[HOWTO]Watch 720p videos on n900 [09.12.2011 VIDEOCALL WORKS] - Page 67 - maemo.org

Active Topics

Camera phone competition March 2023 "Endless" (35)
to General by Maemish - 23 hrs, 30 mins ago
TLS 1.2 for N9 is ready (28)
to MeeGo / Harmattan by smartblu9 - 1 day ago
Maemo repository (3)
to Community by torsen - 1 day, 16 hrs ago
Error after installing Leste on sdcard (11)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Maemish - 2 days, 13 hrs ago
Introducing ubiboot N9 (multiboot OS loader) (1,393)
to Alternatives by smatkovi - 3 days, 20 hrs ago
more...

Page 67 of 141

Thread Tools

freemangordon	2011-12-04 , 23:03
Posts: 3,074 \| Thanked: 12,964 times \| Joined on Mar 2010 @ Sofia,Bulgaria	#661

Well, I don't understand why is all that fuzz. The binary is distributed with LGPL license. Period. I don't think you can change the license of already distributed binary licensed under L/GPL. And if the license is L/GPL you *MUST* provide the source code.

In the same time I will appreciate any help I can get on that issue. Thanks to all of you who are trying to help.

Quote & Reply |

The Following User Says Thank You to freemangordon For This Useful Post:
Estel

don_falcone	2011-12-05 , 10:36
Posts: 1,523 \| Thanked: 1,997 times \| Joined on Jul 2011 @ not your mom's FOSS basement	#662

For everyone having the issue that the current CSSU-T depends on camera-ui_1.1.29.2+cssu8:

"Fix" your HD-enabled camera-ui_1.1.29.2+cssu7 package by rebuilding it according to here (remember to create the "build" directory too); just exchange "cssu7" with "cssu8" in the 'DEBIAN/control' file. This should help until it is officially integrated & updated.

Quote & Reply |

The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to don_falcone For This Useful Post:
Estel, ivanrajkovic, knobby, nkirk, strange1712, udaychaitanya16, xes

	Estel	2011-12-05 , 20:39
	Posts: 5,028 \| Thanked: 8,613 times \| Joined on Mar 2011	#663

Originally Posted by freemangordon

Well, I don't understand why is all that fuzz. The binary is distributed with LGPL license. Period. I don't think you can change the license of already distributed binary licensed under L/GPL. And if the license is L/GPL you *MUST* provide the source code.

Absolutely true. Nokia can - if they wish - close source of *further* releases - if (and only if) they're not basing it on already (L)GPL'ed stuff (so, basically, closing source of further releases, would need re-writing it from scratch). So, all posts about "Nokia can change their mind" are plain wrong - it's not /bsd license, where You can base Your work on FOSS thing, and close You resulted code.

Still, all of this does *not* apply here, cause we're talking here about stuff already released under LGPL. And, we are not interested in further releases, but in this release (I've written here about "changing their mind" just for the records).

---

As for ideas, I've none how we can proceed now - other than rising LGPL violation (which is also not a thing, that I would like to do on daily basic for fun). My mail got ignored (up to date), and bug was commented only with "we will release it soon".

I'm just worried about us getting sources, before those "suckers" got bankrupt - this doesn't change license obligation, but at least argument about "too few hands on board" become more true.

/Estel

__________________
N900's aluminum backcover / body replacement
-
N900's HDMI-Out
-
Camera cover MOD
-
Measure battery's real capacity on-device
-
TrueCrypt 7.1 | ereswap | bnf
-
Hardware's mods research is costly. To support my work, please consider donating. Thank You!

Quote & Reply |

maacruz	2011-12-06 , 00:00
Posts: 1,101 \| Thanked: 1,185 times \| Joined on Aug 2008 @ Spain	#664

Originally Posted by Estel

Absolutely true. Nokia can - if they wish - close source of *further* releases - if (and only if) they're not basing it on already (L)GPL'ed stuff (so, basically, closing source of further releases, would need re-writing it from scratch). So, all posts about "Nokia can change their mind" are plain wrong - it's not /bsd license, where You can base Your work on FOSS thing, and close You resulted code.

As long as you are the only copyright holder, or all the copyright holders agree, you can relicense your stuff as you see fit. GPL or not.
This has already happened not once, but several times, where a developer first distributed its work under a (L)GPL and later changed its mind and stopped distributing (L)GPL versions.
Think about it. Are you really saying that if I publish anything under a copyleft license I'm effectively surrendering ownership of that code? That I have to rewrite MY OWN code to change license? That's plainly ridiculous.
A copyright holder has all rights to the code, and anyone else has none. A license is a permission given by the copyright holder to others to use the code, under whatever conditions the copyright holder wants. The (L)GPL is just one of such licenses, which happens to give certain rights to the receivers to protect the freedom of all receivers of the code down the chain.
Just to illustrate my point, I'll pick the GPL FAQ:

Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL? (#DeveloperViolate)

Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a “violation” of the GPL.

However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in the community.

But if somebody has already received the code under the (L)GPL, the copyright holder can't later change its mind and revert the rights given to that one.

Can the developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use? (#CanDeveloperThirdParty)

No, because the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.

But if the public hasn't received the source code, then hasn't received the rights granted by the (L)GPL, and because the copyright holder IS NOT BOUND by the GPL is under no obligation to further distribute the source code.

Still, all of this does *not* apply here, cause we're talking here about stuff already released under LGPL. And, we are not interested in further releases, but in this release (I've written here about "changing their mind" just for the records).

It doesn't apply here because Nokia isn't the only copyright holder, so they can't change the conditions without the agreement of all the other copyright holders. That's the key, not how it was licensed.

As for ideas, I've none how we can proceed now - other than rising LGPL violation (which is also not a thing, that I would like to do on daily basic for fun). My mail got ignored (up to date), and bug was commented only with "we will release it soon".

I'm just worried about us getting sources, before those "suckers" got bankrupt - this doesn't change license obligation, but at least argument about "too few hands on board" become more true.

/Estel

Now, the first thing to do is not to pull a stink here.
Again, from the GPL FAQ:

Who has the power to enforce the GPL? (#WhoHasThePower)

Since the GPL is a copyright license, the copyright holders of the software are the ones who have the power to enforce the GPL. If you see a violation of the GPL, you should inform the developers of the GPL-covered software involved. They either are the copyright holders, or are connected with the copyright holders.

The first thing to do is to make sure we contact the right person within Nokia.
I'll write to Felipe to see if he can help and speed things a little bit.

Quote & Reply |

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to maacruz For This Useful Post:
don_falcone, Estel, freemangordon, Netweaver, strange1712

don_falcone	2011-12-06 , 08:45
Posts: 1,523 \| Thanked: 1,997 times \| Joined on Jul 2011 @ not your mom's FOSS basement	#665

Did someone try to fetch the Harmattan DSP packages in the last days or weeks? All i get is an 403.

Quote & Reply |

pali	2011-12-06 , 08:48
Posts: 2,154 \| Thanked: 8,464 times \| Joined on May 2010	#666

Originally Posted by don_falcone

Did someone try to fetch the Harmattan DSP packages in the last days or weeks? All i get is an 403.

Yes, at the moment and all working fine:

Code:

$ wget --auth-no-challenge https://qa9recEP:Pat2UGuP@downloads.maemo.nokia.com/harmattan/rm680/omap3-dsp-hd-codecs_0.3.8-7+0m6_armel.deb
--2011-12-06 09:48:16--  https://qa9recEP:*password*@downloads.maemo.nokia.com/harmattan/rm680/omap3-dsp-hd-codecs_0.3.8-7+0m6_armel.deb
Resolving downloads.maemo.nokia.com... 2.16.195.200
Connecting to downloads.maemo.nokia.com|2.16.195.200|:443... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 2268328 (2.2M) [text/plain]
Saving to: `omap3-dsp-hd-codecs_0.3.8-7+0m6_armel.deb'

100%[==========================================================================================================>] 2,268,328   11.3M/s   in 0.2s    

2011-12-06 09:48:16 (11.3 MB/s) - `omap3-dsp-hd-codecs_0.3.8-7+0m6_armel.deb' saved [2268328/2268328]

Quote & Reply |

don_falcone	2011-12-06 , 09:05
Posts: 1,523 \| Thanked: 1,997 times \| Joined on Jul 2011 @ not your mom's FOSS basement	#667

Dunno, must have been the proxy here. On the device itself i was successful.

Quote & Reply |

Tousif zeba	2011-12-06 , 09:45
Posts: 22 \| Thanked: 0 times \| Joined on Oct 2011	#668

two days ago i installed everythingneededto to watch and record hd videos and know everything is happining almost perfectly but know only one thing is lacking for me i.e. i cannot record videos at fullspeed in hd mode as my dsp is not overclocked. I searched many
threads about overclocking but cannot find the answer to overclock dsp.
please anyone who has overclocked dsp guide me to overclock dsp
plzzz plzzzz

Quote & Reply |

don_falcone	2011-12-06 , 09:46
Posts: 1,523 \| Thanked: 1,997 times \| Joined on Jul 2011 @ not your mom's FOSS basement	#669

What package is the dummy dsp node ('dummy.dll64P') belonging to? I have it in my backup but not in /lib/dsp/.

EDIT: Maybe 'gstreamer0.10-openmax'?

Last edited by don_falcone; 2011-12-06 at 10:00.

Quote & Reply |

freemangordon	2011-12-06 , 10:28
Posts: 3,074 \| Thanked: 12,964 times \| Joined on Mar 2010 @ Sofia,Bulgaria	#670

@maacruz - wish you luck with Felipe, so far I don't find him cooperative.

Re LGPL - the source code of several versions is already in public, and the binary distributed comes with LGPL copyright notice in .deb. I am not lawyer, but AIUI once you distribute source code and LGPLed binary you cannot change your mind and change the source code license for that particular binary. Of course your point about Nokia not being only (if at all) copyright holder is absolutely valid.