guylhem rom & possible GPL issues? Options

[muesli321]

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.

[hbo]

You do provide source to the GPL binaries you redistribute, don't you Guylhem?

And, patching binaries just isn't sustainable, let alone ethical/legal. You have no guarantee you will be able to pull off the same hacks in the next version, or the next or the next. And you are only one guy. If you play by the FL/OSS rules, you get to leverage a lot of extra help.

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

[muesli321]

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

[/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.

[adf]

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

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?

[hbo]

...
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.