›

Linux Kernel sources (GPL request?), L4T

lhllhl Posts: 3Member
in General Development
Hi everyone, just got my Ouya and starting to poke around with it.  Did a quick search in the discussions, but couldn't find a thread...

Has anyone made a GPL request for the Linux kernel sources yet?  Beyond that, has anyone poked in the bootloader or has gotten Linux running - is the Ouya based on a standard platform that can run Linux for Tegra https://developer.nvidia.com/linux-tegra or some other standard distro (Ubuntu, Linaro)?

Comments

  • KonajuGamesKonajuGames Posts: 560Member
    I'd start here with the Android Kernel source for Tegra.
  • lhllhl Posts: 3Member
    edited April 2013
    FYI, as an Ouya device owner and since no one else seems to have made one, I've made an official GPL request from the Ouya team.  If they decide to send the code as a tarball dump I'll post it up, but hopefully they'll be more helpful (although this is obviously a much lower priority than the stuff they should be focused on).
    Post edited by lhl on
  • DroidRayDroidRay Posts: 15Member
    Following the law should certainly be high priority.
    There seems to be a common misconception that following the GPL is optional. It's not. It's a software license like any other software license, and if you don't live up to the terms, you loose any rights to use the software. This means, that ultimately, if Ouya doesn't give out the source, they loose their right to use the linux kernel and by extension android (since it requires the kernel). It should be high priority. 

    I too have filed an ofifical GPL request, but have yet to receive any useful reply (best so far is "I'll forward it on to someone else", but no reply after that.)

    As for tegra kernel source - Don't go there. Porting the code designed for a dev board to a production device without any documentation is rather hard. Trust me, I've been there (with other tegra devices). It's not just a matter of checking out the code and compiling and then it'll magically work. It's nothing like x86.

    I hope OUYA turns out to be different from the many other companies that previously decided to downprioritize following the law "because it's open source", but so far it's not looking too good.
  • DroidRayDroidRay Posts: 15Member
    lhl said:
    Hi everyone, just got my Ouya and starting to poke around with it.  Did a quick search in the discussions, but couldn't find a thread...

    Has anyone made a GPL request for the Linux kernel sources yet?  Beyond that, has anyone poked in the bootloader or has gotten Linux running - is the Ouya based on a standard platform that can run Linux for Tegra https://developer.nvidia.com/linux-tegra or some other standard distro (Ubuntu, Linaro)?

    Running L4T doesn't require it to be a standard platform. It just requires that it's tegra2 or tegra3 and that you have a suitable kernel (e.g. one that's compatible with the drivers). Porting to that kernel is reasonably easy once you have source - I have done it myself for other boards/devices. But without source, it's borderline impossible.
  • Killa_MaakiKilla_Maaki Posts: 504Member
    edited May 2013
    DroidRay said:
    Following the law should certainly be high priority.
    There seems to be a common misconception that following the GPL is optional. It's not. It's a software license like any other software license, and if you don't live up to the terms, you loose any rights to use the software. This means, that ultimately, if Ouya doesn't give out the source, they loose their right to use the linux kernel and by extension android (since it requires the kernel). It should be high priority. 

    I too have filed an ofifical GPL request, but have yet to receive any useful reply (best so far is "I'll forward it on to someone else", but no reply after that.)

    As for tegra kernel source - Don't go there. Porting the code designed for a dev board to a production device without any documentation is rather hard. Trust me, I've been there (with other tegra devices). It's not just a matter of checking out the code and compiling and then it'll magically work. It's nothing like x86.

    I hope OUYA turns out to be different from the many other companies that previously decided to downprioritize following the law "because it's open source", but so far it's not looking too good.
    Actually, Android is under the Apache 2.0 license specifically because, in the words of the Android Open Source project page, "While we encourage everyone to make devices that are open and modifiable, we don't believe it is our place to force them to do so".
    OUYA Inc not releasing the source code for the OS would be perfectly legal under this license.

    Source: http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html
    Post edited by Killa_Maaki on
    You didn't remember the plot of the Doctor Who movie because there was none; Just a bunch of plot holes strung together.
  • KonajuGamesKonajuGames Posts: 560Member
    This is not the place for a debate about OSS licenses and the terms of those licenses.  If you have an issue with OUYA Inc and their compliance with the various licenses, then take it up with them directly and not in this developer forum where most people do not have any interest in it.
  • MagnesusMagnesus Posts: 304Member
    edited May 2013
    Android is Apache2, but it uses Linux kernel which is GPL which is why they need to provide source code to the kernel (not the entire OS). It is very important that they provide the source - otherwise they lose the right to use Linux which means they essentialy can't use Android. It is a very bad behaviour to not publish sources right away. And I think there is interest here - at least 3 people are interested.
    Post edited by Magnesus on

  • DroidRayDroidRay Posts: 15Member
    KonajuGames said:
    This is not the place for a debate about OSS licenses and the terms of those licenses.  If you have an issue with OUYA Inc and their compliance with the various licenses, then take it up with them directly and not in this developer forum where most people do not have any interest in it.
    Interest in the Linux kernel surely falls under general development. It doesn't say "games development" only. WHile *you* might not be interested, there are certainly other people who are.

    I assure you that I have contacted OUYA directly in any imaginable way(bar snailmail), but they appear to refuse to even respond. Before taking any further steps, I want to make sure that OUYA is aware of the issue and that they have reasonable time to respond. This place seemed like the best place to get exposure of the issue since they refuse to answer privately.

