Rockbox mail archive
Subject: RE: Archo killing open source....
From: Fred Maxwell (rockbox_at_anti-spam.org)
As was said earlier, it all depends on how the source was developed. It's
fine to say that it was reverse-engineered -- and maybe it was, but was the
reverse engineering "clean"? Lot's of things could taint it:
1. Inclusion of copyrighted Archos source code.
2. Decryption of firmware through circumvention of copy protection, putting
it in violation of the DMCA.
3. Member of the open-source team who had access to proprietary Archos
code, schematics, etc.
It could also be that the open-source firmware would allow the user to
bypass DRM schemes. Archos would not want to be sued by the MPAA because
the open source software would output DVD video without Macrovision (or some
The fact is that we don't know what the problem was. It could have been
something as simple as a trademark infringement (e.g., the use of the Archos
name, logo, etc. in the firmware or documentation.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se
> [mailto:owner-rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se] On Behalf Of David McIntyre
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 1:24 PM
> To: rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se
> Subject: Re: Archo killing open source....
> If he's on shaky ground, where does that put us?
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 05:36:09PM -0000, mrlipring wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "mourad jaber" <mjaber_at_centralpay.net>
> > To: <rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se>
> > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 4:48 PM
> > Subject: Archo killing open source....
> > > FYI :
> > > http://avos.sourceforge.net/
> > >
> > > No comments...
> > > See you
> > >
> > > Mourad
> > >
> > well, it depends how he's done it. if he's reverse
> engineered actual
> > archos firmware, then yeah, he's on shaky ground, and from what it
> > says on the site, it would APPEAR that he has.
Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew