Rockbox Technical Forums

Rockbox General => Rockbox General Discussion => Topic started by: ilikedirt on November 27, 2006, 05:46:49 PM

Title: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: ilikedirt on November 27, 2006, 05:46:49 PM
Just saw this on eBay

http://cgi.ebay.de/Pimp-my-iPod-iPod-Video-iPod-Nano-iPod-Mini_W0QQitemZ120054643720QQihZ002QQcategoryZ8267QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Looks like someone sells the service of installing Rockbox and install a custom theme on an iPod. No word on Rockbox (they always call it Pimp my iPod) though and no further information like battery life or other issues.

edit: now you're responsible for the "pimping" of innocent iPods ;D
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: Spug on November 27, 2006, 07:19:58 PM
I wonder if he is violating the GPL? And the WPS copyrights?
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: Hweb21 on November 27, 2006, 08:39:05 PM
$32.91 US dollars + $9.08 shipping dollars = $41.99 US Dollars
wow that's a lot of money for that.  :o

edit: not sure if my calculations are right  :-\
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: soap on November 27, 2006, 10:00:44 PM
At the least he is implying there is a working (A/V) MPEG video player.
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: scorche on November 27, 2006, 11:42:21 PM
Well from the pictures on the ebay page and all, it is from spidersoftware.de - a game development company as they call themselves.

This does not look good, especially from them not giving ANY credit WHATSOEVER to rockbox or the WPS creators.

Looks like we have some talking to do.

Nice find.

EDIT: Also, I wonder how they expect people to know how to use it without any documentation.  They could of course send them the manual, although it could be modified.  Another question would be if they change the boot screen to remove or change the rockbox logo.  I will attempt to find out.
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: bascule on November 28, 2006, 03:21:06 AM

I will attempt to find out.


Go scorche!

Are you going to challenge the seller directly, or find out via spidersoftware?
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: scorche on November 28, 2006, 03:32:15 AM
I plan on posing as a perspective buyer to gather more information and then see how it goes from there.  However, I will not do this until I speak with some people...
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: LinusN on November 28, 2006, 03:53:51 AM
Well, it is not forbidden to sell Rockbox, as long as they provide the source code (could be as simple as a link to http://www.rockbox.org). The WPS's are a different matter.

Sure, why not ask them a few questions? Go ahead - but don't be deceptive yourself.
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: scorche on November 28, 2006, 04:04:12 AM
There is no reason to be deceptive.  The only deceiving I am doing is to be interested in his service.  ;)  And that is just for the introductory message to see if he mentions Rockbox or claims that it is his own work.

I am not after a taking down of this service (hence why I am not writing a message to eBay...yet anyway).  I just want to see credit given where it is due and see that he at least does things properly.
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: Llorean on November 28, 2006, 05:24:16 AM
Well, for one thing, none of the WPSes in our gallery are explicitly under any licenses, which means that in terms of US copyright law (which doesn't necessarily apply here, but I hardly know what copyright laws are like in his country) he can't redistribute them on the iPod, which he's doing.

As well, doesn't the GPL actually require him to host the source code, if he's distributing the software as a binary? I thought that one of the things that came up recently in regard to the GPL was the fact that you couldn't simply link to source code hosted somewhere else if you were redistributing a binary because there was never a guarantee that it would be there, or available as the same version as your binary. I seem to recall that coming up in regards to some complaint.
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: Febs on November 28, 2006, 05:40:44 AM
Section 3 of the GPL provides that he can distribute the binary "under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above" provided that he also either (a) includes the source code, or (b) accompanies the distribution with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to provide the source code.  Section 1, in turn, requires that the distributor "conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program."

In terms of whether he can link to the source code, I don't see anything in the GPL that allows him to merely link to the source code if he is distributing a binary.  There is a provision that allows links to the source code, but that appears to apply only when the distribution of the binary is made by allowing copying from a place:  "If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code."  Here, however, the distributor is not distributing the binary by "offering access to copy from a designated place," so this provision does not appear to apply.

