Version 1.5.11 - Translations

[chickennuggets8]

Eric: Can you change the build process to build fat images for routers such as the D-Link DIR 825-B1/2? Fat images relocate the wifi calibration partition to the end of the flash rom, thus allowing for more flash memory to be be free. these are 8MB flash devices, but only received 4MB images in official releases. Ispy's unofficial builds include fat images for the DIR-825 B1/B2.

Thanks for the great work on Gargoyle!

[BashfulBladder]

Ispy's unofficial builds include fat images for the DIR-825 B1/B2.

Really? I find that interesting because it is a GPL Sec2a &3a violation to distribute Gargoyle that include changes & not divulge those changes. I wonder what other changes there are?

As far as being a Violator, that isn't unique as both Gargoyle & OpenWrt violate every day with the manner of distribution of both images & packages (preamble: "[if you distribute], you must show [recipients] [GPL licensing] terms so they know their rights.") - but they have their respective source available (albeit not fully complying with the GPL). Eric also feels free to amend the terms of licensing when clearly under the GPL Sec6 that isn't allowed.

As one of many copyright holders in Gargoyle, I'm sure ispyisail will see this, be alerted to the issue & will in the future *conspicuously* provide the patches used. Even build with "make DISTRIBUTION=true" to better compliance with aggregated licensing terms.

Thank you for alerting us of the issue.

[olo]

I don't know how it happened, but you can fix it by ssh into your router &:

Code: Select all

uci set gargoyle.display.system_usb_storage='USB Storage'
uci commit gargoyle

Finally, I can enjoy the newest version of Gargoyle. Thank you and all the people involved in this great project

[Eric]

BashfulBladder: The difference doomguy2358753 is referring to isn't in the source code, so no violation is taking place.

I believe the OpenWRT build environment already builds these images, the difference is that they aren't included in the profile file lists which determine which files get copied to the images directory. So, this isn't a case of source code being omitted (a GPL violation) but rather just copying a file not getting officially uploaded, something I really should address.

[ispyisail]

As one of many copyright holders in Gargoyle, I'm sure ispyisail will see this, be alerted to the issue & will in the future *conspicuously* provide the patches used. Even build with "make DISTRIBUTION=true" to better compliance with aggregated licensing terms.

My skill level only lets do two things

git pull && Build and change the OpenWRT revision number

I've only just starting doing the latter (for fun)

I've never been accused of being an open source pirate before

[BashfulBladder]

I've never been accused of being an open source pirate before

And I made no such accusation. I accused you of violations. A VIOLATOR as it were.

[BashfulBladder]

BashfulBladder: The difference doomguy2358753 is referring to isn't in the source code, so no violation is taking place.

If you mean no change to the build, yes. As far as distribution, y'all [OpenWrt, Eric, ispyisail, even me] are all in the same wagon.

I quote from the GPLv2 preamble which 90% of the software used in Gargoyle is under:

"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights."

SomeBody distributes [Gargoyle,libavcodec]. UserA downloads. How does UserA know what license either is under?

"must show them these terms". You feel you are in compliance with that phrase, How? I download libavcodec.ipk (which say for the sake of this argument is under the GPL)- still in compliance? How? What about things under a BSD-style license with a binary redistribution clause - still compliant? I can see reasons why it would be advantageous from an installation point, but *compliant* it is not. And if not compliant, its a violation.

[Eric]

bashful: I do not understand your argument.

The portion of the license you claim ispyisail is violating is the requirement that the terms of the GPL must be disclosed to all recipient of the software -- you quote the phrase "must show them these terms", above. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, all of ispy's distributions include the System/About section which clearly indicates that the software is released under the GPL and provides a working link to the GPL. I think this constitutes informing users of the terms under which the software is being distributed. Given that ispyisail is posting links to his builds on this site, which contains links to the git source repository, I fail to see how he is failing to distribute terms or source code, which are the basic requirements of the GPL.

[ispyisail]

Looks like I'm going jail

I'm not sure what the problem is (seams to getting a bit academic) but I think Eric and BashfulBladder are doing wonderful jobs (for free) and if I need to change something I'm more that happy to comply.

If my custom builds are causing problems I'm more that happy to stop.

I was actually trying to be helpful with my limited skills

[Eric]

ispyisail: DON'T STOP POSTING BUILDS. It is much appreciated!