Yup, another one of these. Help an open-source vigilante?

[EowynCarter]

8. And of course, it would be grand if it played nice with Linux, or ran Linux itself... since everything I own is Linux.

There is one point to consider there :
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...=143658&page=2

ADE 1.8 just don't work with wine. And it's required to download books "protected" with adobe inept. Buying DRM ePub books is likely to be a no go in the reasonably near future.

Most reader use mass storage and will play nice with linux. DRM is where the problem is.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Bookeen used to be great - I really liked their Mobi firmware. But they really messed up with ePub, I think. Not to allow basic things like bookmarks - there's just no reason for that. The Opus was a very nice device, but I just couldn't live with the firmware.

They still had the best rendering back then. Sony have catch up now. (Lack of justify bothered me more than the lack of bookmarks.)
The orizon have bookmarks for ePub. The opus probably will too, whenever bookeen *finally* decides to update it.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There's actually been quite a lot of customisation of the Sony. Look at "PRS+", for example.

I am running PRS+ on mine, and can not thank kartu and the rest of the team enough.

But the text of my message said "The reader was popular and was hacked a lot...", which is not good enough. Without extensive reverse engineering, these readers can not be used to deploy pure OS solution (no ADI, no LRF support, OI or similar instead of Sony firmware). Hence, they are not "OSS friendly", as kartu and the rest of the devs have to live with (and struggle to overcome them) limits imposed by Sony.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ankh

But the text of my message said "The reader was popular and was hacked a lot...", which is not good enough. Without extensive reverse engineering, these readers can not be used to deploy pure OS solution (no ADI, no LRF support, OI or similar instead of Sony firmware). Hence, they are not "OSS friendly", as kartu and the rest of the devs have to live with (and struggle to overcome them) limits imposed by Sony.

But in fairness these devices are not sold as general-purpose computing platforms, but as dedicated readers. One can hardly assign blame to the manufacturer for not providing development capabilities, can one?

I know that some reader manufacturers - Pocketbook, for example - do provide a software development kit for their readers, and encourage application development, but that's not the market sector that Sony are in. If you want an eInk device for software development, you'd have bought a Pocketbook device in the first place.

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors

An e-reader which has a DRM-free store would be a major, major plus in my book. I know I can strip the DRM, but I don't want to support a company that practices that as a rule.

There are no DRM free stores for books sold by mainstream publishers.

The mainstream devices are < $150 because they're tied to a specific walled garden bookstore and subsidized by the purchase of books.

You're going to have to give up one of your requirements, probably price.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But in fairness these devices are not sold as general-purpose computing platforms, but as dedicated readers. One can hardly assign blame to the manufacturer for not providing development capabilities, can one?

Yes, one can. Easily.

Wireless routers geared toward consumer market were for a long time, up until recently, sold as "dedicated" devices, not development platforms. The use of open source (complete) replacements like OpenWrt, dd-wrt or Tomato is now so widespread, that almost complete product lines are now openly marketed as "OSS friendly". Perversely, it is not unacceptable to pay a premium for such a device. A faster processor, more RAM and flash are the norm.

When a manufacturer uses Linux for embedded commercial device, it is commonly assumed that he has accepted (and will welcome) the hacking of his hardware, which, in most of the cases increases the value (hence profit margins) of their product.

Now, Sony found a legal way to treat the Linux the way it is treating it, but after their PS3 shenanigans, I find it perfectly moral, worse, my Netizen duty, to blast them whenever "Open Source" is mentioned in their vicinity.

[HarryT]

You may make that assumption; I certainly don't. As you say, Sony are absolutely in compliance with the terms of the GNU GPL.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You may make that assumption; I certainly don't.

I doubt that anybody lives under impression that you would make such an assumption. I personally believe that, if we were to see your list of requirements for a new electronic reader, it is highly unlikely that "Open Source" would top such a list. Nor do I believe that you are particularly interested in replacing software on your Sony reader.

It just happens that we are having this conversation on the topic started by SmokeAndMirrors, in the part of the forum dedicated to helping potential buyers make their decisions.

