Re: Signing off.
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Bluechip wrote: http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/pub/Main/DataSheets/mas35x9f_2ds.pdf No part of this publication may be reproduced, photocopied, stored on a retrieval system, or transmitted without the express written consent of Micronas GmbH. Then this should be removed. Immediately. -- Daniel Stenberg -- http://www.rockbox.org/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/
Re: Signing off.
Errm, or ask for permission? express written consent of Micronas GmbH. Daniel Stenberg wrote: On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Bluechip wrote: http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/pub/Main/DataSheets/mas35x9f_2ds.pdf No part of this publication may be reproduced, photocopied, stored on a retrieval system, or transmitted without the express written consent of Micronas GmbH. Then this should be removed. Immediately.
Re: Signing off.
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Bluechip wrote: How exactly is it unlicenced? http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/ Björn pointed this out. You refused to respond (to that too). they haven't sued anyone yet Then The Rockbox-Three are probably safe then :) Why would anyone sue one of us even if this was true? Rockbox is not a formal organization of any kind and I don't see how one of us is personally responsible for Rockbox as a whole. Possibly we could be blamed for distributing it, yes, but then I'd guess they'd sue the admins or the owner of the server(s). 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' We are clear and that has not changed. We haven't been made aware of any trademark infringements to my knowledge. Now when you've brought it up and I checked around I can only _assume_ that you are talking about our use of the name 'Bejeweled'. Is that so, or can you please clarify? You speak in vague terms. As I said before, The big-3 (ala Rockbox.org) have claimed that their rockbox.org is a domain and there are lots of more people than three that support and produce what we do in the Rockbox project and that result is hosted on the servers using that domain name. Feel free to read up on the subject if you wish to understand fully, most correspondence is publicly available :) ... I have no interest in proving anything. Merely highlighting parts of reality which have been carefully shaded by The Rockbox-Three. The info is publicly available and yet carefully shaded? (Not that I even understand what info you're talking about in either of these cases.) 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? Do you actually think that only we three do all CVS commits, code reviews and enforce the source code rules? Are you aware of what amounts of code we have? Are you aware of the amounts of contributions and submissions from people we get? Do you understand how much time we already spend on this? Yes we want the code to follow the source code rules. Lots of mistakes and sloppiness slip through anyway and from time to time we do raids to adjust code to be more adhering to our guidelines. Yes there are still many rule-breaking source codes around. One day we'll probably fix the cases you mentioned here. I have no doubts you can also find a bug or two in the code. A conspiracy by The Rockbox-Three must be the only answer to why they are still present. I mean, it can't be as simple as that mistakes happen? Now, the good part about open source is that if anyone is unhappy with the project they can take the source and start a new project somewhere else. If you and the rare few others who stand by you on your conspiracy-crusade would be seriously concerned, then you should do this. But no, as we've seen for the last several years, you just continue your whining and complaining. I don't think I'm alone in wondering what the heck you're still doing here. Everything we do seems to be wrong in your eyes. You don't contribute with _anything_ useful. Yet you're still here. Year after year. I have no doubt that you'll continue your endless effort until the end of times. I think I'll continue to respond to your outbursts every now and then. It'll keep me amused. -- Daniel Stenberg -- http://www.rockbox.org/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/
Re: Ipod nano batery error
That's happened to me with builds before 03-09 as well. That's actually the normal behaviour of the of the iPod Hardware Disk Mode, I think. Any time I've been in it, and unplugged uncleanly it's done that, or most times at least. On 3/15/06, Sander Sweers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello All,As of last Friday my ipod nano produces a battery failure after it getsdisconnected from the pc without eject. After that I need to do a reset(middle + menu button) for it to come alive again. I got a bid scared at first because I got a colleague to try rockbox onher nano and this happened the first time she tried it out ;-)Steps I did to reproduce this:1: Turn it on and rockbox loads 2: plug in the cable, drive shows up and can be mounted.3: Remove the cable but I did not eject it first.After this I get a screen with a battery and a ! mark.This only happens with builds after the 2006-03-09. If you need more info please let me know.SanderPS: I hope the dev list is the correct list to report these bugs. Ordo you want me to report it on the new bug tracker?
Re: Ipod nano batery error
Sander Sweers wrote: Hello All, As of last Friday my ipod nano produces a battery failure after it gets disconnected from the pc without eject. After that I need to do a reset (middle + menu button) for it to come alive again. This happens to me all the time when developing, and seems to be fairly harmless (at least my Nano is working perfectly after having this happen zillions of times). It is annoying, though. Thom
Re: Ipod nano batery error
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 21:32 +0100, Thom Johansen wrote: Sander Sweers wrote: Hello All, As of last Friday my ipod nano produces a battery failure after it gets disconnected from the pc without eject. After that I need to do a reset (middle + menu button) for it to come alive again. This happens to me all the time when developing, and seems to be fairly harmless (at least my Nano is working perfectly after having this happen zillions of times). It is annoying, though. Thom Ah, just noticed it with the build from Friday but I just got it with earlier builds too. Strange thing is, it does not happen everytime.. Also the Apple firmware seems to handle it just fine, could it be only when the unit is that special usb rescue mode rockbox puts the nano in? Anyway, sorry for the noise on the list and thanks for reassuring me :-) Sander
Re: Signing off.
How exactly is it unlicenced? http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/ Björn pointed this out. You refused to respond (to that too). Well, first off, I have already apologised for not reading the full thread-to-date before I replied. The above was in reply to a post made BEFORE Bjorn's post. Secondly, I did not see any questions in Bjorns post or any points which appeared to require a rebuttal. He knows it is thorny and repulsive, and because of his take on European Software Patents he believes we are in the clear If there is anything specific you want my input on, please pose it to me in the form of a question. If not, then as far as I see it, Rockbox's has opined formally with 'we don't think we're breaching Thompson/Fraunhofer's license' ...and at that point, you need someone with far more legal experience than I have to help you out. they haven't sued anyone yet Then The Rockbox-Three are probably safe then :) Why would anyone sue one of us even if this was true? I remember saying that when I was told that my pen-name could cause legal trouble for you [collective]. So I say, whatever your [collective] reasons were then, will probably guide you to the answer this time. Rockbox is not a formal organization of any kind and I don't see how one of us is personally responsible for Rockbox as a whole. Possibly we could be blamed for distributing it, yes, but then I'd guess they'd sue the admins or the owner of the server(s). Is that why Linus' name has been removed from internic's database? 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' We are clear and that has not changed. We haven't been made aware of any trademark infringements to my knowledge. Now when you've brought it up and I checked around I can only _assume_ that you are talking about our use of the name 'Bejeweled'. Is that so, or can you please clarify? You speak in vague terms. Indeed, Bejeweled was the one that leapt out at me. But as you also have focussed on this, I guess I have been misinformed (by a Nokia games coder at Vodafone) that Popcap own the trademark on the name. As I said before, The big-3 (ala Rockbox.org) have claimed that their rockbox.org is a domain and there are lots of more people than three that support and produce what we do in the Rockbox project and that result is hosted on the servers using that domain name. In context of the post to which I was replying, you had been collectively referred to as rockbox.org, hence my placing it in parenthesis, so the chap to whom I was replying understood my reference. Feel free to read up on the subject if you wish to understand fully, most correspondence is publicly available :) ... Again, aimed at the guy to whom I was replying, who seemed to be lacking a large chunk of info. I have no interest in proving anything. Merely highlighting parts of reality which have been carefully shaded by The Rockbox-Three. The info is publicly available and yet carefully shaded? (Not that I even understand what info you're talking about in either of these cases.) Well, in the first case, it was in reply to the original post which you have snipped. In the second case, the incongruitites created by The Rockbox-Three are generally eschewed, not in what HAS been said, but more in what has NOT been said. 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? Do you actually think that only we three do all CVS commits, code reviews and enforce the source code rules? No, but then you are being deliberately silly No, Jens seems to do most of the work there No, but you should enforce ALL your rules with equal vigour Are you aware of what amounts of code we have? Yes Are you aware of the amounts of contributions and submissions from people we get? Yes Do you understand how much time we already spend on this? Yes. In fact I honestly wonder how you guys earn money. My best guess is Contractors.se (sorry if I got that wrong, but you will know what I mean) must be your [collective?] company - otherwise you seem to be online all day hacking rockbox, often from home - and I would have thought you would have been fired for not doing any real work ...if you ARE doing real work then you must all be single and insomniacs ;) - humour Yes we want the code to follow the source code rules. Lots of mistakes and sloppiness slip through anyway and from time to time we do raids to adjust code to be more adhering to our guidelines. Yes there are still
Re: Signing off.
We are clear and that has not changed. We haven't been made aware of any trademark infringements to my knowledge. Now when you've brought it up and I checked around I can only _assume_ that you are talking about our use of the name 'Bejeweled'. Is that so, or can you please clarify? You speak in vague terms. Indeed, Bejeweled was the one that leapt out at me. But as you also have focussed on this, I guess I have been misinformed (by a Nokia games coder at Vodafone) that Popcap own the trademark on the name. According to the U.S. Patent Trademark Office website (http://www.uspto.gov), Bejeweled is a registered trademark of PopCap Games, Inc, U.S. Trademark Registration Number 2864970. The goods and services covered by the mark are described as, Electronic game programs; downloadable electronic game programs; electronic game software; computer game programs; downloadable computer game programs; interactive game programs; interactive game software.
Re: Signing off.
Bluechip, as far as I see, you're wasting your time here.You clearly stand nothing to gain, as you have made it completely clear that you aren't going to reveal your real name, and the rockbox team have made it just as clear that this is a requirement for the acceptance of your code. The only reason there has been such a big debate about this is because you have obviously been spending all your time somehow trying to bring the rockbox three (as you put it) down, with these constant and completely ineffective replies. It's proving pointless and it makes you look silly. Use your time more effectively and take some advice from the people that have already contributed - take your code to an offshoot project and enjoy yourself.Will.On 3/16/06, Bluechip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How exactly is it unlicenced?http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/Björn pointed this out. You refused to respond (to that too). Well, first off, I have already apologised fornot reading the full thread-to-date before I replied.The above was in reply to a post made BEFORE Bjorn's post.Secondly, I did not see any questions in Bjorns post or any points which appeared to require a rebuttal.He knows it is thorny and repulsive, andbecause of his take on European SoftwarePatents he believes we are in the clear If there is anything specific you want my inputon, please pose it to me in the form of a question.If not, then as far as I see it, Rockbox's hasopined formally with 'we don't think we'rebreaching Thompson/Fraunhofer's license' ...and at that point, you need someone with far morelegal experience than I have to help you out.they haven't sued anyone yetThen The Rockbox-Three are probably safe then :) Why would anyone sue one of us even if this was true?I remember saying that when I was told that mypen-name could cause legal trouble for you [collective].So I say, whatever your [collective] reasons were then, will probably guide you to the answer this time.Rockbox is not a formal organization of any kindand I don't see how one of us is personallyresponsible for Rockbox as a whole. Possibly we could be blamed for distributing it, yes, butthen I'd guess they'd sue the admins or the owner of the server(s).Is that why Linus' name has been removed from internic's database?The Rockbox-Three were VERY clear about their stance on Trademark infringement when theyinsisted on changing the name of the Tetrisplugin. I use this example merely to highlightthe duality within the Rockbox 'code of conduct' We are clear and that has not changed. Wehaven't been made aware of any trademarkinfringements to my knowledge. Now when you'vebrought it up and I checked around I can only_assume_ that you are talking about our use of the name 'Bejeweled'. Is that so, or can youplease clarify? You speak in vague terms.Indeed, Bejeweled was the one that leapt out atme.But as you also have focussed on this, Iguess I have been misinformed (by a Nokia games coder at Vodafone) that Popcap own the trademark on the name. As I said before, The big-3 (ala Rockbox.org) have claimed that their rockbox.org is a domain and there are lots ofmore people than three that support and producewhat we do in the Rockbox project and thatresult is hosted on the servers using that domain name. In context of the post to which I was replying,you had been collectively referred to asrockbox.org, hence my placing it inparenthesis, so the chap to whom I was replying understood my reference. Feel free to read up on the subject if you wishto understand fully, most correspondence is publicly available :)...Again, aimed at the guy to whom I was replying,who seemed to be lacking a large chunk of info. I have no interest in provinganything.Merely highlighting parts of realitywhich have been carefully shaded by The Rockbox-Three.The info is publicly available and yet carefully shaded? (Not that I even understand what infoyou're talking about in either of these cases.)Well, in the first case, it was in reply to theoriginal post which you have snipped.In the second case, the incongruitites created by The Rockbox-Three are generally eschewed, not inwhat HAS been said, but more in what has NOT been said.It's just another requirement, along the linesof '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 arequirement which is only relevant when TheRockbox-Three say it is relevant.Well spotted!Did you pick the same example as me?Do you actually think that only we three do allCVS commits, code reviews and enforce the source code rules?No, but then you are being deliberately silly No, Jens seems to do most of the work thereNo, but you should enforce ALL your rules with equal vigourAre you aware of what amounts of code we have?YesAre you aware of the amounts of contributions and submissions from people we get?YesDo you understand how much time we already spend on this?Yes.In fact I honestly wonder how you guys earnmoney.My best
