Cybook Gen3 firmware on Netronix EB-100 - Page 11

DaleDe · 06-03-2008, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tompe

Since the main point of GPL is that you have to distribute the source code if you statically link to a gpl:ed library why should it not be true? One of the difference with version 2 and 3 is that for 2 you do not have to provide the program to install the software on a device.

I thought in version two you could supply a proprietary executable is someone needed to add it to a build or needed a version with a later library. I do not believe you are required to release your proprietary code as source. Today you would use shared libraries but some of the tools weren't available for shared libraries back when version 2 was written.

Dale

nikkos010 · 06-03-2008, 07:32 PM

I'm going to delurk here for a bit.

http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj19.htm

Calling on a pre-compiled program/library does not require the distribution of your proprietary code under the GPL. If that were the case there would be absolutely no private proprietary code developed to run on Linux

If Mobipocket is indeed using GPL code compiled into it's program, you'll need to find it, find the author who wrote it, and confirm that he didn't authorize it, prior to accusing Mobi. Saying anything without proof can get you into deep legal problems.

As for Bookeen supplying the code, the GPL says either the code, or an offer for the code, has to be distributed. Has anyone asked for the code? And since I don't have a cybook, is there an offer somewhere in the manual?

Firmware is a binary chunk that includes a filesystem, the OS, and the programs used. throwing a gpl program into firmware doesn't make everything in the firmware subject to GPL licensing provisions, nor does having a GPL program on my harddrive make Mircosoft obligated to provide Windows' sourcecode.

Also regarding the possible statically linked code in Mobipocket, is this just in Bookeen's firmware? Or in all Linux distributions of Mobipocket? If just in the firmware, it could be simply for speed reasons, but once it's found and documented, Mobi could have some legal issues with it.

IMHO, this type of stuff is why software shouldn't copyrighted in the first place, nothing but lawyers creating a market for themselves.

DaleDe · 06-03-2008, 07:50 PM

Hi nikkos010. Thanks for the clarification. That is the way I remembered it also. And it is never an excuse to take software that is proprietary if you don't have permission.

Nate the great · 06-03-2008, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkos010

I'm going to delurk here for a bit.

http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj19.htm

As for Bookeen supplying the code, the GPL says either the code, or an offer for the code, has to be distributed. Has anyone asked for the code? And since I don't have a cybook, is there an offer somewhere in the manual?

Yes. Bookeen has refused to provide the source code.

TadW · 06-04-2008, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Yes. Bookeen has refused to provide the source code.

Did they even say why?

HarryT · 06-04-2008, 03:14 AM

I believe they say that their licence agreement with Netronix (the hardware manufacturer) does not permit them to release it.

nikkos010 · 06-04-2008, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

I believe they say that their licence agreement with Netronix (the hardware manufacturer) does not permit them to release it.

The license itself is invalid then. Netronix cannot restrict the distribution of GPL code.

But in the end, if the authors are unwilling to pursue it, there's nothing the average person can do but cry foul and vote with their pocketbook. This is a huge problem with enforcing the GPL, most independent coders cannot afford the legal team required to go after violators. It becomes a beancounter gamble for a company to use GPL code incorrectly.

If it can be documented to a degree, an article at slashdot could create enough of a firestorm for Netronix/Bookeen to change their ways. "E-Book reader manufacturer violating GPL" would likely raise some eyebrows...

HarryT · 06-04-2008, 10:16 AM

I think everyone's been aware of it for a long time, nikkos. Not "new news".

tompe · 06-04-2008, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaleDe

I thought in version two you could supply a proprietary executable is someone needed to add it to a build or needed a version with a later library. I do not believe you are required to release your proprietary code as source. Today you would use shared libraries but some of the tools weren't available for shared libraries back when version 2 was written.

Why do you not read the GPL2. Here is the faq:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-lice...LinkingWithGPL

Quote:

You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program mean I have to GPL my program?

Yes.

nikkos010 · 06-04-2008, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think everyone's been aware of it for a long time, nikkos. Not "new news".

This was the first I came across it here, though I don't delve too deeply in the forums. But I doubt that the GPL/Linux/Opensource community as a whole are aware of it. In fact, doing a search for Bookeen + GPL on google comes up with mobileread pages, and next to nothing else relevant.

compare that to Linksys + GPL and the huge trove of articles and references about Linksys not providing GPL. That's all I'm suggesting, make it a public issue rather than just something to be found commented in one small forum.

Edited my misunderstanding of the Linksys case.

dottedmag · 06-04-2008, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tompe

So the question is if Bookeen has licensed MuPDF. If not the case seems pretty clear.

I've got the answer from MuPDF author:

Quote:

Thanks for pointing this out. They do not have a commercial license for MuPDF. [...]

dottedmag · 06-04-2008, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkos010

compare that to Linksys + GPL and the huge trove of articles and references about Linksys not providing GPL. They quickly got the message (and the code out) once it became a public issue.

Linksys + GPL became a public issue after the gpl-violations.org won in court and forced Linksys to release the source code and pay some money to the developers.

DaleDe · 06-04-2008, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tompe

Why do you not read the GPL2. Here is the faq:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-lice...LinkingWithGPL

thanks for the link. It is pretty clear if they did not get permission from the author.

Dale

nikkos010 · 06-04-2008, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dottedmag

Linksys + GPL became a public issue after the gpl-violations.org won in court and forced Linksys to released the source code and pay some money to the developers.

Not quite correct. Linksys' violations of the GPL were documented in 2002 by Eben Moglen, and was known about community wide prior to the settlement. The case was already well underway in 2003. gpl-violations.org was not founded until January 2004.

I haven't been able to find any references to payments made to the devs, only that Cisco was forced to release proprietary code. There were payments made to the FSF in a case prior to the Cisco one.

You might find this an informative (if slanted) article:
http://www.forbes.com/technology/200...14linksys.html

dottedmag · 06-05-2008, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkos010

The case was already well underway in 2003. gpl-violations.org was not founded until January 2004.

Oh, I confused this case with another one, forget my previous comment.

06-03-2008, 07:32 PM	#152
nikkos010 Junior Member Posts: 5 Karma: 10 Join Date: Jun 2008 Device: ASUS A626	I'm going to delurk here for a bit. http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj19.htm Calling on a pre-compiled program/library does not require the distribution of your proprietary code under the GPL. If that were the case there would be absolutely no private proprietary code developed to run on Linux If Mobipocket is indeed using GPL code compiled into it's program, you'll need to find it, find the author who wrote it, and confirm that he didn't authorize it, prior to accusing Mobi. Saying anything without proof can get you into deep legal problems. As for Bookeen supplying the code, the GPL says either the code, or an offer for the code, has to be distributed. Has anyone asked for the code? And since I don't have a cybook, is there an offer somewhere in the manual? Firmware is a binary chunk that includes a filesystem, the OS, and the programs used. throwing a gpl program into firmware doesn't make everything in the firmware subject to GPL licensing provisions, nor does having a GPL program on my harddrive make Mircosoft obligated to provide Windows' sourcecode. Also regarding the possible statically linked code in Mobipocket, is this just in Bookeen's firmware? Or in all Linux distributions of Mobipocket? If just in the firmware, it could be simply for speed reasons, but once it's found and documented, Mobi could have some legal issues with it. IMHO, this type of stuff is why software shouldn't copyrighted in the first place, nothing but lawyers creating a market for themselves. Last edited by nikkos010; 06-03-2008 at 07:36 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Need OI firmware for Bookeen Cybook Gen3	Nexutix	OpenInkpot	4	10-19-2010 05:02 AM
new firmware issues - cybook gen3	basschick	Bookeen	5	07-05-2010 02:11 PM
New Firmware for the Cybook Gen3 (1.1.708)	FreeBird	Bookeen	93	07-17-2008 01:45 AM
Found a source for Cybook Gen3/Netronix EB-100 batteries!	delphidb96	Bookeen	0	06-08-2008 03:02 PM
Cybook Gen3: I have seen the 1.00 firmware!	delphidb96	Bookeen	111	11-14-2007 04:24 PM

06-03-2008, 07:50 PM	#153
DaleDe Grand Sorcerer Posts: 11,470 Karma: 13095790 Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Grass Valley, CA Device: EB 1150, EZ Reader, Literati, iPad 2 & Air 2, iPhone 7	Hi nikkos010. Thanks for the clarification. That is the way I remembered it also. And it is never an excuse to take software that is proprietary if you don't have permission.

06-04-2008, 03:14 AM	#156
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,557 Karma: 93980341 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	I believe they say that their licence agreement with Netronix (the hardware manufacturer) does not permit them to release it.

06-04-2008, 10:16 AM	#158
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,557 Karma: 93980341 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	I think everyone's been aware of it for a long time, nikkos. Not "new news".

Advert

Advert