    OSS licenses are no different than any other software license. Other than it being free, it's essentially the same as if they were including paid games off android market without permission from the author.


  • DroidRayDroidRay Posts: 15Member
    Killa_Maaki said:
    DroidRay said:
    Following the law should certainly be high priority.
    There seems to be a common misconception that following the GPL is optional. It's not. It's a software license like any other software license, and if you don't live up to the terms, you loose any rights to use the software. This means, that ultimately, if Ouya doesn't give out the source, they loose their right to use the linux kernel and by extension android (since it requires the kernel). It should be high priority. 

    I too have filed an ofifical GPL request, but have yet to receive any useful reply (best so far is "I'll forward it on to someone else", but no reply after that.)

    As for tegra kernel source - Don't go there. Porting the code designed for a dev board to a production device without any documentation is rather hard. Trust me, I've been there (with other tegra devices). It's not just a matter of checking out the code and compiling and then it'll magically work. It's nothing like x86.

    I hope OUYA turns out to be different from the many other companies that previously decided to downprioritize following the law "because it's open source", but so far it's not looking too good.
    Actually, Android is under the Apache 2.0 license specifically because, in the words of the Android Open Source project page, "While we encourage everyone to make devices that are open and modifiable, we don't believe it is our place to force them to do so".
    OUYA Inc not releasing the source code for the OS would be perfectly legal under this license.

    Source: http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html
    As Magnesus says, there are many different licenses used in the Android project. Most of what Google has written themselves is Apache 2.0, but the linux kernel and many other tools, libraries and similar are actually still GPL. Google can't just change the license away from GPL, because they don't have the copyright on that source.
  • Killa_MaakiKilla_Maaki Posts: 504Member
    So *just* the linux part is what they need to release, huh...?
    You didn't remember the plot of the Doctor Who movie because there was none; Just a bunch of plot holes strung together.
  • DroidRayDroidRay Posts: 15Member
    Killa_Maaki said:
    So *just* the linux part is what they need to release, huh...?
    Well, as far as we know, yes (and honestly, all that I care about). They obviously need to live up to all licenses for all software they use...
    I'm assuming OUYA knows what licenses the software they use is under.
  • Killa_MaakiKilla_Maaki Posts: 504Member
    Ignoring what OUYA needs to do, couldn't you get the Linux kernel from, well, everywhere else? I think it's commendable to let OUYA know what they need to do to follow the license requirements, but I'm not sure why you need the kernels specifically from OUYA rather than basically everywhere else. I'm guessing their customized OS doesn't even touch the kernels, just basically reskins stock Android and adds some services to it.
    You didn't remember the plot of the Doctor Who movie because there was none; Just a bunch of plot holes strung together.
  • DroidRayDroidRay Posts: 15Member
    Killa_Maaki said:
    Ignoring what OUYA needs to do, couldn't you get the Linux kernel from, well, everywhere else? I think it's commendable to let OUYA know what they need to do to follow the license requirements, but I'm not sure why you need the kernels specifically from OUYA rather than basically everywhere else. I'm guessing their customized OS doesn't even touch the kernels, just basically reskins stock Android and adds some services to it.
    You guessed wrong.
    ARM devices is nothing like x86. (in the version OUYA uses at least. In 3.8/3.9 multi-board support was introduced along with Device Trees.)

    The kernel needs to know exactly how to setup the hardware of the specific board in question. In practice, we need like 10-15 files from OUYA, which tells the generic tegra code how the board is designed, what chips are used for things like audio, sensors, buttons, hdmi gpios and all sorts of other fun stuff that you really need to know to boot an ARM kernel.

    Theoretically, it might be possible to determine these things and get a working kernel, but given how it's trivial to brick an ouya and they appear to have put in zero ways to recover, it's not really realistic to do in practice.
  • lhllhl Posts: 3Member
    FYI I'm chatting w/ someone at Ouya unofficially and in the process of trying to get the right tech/legal contact and get an official response.  I (and I assume others) have made an official GPL request (mine was 4/30) for all GPL licensed code used (although obviously the Linux Kernel sources are the important ones). Hopefully there's at least an official response and an eventual tarball drop soon.
  • DataData Posts: 5Member
    Seems @alsutton just posted the kernel source on github: https://github.com/ouya/ouya_1_1-kernel
  • alsuttonalsutton Posts: 69Member, Team OUYA
    The kernel has now been released as Data has pointed out. 

    It is an official release, that repository will be updated with tags for new firmware releases either when, or shortly after, the release goes out, once we have verified that the kernel is complete and that we are not infringing on the rights of others by distributing the code (e.g. by the accidental inclusion of a binary blob which we should not be redistributing outside of our firmware).
    Al Sutton
    Android Specialist
    OUYA
  • DroidRayDroidRay Posts: 15Member
    alsutton said:
    The kernel has now been released as Data has pointed out. 

    It is an official release, that repository will be updated with tags for new firmware releases either when, or shortly after, the release goes out, once we have verified that the kernel is complete and that we are not infringing on the rights of others by distributing the code (e.g. by the accidental inclusion of a binary blob which we should not be redistributing outside of our firmware).
    As an android specialist, you should be well aware that source needs to be available the second you start distributing the firmware. You can't legally release the binary code without offering sourcecode along with it. 

    Having said that, it's great that you have finally released source.

    (And yes, i'm well aware I'm extremely unlikely to get any official answer to this post. But It needed to be said.)
Sign In or Register to comment.