GP2X Linux Handheld Makers Don't Understand GPL

Bjimba writes "Apparently, the developer community is having a lot of trouble convincing the makers of the GP2X Linux handheld to comply with the GPL by releasing source at the same time as binary firmware releases. This link leads to a synopsis of the issue, and yes, it's my own blog, but there's no ads."

Only to be expected

[pilkul]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't South Korea, like China, a place where lots of piracy goes on without being taken seriously? If so, we can't expect the reverse-copyright jujitsu of the GPL to be taken seriously in their legal system either.

Re:Let that be a lesson to device makers

[fishbowl]

"Using GPL carries a very high risk that your company will be attacked by socialist whiners when you do anything out of lockstep with their beliefs."

Violating any software license carries a risk that you will be litigated against by the copyright holder whose license you refuse to honor. Doing this is not "going out of lockstep with beliefs", but is *BREAKING THE LAW.*

Gee, color me surprised!

[pla]

Seriously, no trolling or flamebait here...

A company released hardware that makes it easy and convenient to run all your favorite emulated copyright violations on portable hardware.

Does anyone really think they gave a damn about the GPL as a philosophy rather than a means of getting a cheap OS, for which a port of most emulators already exists?


I want one of these toys too, but don't mistake the manufacturer for "good guys" just because they chose Linux.

Re:Dignsys not Gamepark Holdings

[penguin-collective]

No, it's the fault of the people distributing it. Since GPH is distributing the hardware, which contains the binaries, GPH is responsible for making available the sources that correspond to the binaries they are distributing.

Re:Gee, color me surprised!

[pla]

Much like oh say a computer? Or maybe... a PocketPc? Or a Palm handheld?

While true, and as a geek I would even use a GP2X for more than gaming, spare me the insult of playing dumb. They MARKET the thing for its ability to run emulators, with a mention of "lots of native games" at some vague point in the undefined future.

So yes, any PC can run MAME. Any modern handheld can run emulated original GB and GG games. But Palms don't come with GBulator preinstalled, and Dell doesn't sell boxes preconfigured with an X-Arcade pad and raving about how well they run even those pesky CHD games at full frame rate.


in addition to the emulators there are a lot of nice homebrew game

Uh-huh... And most people run Snes9x for the wonderful collection of Anthrox demos available.


Apple lets you play non-DRM MP3s on an iPod! Oh the humanity!

Sarcasm aside... Most people can realistically rip their legal CDs to MP3s. Very few people know how to rip their SNES carts to a playable ROM image, and even fewer have the (admittedly not all that expensive) hardware needed to do so.

Re:they don't understand?

[MichaelSmith]

And to think that I wanted to buy one of these. Now, I just want them to comply or fry.

Buy one then ask for the source. Include a copy of the GPL to back up your claim. Maybe GNU Korea [gnu.org] can help.

Re:they don't understand?

[ankhcraft]

I don't think that past ignorances will have an effect on future lawsuits. That's like saying "How can you arrest me for breaking into your house for the 3rd time? You didn't say anything the first two times!"

Re:f3\/\/L slashdotting ur 0\/\/N blog....before..

[syberdave]

What would be so wrong with posting a blog entry on slashdot even if there were ads?

As long as the content is good and worth it, it's better than those sites that publish pre-written articles just to get indexed by Google.

Re:Why? (Source w/ binary)

[karlto]

It doesn't really matter what your philosophy is on whether the GPL is right or not though - if you choose to use this software, which has this license, you must comply...

Re:they don't understand?

[rm69990]

So Party A can't sue Party B for breaching the GPL because Party C failed to sue Party D before for willful infringement, all because both pieces of software use the same license?

You should go work for SCO's legal team me thinks.

Re:Let that be a lesson to device makers

[Rakishi]

That has been well known for a while; you get some bad PR and a potential lack of good PR but little else. See it's not cheap to sue people and I doubt linux using companies see much advantage in funding it, sending cease and desist letters doesn't matter unless there is bite behind them. Someone really should show some teeth, however I doubt it will ever happen.

My point was more along the lines of it seeming like an utterly idiotic business decision in this case. They sell hardware, not software (in the later case I can at least understand why they don't release the source, although of course don't agree with it). The software seems to have bugs, why the heck don't they release the source so other people create fixes for them for free (or whole new versions). It's like "stupid management 101" or something; probably some guy in charge is paranoid about giving anything away and as a result is hurting their own sales. Maybe they don't release the source code because if the public version is too good, the software company may lose their contract.