xboxscene.org forums

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]

Author Topic: Smartxx Gpl Violation Thread  (Read 1744 times)

marksu

  • Archived User
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 337
Smartxx Gpl Violation Thread
« Reply #90 on: June 06, 2004, 10:41:00 PM »
QUOTE (username1 @ Jun 7 2004, 07:36 AM)
shure - its a FREE to use driver. like the rest ,too.

I dont quite get username1 response.

If he is stating that GPL and free code is one and the same thing, well then he is wrong!
Logged

cnelson

  • Archived User
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Smartxx Gpl Violation Thread
« Reply #91 on: June 07, 2004, 05:49:00 AM »
This is the license the nvnet driver is distributed with.


http://www.nvidia.co..._swlicense.html

Logged

oz_paulb

  • Recovered User
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
Smartxx Gpl Violation Thread
« Reply #92 on: June 07, 2004, 05:50:00 AM »
QUOTE (Morglum @ Jun 4 2004, 03:54 PM)
I think you've definatly proved now without any doubt that the smartxx os is in violation of the GPL, what about taking a look at the xenium os? Just for curiosity sake and to show you're not bias in anyway, seems only fair. Right?

Yes, I suppose it would be fair, but probably much more difficult to prove (one way or the other).

SmartXX OS is clearly derived from Cromwell - the overall structure of the code is identical (at least all of the boot-up/driver code - the SmartXX OS menus are an addition).

Because it's so similar to Cromwell, it's incredibly simple to compare the two.  Knowing that Cromwell is GPL'd, when you find identical code between the two, it's clear that GPL'd code is in SmartXX OS.

My understanding with Xenium OS is that they've split-off the bootloader section (Cromwell derived), and released that at GPL.  The additional code in Xenium OS would contain "non-bootloader" code.  Since the overall structure is going to be quite different from the Cromwell bootloader, looking for GPL'd code would be like looking for a needle in a haystack (what GPL'd code would I be looking for - considering the Cromwell-derived stuff is in their bootloader?  I'd have to at least have a 'gut feeling' that some of their other functionality was derived from a well-known GPL source).

- Paulb
Logged

oz_paulb

  • Recovered User
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
Smartxx Gpl Violation Thread
« Reply #93 on: June 07, 2004, 05:56:00 AM »
QUOTE (cnelson @ Jun 7 2004, 02:49 PM)
This is the license the nvnet driver is distributed with.


http://www.nvidia.co..._swlicense.html

Two things jump out at me in the license:

QUOTE
2.1.1  Rights.  Customer may install and use one copy of the SOFTWARE on a single computer, and except for making one back-up copy of the Software, may not otherwise copy the SOFTWARE.  This LICENSE of SOFTWARE may not be shared or used concurrently on different computers.

2.1.2  Linux Exception.  Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux operating system may be copied and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way (except for unzipping of compressed files).


Note that SmartXX OS is not Linux.  Cromwell doesn't use the NVIDIA 'nvnet' drivers (they use 'forcedeth').  Xbox-Linux does use 'nvnet' (since it's Linux, it seems to be OK).

QUOTE
2.1.3  Limitations.

No Reverse Engineering.  Customer may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE, nor attempt in any other manner to obtain the source code.


Oops!  I suppose during my analysis, I may have violated the license.  Oh well, sorry Nvidia!

- Paulb
Logged

d0wnlab

  • Archived User
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 326
Smartxx Gpl Violation Thread
« Reply #94 on: June 07, 2004, 06:15:00 AM »
QUOTE (oz_paulb @ Jun 7 2004, 02:56 PM)
2.1.2  Linux Exception.  Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux operating system may be copied and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way (except for unzipping of compressed files).

Note that SmartXX OS is not Linux.  Cromwell doesn't use the NVIDIA 'nvnet' drivers (they use 'forcedeth').  Xbox-Linux does use 'nvnet' (since it's Linux, it seems to be OK).


