GH1 firmware research volunteers required

ai torito :

Thanks. You're right. I could find what you said. I had known wrong loading address..
I tried again with new loading address 0x40000000, and I have following..

mov unk_40000018, A1
jmp (A1)


What should I do to remove checksum from .bin file ?
What would I see if I remove checksum from .bin file ?
 
Maybe some of the old CHDK-developers there might even be willing to use their experience on a really decent camera for a change :D

Just to dream about all those possibilities makes me happy :)

To get this dream to become a reality I posted in the CHDK-forums for development of non-Canon-cameras to try and get some of the veteran CHDK-developers interested.
See here: http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php/topic,3630.new.html#new

Just trying to help with doing some "networking" - I hope this is okay and wanted. If not, please tell me.
 
I believe people sometimes concentrate on technical stuff instead of normal ideas, script, lighting and acting.

That's because this is a thread about technicality, and not about script, lighting, and acting. :)
Not to disregard your work, but I currently see no point in getting GF1 and G1 bodies, you are working alone and working on seperate cameras would only increase the amount of work and lessen the results..
 
I studied about checksum for mn103 series.

Sparkie from CHDK said "After every 32 bytes there's a 2 byte checksum that needs to be removed before you can start doing any disassembly."

Is there any tool to remove checksum ?
 
That's because this is a thread about technicality, and not about script, lighting, and acting.

And you re wrong here.
We must constantly remind people that real limitations lie in their minds and these things, and not in bitrate, etc.
This do not mean that we must not be trying to improve GH1, it just means that most problems are not solved by the patch.

Not to disregard your work, but I currently see no point in getting GF1 and G1 bodies, you are working alone and working on seperate cameras would only increase the amount of work and lessen the results..

And I see big point in this.
We have good reasons to get this bodies.
First, many people donated especially to have some patches ported to their cameras.
Second, we need to test many risky patches and two bodies complement each other very good in this area.
Third, I have special tools to port our work from GH1 to G1 and GF1 and back.
 
I studied about checksum for mn103 series.

You are wasting your time and my time.
As I already said, we'll get G1 nd GF1 bodies soon, so all patches will be ported.
I want to keep this project as legally clean as possible. So, porting starts as soon as they'll be bought.
CHDK guys are very good and smart, but they have legality problems written all other them and I don't want to give chance to shut this project because of this.
 
can someone explain the legalities of hacking firmware? if you're not selling anything, how are you breaking any laws? i didn't see anyone get arrested for modding their xboxes. this is the same concept. i have never once seen or heard of a person on the news that was arrested for hacking/modding an electronic. your camera, do whatever you want, you just void the warranty.
 
"selling" has nothing to do with "legal". Do you think all the people who rip and upload movies and music to free filesharing sites are "selling" something? They're not. But it's still illegal.

The owner of a copyrighted work has a right to determine how that work gets distributed, or even if it does get distributed. The firmware in a camcorder is a copyrighted piece of computer code. tester13 is taking the right approach when he refuses to redistribute someone else's copyrighted work. Instead, he's telling people where they can get it, and then allowing modification of it. If he modified it and redistributed it, then he would be violating the copyright in exactly the same degree as if someone took your film from you, changed it around a little bit, and distributed it.

Whether he's charging money for the service or not, doesn't change the underlying legal issue of taking someone else's property and distributing it without authorization. tester13 is doing it the right way.
 
Barry is right here. And to tester's point about owning a GF1, the Copyright Act states that an owner of a copy of software can copy for their own use. IANAL, but I would venture a guess that copyright issues surrounding software can get very complicated. There's the difficulty of ideas vs expression, that for software can be tricky, not to mention trade secrets, etc. I think Tester is being rather smart and has shown he knows a thing or two about this issue.
 
can someone explain the legalities of hacking firmware? if you're not selling anything, how are you breaking any laws? i didn't see anyone get arrested for modding their xboxes. this is the same concept. i have never once seen or heard of a person on the news that was arrested for hacking/modding an electronic. your camera, do whatever you want, you just void the warranty.


This was from quite a few years ago now:

Norway Cracks Down on DVD Hacker
Declan McCullagh Email 01.10.02
DeCSS developer Jon Johansen.

WASHINGTON -- Jon Johansen, a Norwegian teen hacker, has been indicted for allegedly bypassing DVD anti-copying technology.

Read More http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/01/49638#ixzz0oVrmE4f1



This hack allowed such operating systems as Linux to play DVD's, as the big studios refused to license to the 'linux' community, even if one was playing legitimately purchased DVD media.

Further, the hack allowed people, like myseilf, to play Region 2 DVD's in Region 1... because some idiot decided that people in Region 1 only want to have English, Spanish, or French (occasionally some asian languages...), in either dubbed forms or subtitled forms of disks coming from Region 2... (who ever wants anything from region 3...)

The same imbeciles are at work with Bluray which restores the regioning idiocy... HDDVD didn't have regioning...
 
Barry is right here. And to tester's point about owning a GF1, the Copyright Act states that an owner of a copy of software can copy for their own use. IANAL, but I would venture a guess that copyright issues surrounding software can get very complicated. There's the difficulty of ideas vs expression, that for software can be tricky, not to mention trade secrets, etc. I think Tester is being rather smart and has shown he knows a thing or two about this issue.


Sometimes the EULA, that everyone technically agrees to, who uses the software, even if tacitly by 'running/using' the software, has explicit anti reverse engineering clauses. You are usually granted a 'use' license, pursuant to agreeing to the terms of use.

The usual way people work is they start the machine, run the softare, and blindly click 'accept' when asked in regards to the EULA... never having read the details...
 
That also is correct, although I'm not 100% clear on how tightly an EULA binds someone. Just because something's in a contract, if it's not enforceable, then breaking that part of the contract isn't "illegal". For example, if the EULA that you blindly clicked on has a phrase that says "by accepting the terms of this contract, you agree to enslave your children for our nefarious uses", well... slavery ain't legal, so even if it's in the contract, and you agreed to it by clicking on it, you're still not bound to it... it's also been reported that the American Idol contract that the contestants sign restricts you and your family and your friends from having any personal relationships with the judges. Problem is, you can't sign a contract that binds your family and friends in any way. So, yeah, it's in the contract, but it doesn't actually mean anything.

I'm not saying the reverse-engineering clause is the same; what I'm saying is I don't know what is or isn't actually enforceable. But something as simple as redistributing the content, that's obviously enforceable.
 
I donated a few weeks ago, but it bounced back. Seeing as a GH1 is on its way, any chance that someone can set up a new Paypal account so that the money donated goes straight to Tester13's pocket?!

:)

Propernice..A while back there were some issues with the Paypal donations which have since been resolved,some others i believe experienced the same as you and Car3o and Tester sorted the problem i believe.So the Donation button on page 1 is now working.
I`m pretty sure Tester posted that any donations are purely for research purposes ie,To buy GH1 body,cards etc..not as a fee. :)
 
it's not illegal to download, games, movies or music when you own the original content. nor is it illegal to copy dvd. 2002 code to rip dvds was thrown out the door as it became free speech. i own the camera. i can do whatever i want to it. but separate topic, different debate.
 
it's not illegal to download, games, movies or music when you own the original content. nor is it illegal to copy dvd. 2002 code to rip dvds was thrown out the door as it became free speech. i own the camera. i can do whatever i want to it. but separate topic, different debate.

Car3o,

Yeah, it's a separate topic, but still related to the thread. Plus, it's already at 100+ pages :)

I do not disagree that you as an owner can do anything you want to the camera and its software. That is different from doing anything you want _with_ the camera and its software. You can take the firmware and mess with it all day long, but if you distribute any of those variations on the firmware then you cross the legal boundary. There is also a grey area if you use your reverse engineering efforts to circumvent copyright protection:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html

Tester is doing enough by just providing the patching tool.
 
This is the U.S. perspective, which may or may not be the applicable law because of the cross-jurisdictional aspect of this.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/

http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/faq.cgi

However, the U.S. law comprises a larger body of international law in this area, the principle governing treaty being the WIPO Treaty, of which many other nations are signatories and have similar such legal regimes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Organization_Copyright_Treaty

And lastly, because you can never be too careful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Sklyarov
 
Last edited:
Thanks for long and interesting legal discussion.

Here is my two cents:
US law (and DCMA) do not apply here.
From legal side we are very good, and it is best to use simple principle - solve problems after they actually arise.
Normally manufacturers are not against such projects even if clear problems can be seen.
Look at CHDK, almost all guys use illegal IDA versions, sharing of code, parts of SDK violating EULA.

meteogrande
Is it possible to replace this long post with link or something similar?

I believe it is better to move to testing audio features of last PTool versions.
 
tester,

I made some changed to wingraph32. First off, hopefully it looks nicer hehe. Removed the existing toolbar so as long as you don't really care about those cartesian fisheye coordinate buttons, it should be similar. I kept the zoom buttons.

There is now an editbox for the max depth. You can also adjust with up/down buttons. I also added realtime node content filtering too.

The latest build can be grabbed here:

http://rapidshare.com/files/389811248/wingraph32.rar.html
 
Back
Top