I agree that the re-distribution of themes appears to be a copyright violation, and that alone should be sufficient to cause ebay to close the auction.
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: scorche on November 28, 2006, 05:59:06 AM
Good to know.  Thanks a lot Febs.  This should prove valuable if it gets to a point where it is necessary.
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: alfred on November 28, 2006, 08:22:04 AM
One of the incredible things is that he offers to change the skin after the initial installation for 5 Euros plus shipping if you send it in...
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: bk on November 28, 2006, 06:34:24 PM
I don't think we should gloss over the WPS/theme issue so quickly. I think there should be some explicit licensing stated for the themes, especially since right now different people are contributing modified versions of themes that have no clear copyright terms (other than the default 'all rights reserved' which would seem to prohibit modification...).
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: jacobts on November 28, 2006, 11:07:21 PM
i wonder if it is just the videoplayer (doesnt say with sound)
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: scorche on November 29, 2006, 12:48:07 AM
Uhhh...What?
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: Multiplex on November 29, 2006, 04:27:07 AM

... 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 ?
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: Llorean on November 29, 2006, 04:55:03 AM
There are really very few themes included with Rockbox though, and none of the ones in his screenshots are those, if my memory serves.
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: scorche on November 29, 2006, 05:13:58 AM
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:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: Yotto on November 29, 2006, 05:32:53 AM
I find it appropriate that that was your 187th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/187_(murder)) post :D

More seriously, as I'm not on IRC I'd love to know the results of this.
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: scorche on November 29, 2006, 05:34:42 AM
Actually, it was my 186th post, but close enough.  ;)
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: BigMac on November 29, 2006, 08:34:07 AM
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!
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: Sweet Spot on November 29, 2006, 08:29:30 PM
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
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: Skyly on November 30, 2006, 12:48:41 PM
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?



Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: Febs on November 30, 2006, 01:06:13 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.  

Quote
Was anyone expecting a profit?
The better question is, "was anyone who created a theme expecting some else to profit from their work?"
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: Skyly on November 30, 2006, 02:58:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: PaulPosition on November 30, 2006, 03:25:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: bk on November 30, 2006, 06:18:06 PM
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).
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: aegis on December 04, 2006, 12:25:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: scorche on December 04, 2006, 04:30:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: saratoga on December 06, 2006, 09:32:24 PM
I think the GPL people would argue that all WPSs are available under the GPL, because they're code thats combined with a GPLed piece of code.  In fact, I believe they already have when asked by various foobar plugin developers about using GPL plugins:

Quote from: FSF

I assume that the plugin interacts deeply with the internals of the main
program. In this scenario, person Y has violated the GNU GPL. The GPL
doesn't concern itself with technical details about how two programs are
combined; so the fact that person Y didn't need to link any
GPL-incompatible code directly to the GPLed library is irrelevant. The
GPL only cares about whether a given work is based on GPLed code
. If it
is, then the final, combined work must all be licensed under the terms
of the GPL. Person Y has failed to follow this requirement.


Since the WPS here is combined with the GPLed code in Rockbox, I believe it must in turn be under the GPL (in addition to whatever else).  

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36153#
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: Llorean on December 06, 2006, 09:43:59 PM
No, the WPS isn't code in that way. It's a text file parsed by Rockbox, and can be under whatever license it'd like to be.

Otherwise, any program compiled by GCC would automatically be GPL licensed, independent of anything else, wouldn't it?
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: saratoga on December 06, 2006, 11:25:12 PM

No, the WPS isn't code in that way. It's a text file parsed by Rockbox, and can be under whatever license it'd like to be.


As they say, it doesn't matter how the two are combined, only that the final product is a combination of the two works.  In this case the final product is a specific user interface which cannot function without both the WPS and the GPLed code in Rockbox, therefore the WPS is also under GPL because the author has allowed it to be combined with Rockbox.  The question and response in that thread seem to make it clear that they consider any author merely targeting a GPLed app to be implicitly GPLing his work when he acknowledges interoperability with the app.

In short, I believe the FSF's position seems to be that the technical details of how components are combined (or even what the components are) is irrelevant.  All that matters is that they form one whole work, or even that they can be used together unmodified to form one whole work.  My assumption here is that they want to avoid people cheating the GPL by releasing closed source apps as plugins, and then leaving it up to users to combine the binaries.  


Otherwise, any program compiled by GCC would automatically be GPL licensed, independent of anything else, wouldn't it?


Yes I believe it would.  In the case of GCC, the GPL actually makes an explicit exception for compilers and OS libraries:

Quote from: GPL
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.


I read that to mean that they acknowledge that compilers and the OS are a special case, and that they should not be considered to be components of the final work (assuming the final work is not an OS or a compiler, so that you can't include gcc or linux in your closed source compiler/OS, but you can develop and compile with them).

Thats just my reading, though I believe the example of GPLed plugins in a closed source app with a GPL compatible SDK is pretty damn close to what we're talking about, so I doubt the FSF would say much different if you asked them.  
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: Llorean on December 07, 2006, 12:43:13 AM
You can't implicitly license a product, nor can you implicitly release copyright on something. If you acknowledge that it is interoperable with a GPLed piece of software, that is different to actually "linking" it in a programming sense. In their case, they're referring to actually linked code. In the case of WPSes in Rockbox, there is no link whatsoever. The WPS does not in fact require Rockbox to exist, nor link to Rockbox code at all, rather Rockbox itself makes use of the WPS files. Now, what would actually do it is if the WPS language were in fact licensed exclusively in a way that only permits WPSes to be GPLed. Since there's no explicit license on that, it's somewhat iffy.

But again, this is just my opinion. There's no actual linked code, and WPSes are not based upon GPLed code, in the connotation of one program being based upon the code of another. The quote that you've made actually boils down to "You don't have to redistribute standard libraries or compilers, as an exception to the usual GPL cause requiring you to distribute everything necessary to build the program" and is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

To simplify it somewhat: A GPLed webbrowser does not make a webpage automatically GPLed, simply because the combination of a functioning webpage plus the browser forms a full functioning application.

So really, what needs to be looked at is: Does WPS language have an explicit license regarding its use? At the moment, I don't see an explicit license for the content of the wiki (FDL like the manual?), and even then, that would cover only the page describing the language, not the actual language itself. I'm not really sure how a license on such a language works, honestly.
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: saratoga on December 07, 2006, 11:08:33 AM

You can't implicitly license a product, nor can you implicitly release copyright on something. If you acknowledge that it is interoperable with a GPLed piece of software, that is different to actually "linking" it in a programming sense. In their case, they're referring to actually linked code.


No they're not!  Read the quote I posted above:

"The GPL doesn't concern itself with technical details about how two programs are combined; so the fact that person Y didn't need to link any GPL-incompatible code directly to the GPLed library is irrelevant."

The FSF does not believe linking to GPL code is required.  The fact that Rockbox does not link to the WPS does not matter.

Quote
In the case of WPSes in Rockbox, there is no link whatsoever. The WPS does not in fact require Rockbox to exist, nor link to Rockbox code at all, rather Rockbox itself makes use of the WPS files. Now, what would actually do it is if the WPS language were in fact licensed exclusively in a way that only permits WPSes to be GPLed. Since there's no explicit license on that, it's somewhat iffy.


I understand exactly what you're saying, and my own belief is that would be most logical.  However, the FSF has made it clear that the GPL does not work this way.
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: Llorean on December 07, 2006, 11:21:00 AM
The problem we've got here, is that what you're quoting is about someone releasing code under the GPL when it's linked to something GPL incompatible. The other thing you're missing is that this is referring to linking programs.

WPSes are interpreted documents (like webpages) and are not program code. As I said, how does your instance take into account webpages (interpreted HTML text documents, much more closely related to WPSes than foobar plugins).
Title: Re: "Pimp my iPod"
Post by: Febs on December 07, 2006, 01:50:28 PM
There is a FAQ that specifically addresses LLorean's point:

Quote
If a programming language interpreter is released under the GPL, does that mean programs written to be interpreted by it must be under GPL-compatible licenses?
    When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is no. The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free software license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit what data you use the interpreter on. You can run it on any data (interpreted program), any way you like, and there are no requirements about licensing that data to anyone.