From: Bluechip <csbluechip_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 03:05:48 +0000

> > >They have. Which questions do you think aren't answered?
> > How about the legalitites of including an unlicensed MP3 codec?
>
>How exactly is it unlicenced?

http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/

>they haven't sued anyone yet

Then The Rockbox-Three are probably safe then :)

> > Or the legal issues with the copyrighted material which is reproduced
> > without express written concent.
>
>I'm not sure what you're referring to here

See previous mail for example

> > Or the use of trademarked names for plugins.
>
>Trademarks are a cloudy issue.

The Rockbox-Three were VERY clear about their stance on Trademark
infringement when they insisted on changing the name of the "Tetris"
plugin. I use this example merely to highlight the duality within
the Rockbox 'code of conduct'

> > As I said before, The big-3 (ala Rockbox.org) have claimed that their
> > choice on anonimity is based in legal issues.
>That may be, I couldn't say, but moving on.

Feel free to read up on the subject if you wish to understand fully,
most correspondence is publicly available :)

> > Their continued breach of the above (very prosecutable) legal issues
> > proves that we are being deliberately misled.
>
>You've yet to prove any breaches,

I have no interest in "proving" anything. Merely highlighting parts
of reality which have been carefully shaded by The Rockbox-Three.

>except the mp3 issue, which, as I've mentioned, isn't one, unless
>someone can point to evidence where this is
>no longer the case.

See above link.

>And legal issues come in many flavours.

Err, OK.

>Perhaps they're more interested in being able to help a company
>identify stolen code's origin?

"Perhaps" ...is that another way to say "That may be, I couldn't say,
but moving on."

>After all, if an employee of Iriver donated their mp3 encoder's source
>under an anonymous pseudonym, IRiver will most likely sue rockbox in
>order to find out whom.

And the answer will be "weeeellll, he TOLD us his name is 'john doe'
- here's his email address; good luck"

>I really don't feel that rockbox should be in
>the business of protecting anyone under these circumstances.

Nope. With that we can utterly agree.

> > So THE question is ...what is the truth?
>
>Conspiracy theorys aside, perhaps they just *want to know your name*!

Or at least something that at least LOOKS/sounds like a "real" name!

>Trust is a two-way street,

Err, no. Trust is an esoteric concept. Nominalisations are fun :)

>and the users of rockbox need to be able to trust them as much as
>developers do.

I agreed to "trust" The Rockbox-Three with my personal details, at
their (later retracted) request. But was offered no "trust" in
return. In rockbox world, "trust" is a ONE way street!

>It's just another requirement, along the lines of 'rockbox is
>written in C and assembly' and 'comments
>start with /* not //'. The world is full of requirements.

Yes, that's another fine example of a "requirement" which is only
relevant when The Rockbox-Three say it is relevant. Well
spotted! Did you pick the same example as me?

http://www.rockbox.org/viewcvs.cgi/apps/codecs/lib/codeclib.c?rev=1.12&view=markup

unsigned char* mp3buf; // The actual MP3 buffer from Rockbox
unsigned char* mallocbuf; // 512K from the start of MP3 buffer
unsigned char* filebuf; // The rest of the MP3 buffer

> > Perhaps, just perhaps, if the truth came out, people might react
> differently.
>
>Of course, there are little green men on earth, Americans never walked
>on the moon, and Hoofbeats still mean 'Zebra'.

Yeeeessss. Up the doseage.

> > >They just don't feel for debating this, because it never leads anywhere.
> >
> > Or is it because they have something to hide?
> > There is strong evidence of either being true.
>
>No, really, there isn't. Nothing you've said here strikes me as evidence.

That's fair, different people will notice different things.
"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest" [Simon & Garfunkel]

> > >If someone is SERIOUSLY concerned (as you probably are because else
> > >you wouldn't make such a drama out of the thing) about this real name
> > >stuff and seriously want to help, he/she will most probably choose my
> > >option two and fake a name... no problem
> >
> > Morals come with a high price. *I* (who am very much in line with
> > gl's thinking) am not a liar, don't have enough time to maintain a
> > fork and dont hand out my personal details online (for many reasons
> > covered to death now).
>
>Which they've respected. No-one's forcing you, and since you're not
>being paid, you're not contractually obligated to do anything for
>rockbox, and thus, not obligated to give up your name against your will.
>
>Personally, I'm of the opinion that rockbox *should* be picky, if only
>because there's far FAR more developers under the sun. So much so that
>losing talent really isn't what I'd consider an obstacle to rockbox's
>goals. (note, opinion is mine, not rockbox's, since I've only done minor
>work for rockbox thus far).

<nods>

>I'm completely in Joel Spolsky's camp (www.joelonsoftware.com), when he
>suggests that if you don't feel 'right' about a potential employee,
>don't hire him.

Joel Spolsky doesn't hide his opinion behind a smokescreen of
contradictions though (as far as my brief scan can tell) ...Do you
think that The Rockbox-Three should follow THAT moral stance too? Or
does the reference only hold up out-of-context?

>Additionally, I'd be inclined to question the motive behind creating a
>society of mistrust by claiming that there may be more pseudonyms than
>rockbox realises. No-one stands to gain, and many stand to lose from
>such a situation. I'm just glad this is mostly a developer-based list.

Do not mistake "stating the truth" for "making claims".
I trust that you speak candidly and with honesty and integrity.
Let's open up the other end of that two-way street :)

>Andrew

BC
Received on 2006-03-15