"Pimp my iPod"

[scorche]

Uhhh...What?

[Multiplex]

... I think there should be some explicit licensing stated for the themes...

Surely any themes that are included in the daily buids have been given to the project and are covered under the GPL.

It's the WPS gallery (and maybe that other site I can never remember (rockboxthemes or something)) that needs clarification isn't it ?

[Llorean]

There are really very few themes included with Rockbox though, and none of the ones in his screenshots are those, if my memory serves.

[scorche]

Since discussion about this is still going on here, I thought I would provide an update to those of you who are not in IRC.

I asked him how he was able to do this type of thing to an iPod.  He replied with:

Hi,

In fact it's very easy: You can boot your iPod as USB Mass-Storage Drive (this is a build in functionality). In this mode, it is possible to change the bootloader. The bootloader is selfwritten and just a single binary file in the root directory of the iPod. After that, we can start our own application instead of the iPod software, or, switch back to the original software while booting the player (thx to the selfwritten bootloader).

The application itself is a normal C++ Application compiled with the GCC for ARM processors.

C YA

Things you might find of note/interest in the above: use of the phrases "selfwritten" and "our own application".  Also, his misunderstanding of how a custom firmware is run is incorrect.  And don't forget the "C++" business.  

I have since responded to him notifying him of "the situation" and sent a copy of this situation to eBay as well.  I am now waiting for a reply.

[Yotto]

I find it appropriate that that was your 187th post

More seriously, as I'm not on IRC I'd love to know the results of this.

[scorche]

Actually, it was my 186th post, but close enough.  

[BigMac]

I could see if it was just a misconception and he realized he could not do that and took it down, but he called it his own work. Somebody better get the paddle...
Keep ROCKing on!

[Sweet Spot]

Interesting. I wonder just how much advertising this company does, and how far it goes ? I find it offensive actually, that an individual, or group of them, would pose as the creator of such a thing in the first place, not give any credit where credit is due, but most of all, charge unsuspecting people for something that they'd be able to do themselves, if they had the right information.

I can certainly understand charging a minimal fee for anyone whom was willing to pay for the service of adding Linux or ROCKbox to their DAP's, but to be so damned decptive, and lie outright like that, is morally unconstitutional IMO. I guarantee that most if not all of the people that may have payed for this scam (wouldn't be a scam if they said just what it was), would want their money back if they understood how to ROCKbox their own DAP.

Doug

[Skyly]

Well charging people for something they can already do, if they had the information, is pretty common business. I guarantee that most people who knew how easy it was to replace and reinstall a sound card, or brake pads or a washer, would feel ripped off too.

Not giving credit where credit is due could well be offensive, but does that mean anything legally? Does the GPL have any clause about taking or giving credit? It is the coder's choice to provide under the GPL.

As for the WPS themes, is there any actual copyrighting going on? Aren't people just providing their themes because they made them and they want to? Someone suggested explicit licensing for the themes.... uh what? Why would you want to do that? We make themes, we share themes. Was anyone expecting a profit? Then let that person copyright their work, and the rest keep using and sharing their themes, without making everything more restricted.

I dislike paranoia and obsession over who owns what, when 1), its the GPL, or 2) people are freely posting their work with no legal terms attached. This stuff can all flow freely, is everyone just having a whinge about the lack of credit being given?

[Febs]

Not giving credit where credit is due could well be offensive, but does that mean anything legally? Does the GPL have any clause about taking or giving credit? It is the coder's choice to provide under the GPL.

Yes.  See my post above regarding the GPL's requirement of a conspicuous copyright notice.

As for the WPS themes, is there any actual copyrighting going on?

Yes.  WPSes are copyrighted, as is any other creative work that is fixed in a tangible form.

Aren't people just providing their themes because they made them and they want to?

Perhaps they are, but that doesn't mean that someone else can redistribute them, and it certainly doesn't mean that others can redistribute them without attribution and for profit. The fact that people share their WPSes here and allow others to copy them does not mean that they have been placed in the public domain.

Someone suggested explicit licensing for the themes.... uh what? Why would you want to do that? We make themes, we share themes.

You miss the point.  The themes are copyrighted by virtue of their creation.  Strictly speaking, that means that no-one  can redistribute them without the express consent of the creator.  A license can be used to permit the sharing of those themes.  

Was anyone expecting a profit?

The better question is, "was anyone who created a theme expecting some else to profit from their work?"

[Skyly]

Someone else profiting from your work when you already choose not to isn't a negative. To see it that way is a small view. So I don't think that is a better question. But I'm assuming the theme designers aren't looking to make a profit at some point.

But the rest of your points seem valid. I didn't read your notes on the GPL close enough before. Except... themes are copyrighted by virtue of their creation. Having looked it up I see that that is true. I always assumed otherwise; that if you make something and want to show it off, you either give it copyright, or not care.

I really didn't know the system was like that. Its kind of crazy I think. If I put something in a public place without some explicit copyright, I assume its free for all. Great, so everything comes with paranoia.

[PaulPosition]

Actually, it's quite the un-paranoia :

If I create something, I don't have to go paranoiac and consult with every country in the world's patent offices to have it recognised as mine, it *is*,  by default. If I think anyone could use it for anything, I can explicitly state it (in a license). If I think anyone could use it for one very specific purpose, I can explicitly state it (in a license).

And yes, if anyone profits from my work when I chose not to could be a negative. If I made it to be free, it damn better be free. If I make a thousand cookies to give to the hobos on my street and one of them frickin' take 'em all to sell to the other ones, I'll rightfully feel deceived. And angry.

[bk]

BTW, the theme licensing question has a practical application. I've contributed several screenshots of Rockbox running various 3rd party themes to Wikipedia. So far I've assumed the situation is the same as screenshots from any other GPL software. However if theme authors choose to license some of those themes in a way that is not compatible with the GFDL the screenshots will no longer be able to be used on Wikipedia (IANAL).

[aegis]

Yeay! I took a look on the e-Bay site and saw: " Dieser Artikel wurde beendet." what means no sells there anymore.

Any further news, Scorche?

And btw, just to clarify one thing:

Not giving credit where credit is due could well be offensive, but does that mean anything legally? Does the GPL have any clause about taking or giving credit? It is the coder's choice to provide under the GPL.

Actually, it's highly illegal due to several causes.

Firstly, GNU lincenses do not mean any resignation of neither copyright nor information about the authorship. The situation is exactly opposite - they require a proper list of authors.

Secondly, imposing having author's rights is not only immoral, but illegal. What would you say, if on motor shows some chinese manufacturer took a Rolls-Royce, without asking ripped off all the logo elements and stated it's their car, proof of their quality, etc., etc.?

The impostor violated Rockbox's good image.

Thirdly, the situation gets even worse when you realize that Rockbox is not a company - it's a group of particular people which are often protected even  more strictly than corporate entities.

Imagine that nobel prize winner writes a book and allows some millionaire to sign it as his own work and possible get a nobel prize or just improve his reputation. Or some people are writing for the others final essays, term papers, and so on.

Because of such possibilities, in many countries (and I do assume that's the case in Germany) one cannot transfer the "right of authorship". It's untradable.
Whoever claims he is the real author, while it is not the truth, commits the fraud. Dot. End.

This is why the guys should be punished.

And here I have a proposal - if Rockbox devs don't feel like having time to fight with these guys - why don't you inform the Free Software Foundation or any other legal organisation advocating the free licenses.

Rockbox is GPL'ed, so it's the part of the family and it can count on some help. Maybe harsh marketing, reviews of this fraud in free software press and websites etc. could help the cause, making enough bad press and fuss.

[scorche]

Honestly, his "operation" was not big enough to warrant all that you say.  As long as he knows what he did wrong fully and has taken the auction down and the area of his website pertaining to this "pimping service" down as well, I am happy.