Are you sure Phase actually modified the kernel? I do see his email says “Phase One Linux” but me and you can take Linux and call it whatever we want too. Modifying the kernel is a lot of work and even if they did you are not entitled to the platform that runs on the kernel — just the snippets of code that they changed in Linux. I just dont see the value in those pieces. Think of Windows being open source and i write a windows program. The program is mine 100%. But if I modified the Windows O/S then that could fall under open source license and I need to provide the source code for my cool modification to the ”Start” button. But that is it. No more. I just dont see Phase forking Linux and making their own. It is so much better to use an unmodified OS so they can get all of the future improvements with newer kernels and keep their platform stable re-compiling to a newer version. So I say it is pure 99.99%-100% Linux and the code on top is proprietary. Whatever change they made (and I would bet none) has zero value if they gave it to us anyways.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Phase One IQ4 Linux Source Code
- Thread starter buildbot
- Start date
buildbot
Well-known member
I have no idea what Phase has done, but they need to answer specific questions in any case.
I actually work for Microsoft (not on Windows) who will given enough money, happily build you a totally custom windows+special license for whatever you want. That’s why windows CE, embedded, etc. are so popular, good platforms and you can keep everything internal.
GPL has specific provisions for GPL software distributed to end users. If Phase one had an internal GCC version, used to build internal tools ONLY, that is cool. But they sell linux based devices. You have to comply with the license. Why did Apple purge all GPL from macos? That is why. They don’t even want it in the app store
You could build whatever version of GPL software you want and not have to share anything, IFF it is internal.
As to how modified it is, even the raspberry pi has modifications that needed to be made to linux to support it. I have done a lot of embedded development from FPGA on up, there is no such thing as unmodified linux on custom boards. Custom may even include something as small as special defconfigs (these define you custom compilation of linux to your specific board).
I can see Phase using Linux and GCC. But what information or belief do you have that they modified the kernel or GCC? A lot of products are built on linux. A ton of IoT use it. But very few.. very few.. companies actually modify the open source components.
Those that do usually contribute with multiple team members to the open source project (e.g. Red Hat, Oracle) and they are doing so as they find and fix bugs for their enterprise customers so that their end product is stable. Check the linux kernel — those guys are very active on it. Now if you said Phase had some other library (not linux, not GCC) that has 3 contributors on github and it was the foundation of Phase then I could see them investing in a developer for that. But in such a case they are probably already a contributor to the project and their efforts are already part of the open source once the changes get merged.
Phase is too busy dealing with their own bugs and features on the platform — i doubt they have even found anything to patch or a bug to blame on the kernel. It is like you writing a c++ program and finding out Windows has a bug…. You would complain to windows (in this case, linux) and they might eventually fix It. This is 2022, though, and not 1998. You are not going to find these these bugs anymore and Phase isn’t doing anything special to need such changes to the kernel. A driver, yes. But that doesnt fall under open source.
My IQ4150 boots like a snail and gets burning hot. They can hardly optimize their own platform — to think they modified the kernel or did some magic with GCC to improve speed? Nah.. no way.
Those that do usually contribute with multiple team members to the open source project (e.g. Red Hat, Oracle) and they are doing so as they find and fix bugs for their enterprise customers so that their end product is stable. Check the linux kernel — those guys are very active on it. Now if you said Phase had some other library (not linux, not GCC) that has 3 contributors on github and it was the foundation of Phase then I could see them investing in a developer for that. But in such a case they are probably already a contributor to the project and their efforts are already part of the open source once the changes get merged.
Phase is too busy dealing with their own bugs and features on the platform — i doubt they have even found anything to patch or a bug to blame on the kernel. It is like you writing a c++ program and finding out Windows has a bug…. You would complain to windows (in this case, linux) and they might eventually fix It. This is 2022, though, and not 1998. You are not going to find these these bugs anymore and Phase isn’t doing anything special to need such changes to the kernel. A driver, yes. But that doesnt fall under open source.
My IQ4150 boots like a snail and gets burning hot. They can hardly optimize their own platform — to think they modified the kernel or did some magic with GCC to improve speed? Nah.. no way.
Last edited:
If you can show me something Phase One posted that says “we optimized the Linux kernel for blazing fast photography” then I am with you on this. But it feels like you are saying they use Linux as the OS and as such they are required to disclose their open source. If that is all you know then it doesnt work with that. If I am missing something I apologize and please do share.
buildbot
Well-known member
There is no way they are using a stock linux distribution I am sorry. It is not modifying it for speed, it is things like, the likely kernel level driver for high speed bus to interface with the FPGA controlling the sensor readout. And even if that was _stock_ pcie or something, then you have to configure linux to map a certain region of memory to as a writable hardware device. Tons of hardware manufactures know and respect this, including small companies like BMW. Phase One is even missing the required license statements in the manual, they have one for libjpeg so they clearly are aware of licenses.
It doesn’t matter what Phase has time do our upstream regarding bugs in the linux kernel, though honestly that would be cool if they did.
buildbot
Well-known member
I work with embedded systems. Typically, when you use Linux in an embedded system whatsoever, you are obligated to either say that linux is completely unmodified, with the specific kernel version, or provide the source. The idea being, you as the user have access to how your device works.
I assume the IQ4 still has an FPGA, they would not have to share anything about their verilog/vhdl/whatever source since it is all their IP, as far as we know. But they use linux. They should respect its copywrite.
edit - this stackexchange answer seems very clear on the obligations: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4718/hardware-with-gpl-firmware
though again, nobody is actually lawyer here, probably.
Edit 2 - nevermind, the person who answered is the CTO of a company that sells products dedicated to insuring OSS license compliance: https://nexb.com/
So they probably know what is up
Last edited:
OK. I can agree with this point. The topic went off in a different direction to where I felt people wanted the Phase source code and I was thinking “no way that is going to happen”. But yeah, you are correct. To respect the copyright if the license is they must disclose the unmodified the source code then they should do it.
Do you know what Linux they run, though? If it is BSD then the requirements are different. BSD is real popular with routers, switches, etc.
buildbot
Well-known member
Yeah that could certainly be true!
They claim it is a linux based platform, but they could be confusing unix and linux (Linux Is Not Unix!) and be using something like a BSD and then they are totally within their rights to not share anything. It would also honestly be even more neat, not many BSD based cameras out there!
JeffK
Well-known member
Caveat; not a developer. But I do use a Mac.
Isn't BSD what Mac OS is based on? From when they bought NeXT and BeOS? Is iOS also based on that core BSD/Unix? Could you say the iPhone or Mac Camera is BSD based? Just curious.
Again,not a developer. But I do use a Mac.
buildbot
Well-known member
I think so! Based on this chart you are correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_history-simple.svg
It is a Unix for sure, though these days very little of the bsd remains these days. If I am not mistaken, NeXT could be described as a BSD userspace with a Mach kernel running the show. But over time a lot of that has been replaced.
But I think calling iPhones a BSD camera is pretty fair!
Ray Harrison
Well-known member
It's important to keep in mind that most companies - including Phase - aren't idiots when it comes to IP and licensing. They have packs of lawyers pouring over this sort of stuff or, at the very least, extremely well paid outside council. Especially when you sell internationally. Where I work I sometimes think there are more lawyers than other employees 
. Not to say that something couldn't "slip through the cracks" but it's less likely than you think. By all means, have fun with your time of course .
Even if you get the code (and I don't think you will), getting a build on the device without turning it into a 40k black brick will be another challenge all together.
. Not to say that something couldn't "slip through the cracks" but it's less likely than you think. By all means, have fun with your time of course .Even if you get the code (and I don't think you will), getting a build on the device without turning it into a 40k black brick will be another challenge all together.
for sure…..but infringement cases are fact-specific, and what I was trying to say is it is unlikely we have enough facts here to determine what laws to behold to who in our armchair pseudo-lawyering capacity
import bans because of infringement I usually see discussed in the context of patents and not copyrights, so yes, US CPB can hold imports based on ITC rulings and stuff for patent-infringing products, but I don’t know how that works for copyrights. That also involves multinational treaties and is more complicated than just US copyright law…
another thing to keep in mind - don’t conflate copyright infringement and license breaches - one is a federal IP issue, the other is a contract law issue, and breach of contract claims are generally state law issues (which can mean different laws in all 50 states, yay)
as always, just a for-fun forum post and not legal advice
buildbot
Well-known member
Very true! This is why I expect to get the source. GPL is a very strong license. Nothing in my day job for example can contain GPL. Nothing. Python packages that format files for you? Is it GPL? Then you can’t use it. They have lots and lots of lawyers and they are scared of it. Github Copilot has modes to disable any output matching public code, just in case that has legal implications. Is Phase One even large enough to have a lawyer on employ?It's important to keep in mind that most companies - including Phase - aren't idiots when it comes to IP and licensing. They have packs of lawyers pouring over this sort of stuff or, at the very least, extremely well paid outside council. Especially when you sell internationally. Where I work I sometimes think there are more lawyers than other employees
Even if you get the code (and I don't think you will), getting a build on the device without turning it into a 40k black brick will be another challenge all together.
buildbot
Well-known member
Exactly!!!!
Or even making sure the devices work far into the future, as any 40K electronic brick should.
Ray Harrison
Well-known member
Yes, they're large enough to have multiple lawyers - or at least very well-paid outside council who are better experts in international licensing and IP than us.
buildbot
Well-known member
This is from Phase One’s support team again…
This seems be a direct contradiction of my understanding. I am not sure Phase One read the license.
They distribute it via the backs themselves…
This seems be a direct contradiction of my understanding. I am not sure Phase One read the license.
They distribute it via the backs themselves…
Ray Harrison
Well-known member
Phase One will have read the license. Justin isn't paid to understand the nuances of it, as great a support person as he is. You're making a lot of suppositionsThis is from Phase One’s support team again…
View attachment 196516
This seems be a direct contradiction of my understanding. I am not sure Phase One read the license.
They distribute it via the backs themselves…
. If they give you the linux code, are you thinking they're going to give you all of the FPGA code too that they wrote themselves which is their IP? The Sony libraries for the sensor (assuming there are some)? Do you have a legal team ready to take on Phase to get code you may or may not be able to work with? I totally get that it would be cool to write custom code for the camera. I don't think the linux kernel is going to get you where you want to go though. And yep, there are ways to separate out proprietary code from the linux code so it's not technically a derivative.
Last edited: