Cybook Gen3 firmware on Netronix EB-100

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ebook lover

Can someone take us step-by-step how you can load Bookeen's software onto the Stareread? I was one of the earlier buyer of the Stareread but the software is crap and I can't buy any new books with it.

The first thing you're going to need is a legal copy of the Gen3's firmware. Given that the only way to get that is to BUY a Gen3, why not just use it once you've bought it?

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The first thing you're going to need is a legal copy of the Gen3's firmware. Given that the only way to get that is to BUY a Gen3, why not just use it once you've bought it?

Harry,

While I can appreciate your view, I think many who've spent their wads on no-longer-updated devices are probably a bit leery of spending Yet Another Bucket of Cash on another device which might, itself, soon be abandoned for newer products. Some people are made out of money and others aren't so fortunate.

I don't know whether this is the case for Ebook Lover, but I sure wish Bookeen would acknowledge the capability for these older units to run the current generation of Boo Reader and start marketing an 'update firmware' for them. It would make the owners of these older units happy; it would put money in Bookeen's accounts and it *WOULD* generate some very strong Goodwill towards Bookeen for doing so.

Derek

[HarryT]

Derek,

I agree with you 100% - it would be GREAT if Bookeen were to do that. I think, though, that they are extremely unlikely to do so if it would mean that people could get a "Gen3 clone" for a lot less money than buying a Gen3.

At present, though, it's perhaps OK to put the Gen3's firmware on a different device if you own a Gen3, but it's clearly not OK to do so if you don't own a Gen3, because you have no legal right to use that firmware. The only way to get a "legit" copy of the firmware is to buy a Gen3.

[TadW]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The first thing you're going to need is a legal copy of the Gen3's firmware. Given that the only way to get that is to BUY a Gen3, why not just use it once you've bought it?

Don't you think it's difficult to get a legal copy if the firmware itself isn't legal?

Who says Ebook lover doesn't already own the Gen3? He wasn't asking for the firmware; he was asking for a step-by-step how-to - which is perfectly legal.

Sorry to be a nitpick, but this was just an innocent question (to which I would love to hear the answer, too. Commander, do you hear me? )).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by TadW

Don't you think it's difficult to get a legal copy if the firmware itself isn't legal?

That may be your belief, but, to the best of my knowledge, this has not been proven in a court of law, and nor has anyone even brought any legal action. "Innocent until proven guilty" would seem to apply.

Who says Ebook lover doesn't already own the Gen3? He wasn't asking for the firmware; he was asking for a step-by-step how-to - which is perfectly legal.

He could well have a Gen3 (although he doesn't list one on his profile). I was merely making a general point.

[TadW]

Originally Posted by HarryT

...this has not been proven in a court of law...

So you believe (contrary to everything that has been said before about the firmware using Linux components) that unless you take the case to court and wait for the court's decision, you must believe their actions to be innocent?

In this case, I don't see why you continue insisting that you need to own a Gen3 before you can apply the firmware to another device. Have you seen any court rulings you can base your allegation on?

[HarryT]

Copying firmware from a device that you don't own and installing on another machine is no different to pirating any other software.

Claiming that a device which is perfectly legitimately sold is in some way "illegal" is an altogether different matter. IF it is, then it's a matter for the copyright holder to complain about. Have they done so? Who actually is the copyright holder?

Let's suppose - just for the sake of argument - that your claim is true and that the Gen3's firmware (along with that of every other Netronix-based machine) does violate the right of the Linux copyright holders. That still doesn't make it "right" to copy it. Copying illegally-obtained software is just as "wrong" as copying legally-obtained software. If you come across a pirated copy of a game on a bit-torrent site are you going to say "this isn't legal software, so it's perfectly OK for me to copy it"?

[TadW]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Copying firmware from a device that you don't own and installing on another machine is no different to pirating any other software.