Well, if the person who started this topic wants an open source platform, it is most certainly fair to warn him against buying from Sony. They, Sony, belong to a select group of businesses who actively marketed their product (disclaimer: which was not an electronic reading device) as being capable of dual booting to Linux or their software, then changed their mind to force customers to run either their software or Linux, and then brought to court of law a person who managed to run Gentoo Linux on that very same platform.

It is not only what they have done to ensure that their devices stay "dedicated", that corporation has also used their legal assets to fight an attempt to use machine as a generic platform.

It is very fair to say that, when it comes to open source, they (Sony) are as bad as they (corporations) get.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ankh

It is very fair to say that, when it comes to open source, they (Sony) are as bad as they (corporations) get.

Those (many) companies which violate the GPL are far worse, IMHO. You may not like what Sony have done with the Reader's firmware, but it is fully GPL-compliant.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Those (many) companies which violate the GPL are far worse, IMHO. You may not like what Sony have done with the Reader's firmware, but it is fully GPL-compliant.

Oh, my dislike of what Sony has done with Reader's firmware is very minor compared to my dislike for Sony bringing a person who has hacked their PS3 hypervisor (to run Gentoo Linux on platform that was sold to him as being capable of doing so, and then crippled to prevent it) to the court of law.

While it is anything but legally (and morally) clear whether there was a criminal intent, this precedent is very unpleasant can of worms for most of the open source community. If the law takes a stance that a device can be crafted to prevent its use for different purposes, the availability of the hardware for open source applications would be degraded to products that are sold as development platforms. In general "a development platform" is way more expensive device than of the shelf commercial product, and the availability of cheap platforms is an issue for community based embedded Linux projects.

To bring the discussion a bit closer to our primary interest, HarryT, if hypervisor hacking found to be a criminal activity, it is a very short step of going after kartu and the rest of PRS+ team for their modifications of Sony Reader firmware. After all, their work exists in unpleasant vicinity of the DRM software that is, most certainly, specifically protected by Millenium act, and one could easily argue that these modifications are weakening (or facilitating) attempts to circumvent that (already busted) protection scheme.

Now, while it is practically impossible to argue that Sony would continue to flex their corporate muscles (until they do so, that is), there are no guarantees that they wont.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ankh

If the law takes a stance that a device can be crafted to prevent its use for different purposes, the availability of the hardware for open source applications would be degraded to products that are sold as development platforms.

I'm pretty sure you'll find the the terms of use of pretty much all such devices already do prevent this. Eg, anyone who buys a Kindle agrees that:

No Reverse Engineering, Decompilation, Disassembly, or Circumvention. You may not modify, reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Kindle or the Software, whether in whole or in part, create any derivative works from or of the Software, or bypass, modify, defeat, or tamper with or circumvent any of the functions or protections of the Kindle or Software or any mechanisms operatively linked to the Software, for example, by augmenting or substituting any digital rights management functionality of the Kindle or Software.

and that, if you break the above:

Termination. Your rights under this Agreement will automatically terminate if you fail to comply with any term of this Agreement. In case of such termination, you must cease all use of the Software...

That's the one I'm most familiar with, but pretty much all devices have something similar. That's a legal contract that you, as a buyer, are freely and willingly entering into.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's a legal contract that you, as a buyer, are freely and willingly entering into.

Correct. But let us dig into the essence of that contract, for the sake of argument. By signing that contract, you are giving Amazon the right to terminate the contract if you engage in reverse engineering.

However, the contract itself is not outlawing, nor it can, the reverse engineering. Please correct me if I am wrong, but, at least on North American continent, I believe that it is not against the law to reverse engineer a product to figure out how to interface to it, or how to add a feature to it. If a piece of, let's be more specific, code contains an intellectual property protected by a patent, you can not use the knowledge gained by reverse engineering to create a competitive product, etc.

A huge chunk of Open Source code base, particularly the stuff related to conversion of, say, Microsoft file formats to import and use the data, is done by reverse engineering. Nvidia nForce2 ethernet driver, specifically, was directly implemented as a result of reverse engineering, etc.

