OESF Portal | OESF Forum | OESF Wiki | LinuxPDA | #planetgemini chat on matrix.org | #gemini-pda chat on Freenode | #zaurus and #alarmz chat on Freenode | ELSI (coming soon) | Ibiblio


Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> guylhem rom & possible GPL issues?
post May 15 2005, 09:04 AM
Post #1

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

QUOTE(CoreDump @ May 15 2005, 06:14 AM)
Anyway I'm open. Please tell me how you think the development should go, and if you like the roadmap. As adf said, I'm not quite satisfied by opie/oe/oz. I've to publish an editorial (soon - really :-) on my thoughts, but basically 1) braking binary compatibility is bad

Actually, in this case it is good. Good as in a 100-300% floating point performance increase and overall faster application launch times. Anyone who has used a Sharp ROM who now uses an OZ ROM knows what I'm talking about.

That's right. It's much better. But at the same time, you are using a different sync method, not providing libsl equivalents etc. etc. so compatibility is broken at multiple levels. That's sharp fault for imposing libsl and other oddities, but there should be an intelligent workaround.

I mean, using softfloat is not the problem by itself - softfloat is good ! Mostly for the binaries which can take advantage of it, say mplayer. In fact, they could use LD_PRELOAD while the rest of the system would stay in hardfloat until a good solution is found (zync was very promising) to be 100% sharp compatible where it matters.

QUOTE(CoreDump @ May 15 2005, 06:14 AM)
2) shipping unfinished/untested distributions is worse

The current OZ branch is labled "unstable" for a reason.

Then don't ship it and don't announce it. Or ship it without GUI (I did that :-) - it prevents end users from giving it a try when they shouldn't. If you don't do any of that, people will install it and complain.

QUOTE(CoreDump @ May 15 2005, 06:14 AM)
3) imposing developpers/contributors to use the entire buildsystem weighting several Gb is like telling them "please don't contribute".

If you can't spare a lousy 3-5GB w/ todays HDDs prices you are indeed out of luck. But that is hardly the fault of OE or OZ.

I can't. And it's OE fault, unless there's a misterious "bitbake offer me a new HD" option I don't know. Go to externe.net/zaurus/sdk. You'll have the 2.95 toolchain and 1.5 qtopia in less than 200 Megs- so you can do differently.

Just give me the same for OE ! All I'm asking in the 3.4 toolchain and the /opt/Opie. I don't want everything else. Hell - just give me the 3.4 toolchain for x86 in a tarball and I'll be happy :-)

I've been asking that for weeks. I don't want the crosstools script version, I want your version. Why is it nowhere on the website to download? Why could nobody offer me a tarball? I really don't have 2 Gb. In fact I have 155 Mb free at the moment on my 40 Gb disk. And I won't purchase additional space - because I don't need it, except if I want to play with OE.

Don't get me wrong. OE is impressive, and you are doing great things. But I think it could be even better if little modifications were done - the ones suggested above, and (flame flame) dropping opie and moving to qtopia 2.1 while fixing/porting apps to use it!

You know the motto : destroying is the easiest, creating is harder, maintaining/fixing is the most complicated. The hard work is on making something compatible while fixing issues at the same time.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Start new topic
post May 15 2005, 11:02 AM
Post #2

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
post May 16 2005, 12:08 PM
Post #3

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.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th May 2018 - 12:27 AM