODE
The Qtopia Environment is Copyright (C) 2000-2001 Trolltech AS and
 other authors as specified in the file headers.

You may use, distribute and copy the Qtopia Environment under the terms
of GNU General Public License version 2, which is displayed below.

Sharp SDK is copyrighted by Sharp and *not* released under the GPL.
So please try to avoid using libsl and libdtm unless you application
absolutely *requires* it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
                      Version 2, June 1991

Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
                         675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

                           Preamble


So, under the GPL, he has the right to redistribute, no?
*


First of all if you all can work better believing I'm a troll go that easy route now onto the SDK.
Admitingly I've not downloaded the two files from Guyhlem because it was obvious that they're warezed copies.

Distributing Embedix.tar.gz is illegal because (remember I've not downloaded it, so the list might be incomplete)
1.) source code of gcc is lacking (it is not a unpatched gcc for sure)
2.) source code of glibc is lacking
3.) source code of zlib is missing
4.) the tool/script to create the toolchain is missing


Now onto Qtopia.tar.gz and solely basing on your license extract
1.) Good to know it is the GPL edition
2.) The sourcecode is missing though. To word it in drastic sounds you've been bullshitted otherwise you would not wonder why Sharps libqpe-1.6.3 seems to be faster or different. But that is a complete different story.
3.) The source code (the exact source code used to built the binaries) need to be provided
at the same place. And this is where it gets hard for Guyhlem because someone else already
violated the license he will be unable to get in conformance with the GPL ( I hope I will be not true though)
4.) While he is luckily allowed to distribute the GPL parts (if he will be able to provide source code) the libsl and libdtm parts still seems to be illegal. This does not look like a written statement from sharp and it talks about using (probably as in linking) and not about redistributing. So that part looks unresolvable illegal



To summarize the SDK itself is IMHO illegal, the resulting work is illegal as well (using boolean logic here). If you can live with that than live with that. But please stop fooling yourself you do it because of your Freedom or Free Software and don't compare your work to other Free Software Projects.
While you think OE is tainted, unstable huge. Yes with over 2000 packages it is a huge source of knowledge, not every package might be packaged right but it is 100% Free Software and 100% legal.

For example each packaged binary contains the name of the sources and names of applied patches. Sources are mirrored for two years and patches are in the source control management system for ever. To my knowledge OE based Distributions like OpenZaurus, Familiar, OpenSimpad, OpenBeagle, OpenOMAP are the only legal distributions for Linux Handheld devices.
On the other hand not every package is packaged right, not every included binary is bugfree but Freedom doesn't mean being Free of bugs, Freedom itself is not easy to gain and to keep. If you decide to be Free like most of the OE folks have decided there might be bugs and shortcomings at first but we all gain for perfection.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
adf
post May 16 2005, 06:35 AM
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 2,821
Joined: 13-September 04
From: Wasilla Ak.
Member No.: 4,572



edit: changed this post
This is mildly interesting.

At first I thought this was someone with some legit ties to OE (given rumors of bad behaviour on irc, and the new user name, etc) But since he apparently doesn't read very well, doesn't really have a solid grasp of the context of the elements of zaurus software, nor a good grasp of law (libel is defintely illegal, for example), I have to assume it is a kid with nothing else to do. It had momentarily crossed my mind that he might be a plant , trying to alienate people from OE, while doing as much mischeif as polssible to other linux projects. I think that theory has to take second place to the bored fanatical teenager theory. I guess we just have to skip over his posts for a while. If Guylhem is going to write an editorial that suggests that OE is not the best solution for the Z.... then there will be more of this, till he/they/it find something else to ruffle up their brownshirted little selves.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hbo
post May 16 2005, 07:19 AM
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 95
Joined: 5-March 05
Member No.: 6,576



The thing about trolls is, they love to get a rise out of folks. Assuming he is an OE provocateur, then wasting time discussing his stuff is exactly what he's after. If, in a less paranoid interpretation, he's just some snot-nosed brat, psychology or sociology grad student or other trouble maker, then he's gratified by the reaction, however long it takes us to make it. Either way, really ignoring him, (as in click on his link, select "ignore user" in the first table and presto, no more troll smile.gif ) is the only way to go.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
adf
post May 16 2005, 07:20 AM
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 2,821
Joined: 13-September 04
From: Wasilla Ak.
Member No.: 4,572



see changed post above.. I came to the same conclusion
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hbo
post May 16 2005, 09:23 AM
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 95
Joined: 5-March 05
Member No.: 6,576



QUOTE(adf @ May 16 2005, 07:20 AM)
see changed post above.. I came to the same conclusion
*


Good going!

All the talk is meaningless, ultimately. In the FL/OSS world, what matters is code. I actually think the OE folks have a lot of cred for what the've produced. It is incredibly annoying to run all that stuff at once, but they'll get that ironed out eventually. In the meantime, that leaves room for projects like this to fill a need they aren't addressing. And it's even OK to borrow from them, as I see Trolltech has liberally done, as long as you provide source code back.

I got opera going from the command line. Since the OZ/Qtopia install is of the "Update" variety, it didn't touch my /home partition. In there I had a /home/QtPalmtop that had all the g-ROM stuff oreserved. Opera looks for /home/QtPalmtop/opera, which didn't match the binary, so there was trouble. When I moved that directory aside, and created a link from there to /opt/Qtopia, opera worked when launched from the command line! This is Opera 7.30 from the cacko feed. Ir is installed under /mnt/cf, and ipkg-link'd in to root.

It's still failing from the UI. I think it may have to do with the format or content of the .desktop file. More later.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
guylhem
post May 16 2005, 12:08 PM
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 577
Joined: 17-March 04
Member No.: 2,365



A quick reply

Regarding "binary patching", only qtopia 1.5 libqpe or libqte (can't remember) should be patched. If you read again my post, you'll see that was one solution. I opted for swapping 125 and 30 instead which causes all the problem, because I'm not morally comfortable with binary patching. Yet it would be a good solution.

Regarding muesli : "get a life".

When I'm reading your comments about embedix etc. I realise you pretend to know a lot but seems to know very little. If you need more information, you can email me at @gnu.org (It may still work - or is at @fsf ? I can certainly check for you :-).

So you want sourcecode, and the patches, and everything ? I'll be happy to provide it to you for $15 (1 cd + s&h) as the GPL allows:

"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."

I won't offer you "warranty protection", because with all your legal babble and your poor understanding of how free software works, you'd be tempted to charge me with RICO :-) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RICO_(law) ]

Everybody else with a QI>0 will certainly have noticed in the first lines of tar:

-bash-2.05b$ tar ztvf Embedix.tgz
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2005-01-28 20:48:08 Embedix/
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2005-01-30 12:22:08 Embedix/src/
-rw-r--r-- root/root 9934295 2005-01-30 12:03:21 Embedix/src/binutils-2.11.2.tar.gz
-rwxr-xr-x root/root 350 2005-01-30 12:22:08 Embedix/src/compile.sh
-rw-r--r-- root/root 14441250 2001-02-16 01:57:04 Embedix/src/glibc-2.2.2.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- root/root 274472 2005-01-30 12:06:28 Embedix/src/gcc-2.95.2-2.95.3.diff.bz2
-rw-r--r-- root/root 237896 2005-01-30 12:09:13 Embedix/src/gcc-core-2.95.2-2.95.3.diff.bz2
-rw-r--r-- root/root 37997 2005-01-30 12:10:09 Embedix/src/gcc-g++-2.95.2-2.95.3.diff.bz2
-rw-r--r-- root/root 1248880 2005-01-30 12:10:37 Embedix/src/gcc-g++-2.95.3.tar.bz2
-rw-r--r-- root/root 9848842 2001-03-15 18:00:00 Embedix/src/gcc-2.95.3.tar.bz
(etc etc)

Regarding free software ethics, the goal is a 100% free software handheld. Yet this takes some time. If you want to be 100% free software *now*, it's not really possible if you use your handheld on a daily basis - which I do. I have a more realistic roadmap, which is why I tolerate non free applications such as hancom or sharp libs in the meantime.

But be certain that I'm actively working on removing non free software parts from my rom. It will take some time. Some will go sooner (sharp players->zplayer+kino+mplayer) than the others (sharp libs), but I don't care- I have my plans and I'm not in a hurry. Yet in the end, every non free application will be flushed.

Muesli, if you have your plans, if you want to prepare your rom or anything, I'll be happy to see your efforts. Meanwhile you seems to be a complainer more than a producer. So please create something, then we'll talk.

Guylhem
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hbo
post May 16 2005, 12:21 PM
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 95
Joined: 5-March 05
Member No.: 6,576



QUOTE(guylhem @ May 16 2005, 12:08 PM)
A quick reply

Regarding "binary patching", only qtopia 1.5 libqpe or libqte (can't remember) should be patched. If you read again my post, you'll see that was one solution. I opted for swapping 125 and 30 instead which causes all the problem, because I'm not morally comfortable with binary patching. Yet it would be a good solution.

*


Thanks for clearing that up. I'm sorry I allowed myself to be gulled by a troll into questioning this aspect. But it's good that your reply is out there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
offroadgeek
post May 16 2005, 06:04 PM
Post #12





Group: Admin
Posts: 1,418
Joined: 18-May 03
From: St. Paul, MN
Member No.: 4



muesli321 - it's fine for you to join the forum and post your thoughts on a subject, but at least follow our basic forum guidelines. No trolling, no hijacking threads, and be respectful of others. You seemed to miss this altogether.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BarryW
post May 17 2005, 09:42 AM
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 693
Joined: 4-June 04
From: Ohio
Member No.: 3,570



He probably works for Micro$oft. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ragnorok
post Jul 6 2005, 12:11 PM
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 298
Joined: 27-October 03
From: Greenfield, NH
Member No.: 781



QUOTE(BarryW @ May 17 2005, 05:42 PM)
He probably works for Micro$oft.  :)
*


- Outta my head! (giggle)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd October 2014 - 02:28 PM