Your claim is false. Simple as that. Example: If the firmware I copy is under GPL, it does not matter whether I own the device or not. It also does not matter if I install it on another device. What is it that you so often bring software pirates into the discussion? I don't like being called a pirate just because I disagree with you.

IF it is, then it's a matter for the copyright holder to complain about. Have they done so? Who actually is the copyright holder?

Has Bookeen complained about people copying their firmware onto another device? Do you know more (because I don't)? Or do you represent Bookeen as the alleged copyright holder?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by TadW

Your claim is false. Simple as that. Example: If the firmware I copy is under GPL, it does not matter whether I own the device or not. It also does not matter if I install it on another device. What is it that you so often bring software pirates into the discussion?

Because in this case there is software piracy involved. The MobiPocket Reader (which is contained in the firmware) is copyrighted software, and MobiPocket are very, very active in enforcing their rights. Their lawyers send nasty letters to anyone who copies it inappropriately - as, for example, when people copied the Java version of the MobiPocket Reader that's in the iLiad's firmware.

Has Bookeen complained about people copying their firmware onto another device? Do you know more (because I don't)?

I believe that the original poster said that he had been contacted by Bookeen about having a copy of the firmware on his web site, and had removed it as a result. Clearly they are concerned about it.

[dottedmag]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Claiming that a device which is perfectly legitimately sold is in some way "illegal" is an altogether different matter. IF it is, then it's a matter for the copyright holder to complain about. Have they done so? Who actually is the copyright holder?

I'm afraid I will not be able to post the list of copyright holders in this comment due to [probably] limited length of it Every contributor to Linux kernel (several thousands of people), and every contributor to any other GPL or LGPL licensed library which is is used by Bookeen's firmware has the right to complain.

Nobody complained. Yet (!).

[HarryT]

That's my point, dottedmag. Nobody appears to have complained, so can we take this as an indication that nobody actually cares about it?

[dottedmag]

Originally Posted by TadW

Your claim is false. Simple as that. Example: If the firmware I copy is under GPL, it does not matter whether I own the device or not. It also does not matter if I install it on another device. What is it that you so often bring software pirates into the discussion? I don't like being called a pirate just because I disagree with you.

Unfortunately, it is not right. The firmware is proprietary. It may infringe the rights of authors of libraries and kernel, but until Bookeen released the source code, it is proprietary, and you have to abide the restrictions.

The only way to solve this problem is to bug the copyright holders to make them sue Bookeen.

[dottedmag]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's my point, dottedmag. Nobody appears to have complained, so can we take this as an indication that nobody actually cares about it?

Right. I don't care, because I hope I will have fully open firmware on this device soon, so I don't need the source code of current firmware.

I don't care about DRM either, however I may think it is a good idea to bug someone to sue Bookeen to make them release Mobi reading/decrypting code (statically linked to the GPL-licensed code right now). That would be a good strike against the brain-damaged technology.

[TadW]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because in this case there is software piracy involved.

You didn't refer to this specific case in your last post. You made a general claim, putting me in the light of a software pirate, which I don't appreciate.

The MobiPocket Reader (which is contained in the firmware) is copyrighted software

So you acknowledge that the firmware contains copyright-protected code (not proven in court), but you ignore all evidence that it also contains GPL code?

I believe that the original poster said that he had been contacted by Bookeen about having a copy of the firmware on his web site, and had removed it as a result. Clearly they are concerned about it.

You are inferring from an event in the past. When Bookeen contacted them, they asked to removed the firmware. That was before there was even talk about the firmware being copied onto another device.

That's my point, dottedmag. Nobody appears to have complained, so can we take this as an indication that nobody actually cares about it?

Nobody from Bookeen or Mobipocket (assuming you are not affiliated with them) has complained. Following your reasoning, we can assume that they don't care.

[TadW]

Originally Posted by dottedmag

Unfortunately, it is not right. The firmware is proprietary.

I made a general statement to Harry's general claim about copying firmwares, which was not specific to Bookeen. If a firmware fully consists of GPL code, it is not proprietary.