- Paulb


look at it another way, though.  It never says that the linux software must be used with linux, it says.. "SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux operating system may be copied and redistributed".  That nvnet software was designed exclusively for use on the linux OS.  It may be copied and redistributed.  Nothing in the license says it can't be used in something else, it's only classifying the program by it's original target platform.

Logged

stealth

  • Archived User
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 94
Smartxx Gpl Violation Thread
« Reply #95 on: June 07, 2004, 11:55:00 AM »
Well actually if you look at the nvnet binary, it is written in an OS independant fashion, originating on a win32 platform.  They give you os wrapper source code for linux.

So really, it's NOT designed exclusively for use on the linux platform

Logged

Teaser69

  • Archived User
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Smartxx Gpl Violation Thread
« Reply #96 on: June 07, 2004, 12:42:00 PM »
Hey it's time to play do you know!

Okay okay to all the people out there who actually know the story of why most of the Oz crew left the SmartXX group then this thread is kinda pointless

To the ones that don't here you go:

Franz

more detail?
Well from the start Franz believed he owned Cromwell and could write the whole SmartXX OS into one package since (*1) 'I own it. It was my gift to the scene' and so off went the people unhappy with this arrogance and OzXodus was born. They however split there OS from Cromwell and have further mroe gone down the root of completly removing it from there OS (*2).

Nice that OzXodus didn't stoop so low as to drop you in the crap earlier huh Franz!
Skeletons are always eventually found!

Why is it that GPL to me just looks like an easy way for someone to claim some code copywrites every one always seems to piss all over the GPL even the originator of this thread! (*3)

*1 - Quote Franz circa some other idiotic time
*2 - See Xodus OS 2.0
*3 - See Xecutor bios with LBA 48 support
Logged

oz_paulb

  • Recovered User
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
Smartxx Gpl Violation Thread
« Reply #97 on: June 07, 2004, 01:07:00 PM »
QUOTE (Teaser69 @ Jun 7 2004, 09:42 PM)
Why is it that GPL to me just looks like an easy way for someone to claim some code copywrites every one always seems to piss all over the GPL even the originator of this thread! (*3)

*3 - See Xecutor bios with LBA 48 support

I assume you're referring to the time I released the LBA48 code (under GPL), then others complained when Xecutor/others made use of that code (but didn't release their entire app under GPL).

As I believe I explained earlier (back when those complaints came up): I released it under GPL, but really wasn't thinking when I did.  At the time I released it, I also said that I wanted all mod-bios groups to implement it, so it would be some sort of a 'standard' across all BIOSs.  It's obvious that mod-bios groups aren't going to release all their work, and that's not what I intended.

So, it was probably a mistake for me to release it under GPL (I should have just referred to it as 'free', or used something like a BSD license).

But, something else you should understand about GPL: as the original author of the code, I can release something under GPL, then release it to someone else under a completely different license (even a completely 'open/free' license, or one in which I charge money).  When I release to someone under a different license, then they aren't under any obligation of the 'public' GPL license - although people who just find it 'out there' as GPL'd code would be bound by it (until they received a specific 'free' license from me).

I don't consider it "pissing all over the GPL" to have released this code in two different ways.  GPL is 100% compatible with separate, private licensing.

(Minor additional detail: I believe Xecutor just implemented LBA48 after looking at what I did - they didn't take the code outright.  You can't copyright an idea - only an implementation.  So, just because they have LBA48 support in their code doesn't mean (necessarily) that it would fall under any GPL license.  Note: SmartXX have taken huge portions of Cromwell 'outright').

The difference between the LBA48 and SmartXX GPL issues: I own the copyright to the LBA48 code, therefore I have 100% control over how I choose to license it.  SmartXX does not own copyright to the GPL'd code in SmartXX OS - they are bound by whatever the original authors of the code say.

