Rockbox Development > New Ports
Creative Zen Vision:M
Stu L Tissimus:
Sorry to get off topic, but something I noticed on the Wiki page for this port is that the original Nucleus OS makes use of Nano-X, which is licensed under both the GPL and MPL. I'm no lawyer, but I think that means that they're obligated to supply the public with the source code if the source code was modified, right? (I'd be amazed if they got Nano-X running on a new platform without some modification.)
So what I'm getting at is: couldn't we legally force Nucleus (or even better, Creative) to show us their source code? I'm sure that'd offer some clues about getting Rockbox running on the ZV:M.
Just my $0.02.
mcuelenaere:
--- Quote from: Stu L Tissimus on August 05, 2008, 03:58:06 PM ---Sorry to get off topic, but something I noticed on the Wiki page for this port is that the original Nucleus OS makes use of Nano-X, which is licensed under both the GPL and MPL. I'm no lawyer, but I think that means that they're obligated to supply the public with the source code if the source code was modified, right? (I'd be amazed if they got Nano-X running on a new platform without some modification.)
So what I'm getting at is: couldn't we legally force Nucleus (or even better, Creative) to show us their source code? I'm sure that'd offer some clues about getting Rockbox running on the ZV:M.
Just my $0.02.
--- End quote ---
I thought about that myself (that's why I put that information in the wiki ;)); but I'm pretty sure a) it wouldn't yield much interesting information (they won't provide any hardware docs) and b) you'll first need to succeed in sueing them which isn't that easy AFAIK.
BTW this isn't off-topic :)
mophead740:
Has anyone sent them an email asking for the source code, or are we just assuming that we'd have to sue them?
mcuelenaere:
--- Quote from: mophead740 on August 08, 2008, 02:57:49 AM ---Has anyone sent them an email asking for the source code, or are we just assuming that we'd have to sue them?
--- End quote ---
I have sent them once (and I believe others have done too), but they aren't willing to do anything; so just asking for something will lead to nothing.
And like I said sueing them won't give much either I think as Nano-X is just a little part of their code and it isn't really hardware related so even if they would provide their changes it won't do much good to the port. Although I want to say this is just my opinion, I'm not saying it's a lost cause; if someone wants to sue them I do support it and hope he/she will succeed.
JQuilty:
If Nano-X is indeed under the GPL, perhaps the Free Software Foundation would be interested in forcing them to release the source code. They've gone after companies for doing so in the past, and won. And since this is giving freedom to DAP's, I'm sure they'd find it very interesting.
They even have an email address set up for this. compliance@fsf.org.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version