The person hacking a Kindle has forfeited his contractual right to utilize Amazon services and product support, but that's all.

[HarryT]

I'm no lawyer, and I'm sure that you know more about these things than I do, but it seems to me that if you buy a Kindle, and accept those terms of service, you are agreeing (via that first part of the agreement that I quoted) not to reverse engineer or modify it. You're right, that's not against the law as such, but contracts can certainly "trump" things that would otherwise have been legal. Eg, it's not illegal to do more than 5000 miles a year in a car, but if you lease a car, and part of your lease agreement is that you won't exceed 5000 miles a year, you can most assuredly be required to make additional payment as a consequence, and taken to court if you refuse to do so.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm no lawyer, and I'm sure that you know more about these things than I do, but it seems to me that if you buy a Kindle, and accept those terms of service, you are agreeing (via that first part of the agreement that I quoted) not to reverse engineer or modify it. You're right, that's not against the law as such, but contracts can certainly "trump" things that would otherwise have been legal. Eg, it's not illegal to do more than 5000 miles a year in a car, but if you lease a car, and part of your lease agreement is that you won't exceed 5000 miles a year, you can most assuredly be required to make additional payment as a consequence, and taken to court if you refuse to do so.

The ability of a contractual obligation to "trump" the law is not universal, Harry. I know for sure that, if an employment contract is signed and accepted by involved parties to contradict the labour law of the land, the portions of that contract that are in collision with the law are deemed nil and void in the court of law, but the rest of agreement stands.

Well, "know for sure'... that was a quote of what corporate lawyer said in my presence.

Now, back to the Kindle example. I believe that it is futile for Amazon to use that contract to go after Duokan project. Being a total replacement for Kindle firmware, the attempt would amount to logical equivalent (and this is gross simplification) of preventing a Kindle owner from using the device as ... a wedge to keep the door open. Hard to argue that Amazon's interests are hurt by the alternate use of their product.

Should one, however, use reverse engineering to ease the access to Kindle internals (rooting) the things change dramatically, as Amazon has a ground to argue that breach of contract has hurt them, directly or indirectly. What would be an outcome, I can not say, I am also not a lawyer.

[HarryT]

BTW, we're not actually in disagreement about the Sony - I wouldn't recommend one either to the original poster. As I said before, I'd get one which encourages open source development, like Pocketbook and BeBook do.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm no lawyer, and I'm sure that you know more about these things than I do, but it seems to me that if you buy a Kindle, and accept those terms of service, you are agreeing (via that first part of the agreement that I quoted) not to reverse engineer or modify it. You're right, that's not against the law as such, but contracts can certainly "trump" things that would otherwise have been legal. Eg, it's not illegal to do more than 5000 miles a year in a car, but if you lease a car, and part of your lease agreement is that you won't exceed 5000 miles a year, you can most assuredly be required to make additional payment as a consequence, and taken to court if you refuse to do so.

When you lease a car, you agree not to drive over a certain amount or face penalties that are spelled out in the contract.

When you buy a Kindle, you agree to not reverse engineer it--and if you do, Amazon can cut off your account. That's what the contract says. (That Amazon claims the right to cut off your account for any reason or none is another issue, but one that lawyers might be interested in--that implies it might not legally be a contract at all.)

Amazon can't charge you an extra $500 "software source material fee;" the contract doesn't stipulate extra charges. Amazon can't press charges for hacking just because you read the code they provided with software they didn't expect you to; they have to allow you to read it with various types of software to allow compatibility with OS changes.

There's no law broken in reverse engineering, just a contract (which may or may not be enforceable, but again, different issue); the terms of the contract only allow Amazon to shut off the person's account.

Publishing the results of reverse engineering could be a breach-of-contract leading to violation of trade secrets causing damage to Amazon... but that's several steps of "maybe." Amazon would have to, among other things, prove that such a move *cost them sales*, rather than "hey, now the OS crowd will buy Kindles because they can use them."

There's no legal right to control the use of one's products after sale. Amazon would be hard-pressed to explain how a "Kindle+" option similar to PRS+ was harmful to them.