It would have been possible for SmartXX to have retained separate, private licenses from each of the GPL'd code's developers, in which case they wouldn't be bound by GPL.  But, as one of the authors of the GPL'd code they are using, I can tell you positively that they did not receive a special license for all of the GPL'd code in SmartXX OS.  Considering that they are also using GPL'd code from Andy/numbnut (who Franz hates - and I think the feeling is mutual), I doubt they received a private license to that code either.

I don't see any point in trying to deflect responsibility away from SmartXX in their own GPL violations by pointing the finger at me.  As I said, I retain copyright to the LBA48 code, and have every right to do whatever I want with it.

- Paulb
Logged

oz_paulb

  • Recovered User
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
Smartxx Gpl Violation Thread
« Reply #98 on: June 07, 2004, 01:13:00 PM »
QUOTE (Teaser69 @ Jun 7 2004, 09:42 PM)
Hey it's time to play do you know!

Okay okay to all the people out there who actually know the story of why most of the Oz crew left the SmartXX group then this thread is kinda pointless

To the ones that don't here you go:

I don't see why anyone should believe anyone about the SmartXX/Oz split - especially if you weren't actively involved in the group(s).

Even if SmartXX and/or Oz were to post "the true story" here, doesn't mean that it's fact.  Both sides were obviously angry with each other, and each side most likely remembers the facts differently.

Exactly why they split, why they first got together, or anything else related to their relationship doesn't explain why SmartXX is violating the GPL.  Even if, when they were working together, the GPL'd code originated from "the other side" (Oz), it's SmartXX's responsibility to make sure that they own all of their code before shipping a product based on it.

Franz's arrogance, and claims that he "owns" the Cromwell GPL'd code, show that SmartXX either don't care about GPL, or that they all believe everything Franz tells them (I'm assuming SmartXX consist of more than just Franz - I have no idea).

- Paulb
Logged

bucko

  • Recovered User
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4255
Smartxx Gpl Violation Thread
« Reply #99 on: June 07, 2004, 02:17:00 PM »
godam polticis its just a way for the xenium fan boys to say xenium is better. Continue to buy your Smartxx i'm thinking of getting one, this GPL i'm sure won't effect me in anyway.
Logged

EmperorPsiblade

  • Archived User
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 849
Smartxx Gpl Violation Thread
« Reply #100 on: June 07, 2004, 05:03:00 PM »
QUOTE (bucko @ Jun 7 2004, 05:17 PM)
godam polticis its just a way for the xenium fan boys to say xenium is better. Continue to buy your Smartxx i'm thinking of getting one, this GPL i'm sure won't effect me in anyway.

get over yourself and grow up..... dry.gif
Logged

bucko

  • Recovered User
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4255
Smartxx Gpl Violation Thread
« Reply #101 on: June 08, 2004, 04:22:00 AM »
lol
Logged

oz_paulb

  • Recovered User
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
Smartxx Gpl Violation Thread
« Reply #102 on: June 08, 2004, 12:28:00 PM »
QUOTE (cool_guy @ Jun 8 2004, 08:15 PM)
Great job oz_paulb, you have done all really can now, aside from legal action.  The information is here for anyone to see, and its all on Franz's shoulders if something is to be done.

Thanks.

I agree - I'm "done" with this, and have posted enough info for others to at least be aware of what's going on.

It's up to SmartXX/Franz to address it, now (I doubt that'll happen, though).

- Paulb
Logged

HSDEMONZ

  • Archived User
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5248
Smartxx Gpl Violation Thread
« Reply #103 on: June 08, 2004, 07:47:00 PM »
QUOTE (oz_paulb @ Jun 8 2004, 04:28 PM)
Thanks.

I agree - I'm "done" with this, and have posted enough info for others to at least be aware of what's going on.

It's up to SmartXX/Franz to address it, now (I doubt that'll happen, though).

- Paulb

Let me know when you need this re-opened.

Pin/Close
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]
« previous next »