Nothing will come of this. Who will bother to sue?
Busybox have filed multiple lawsuits over GPL violations, and won: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits
Allwinner GPL violations
11–20 of 82 posts
Re: Allwinner GPL violations
#12This makes me think of Bunnie's "From Gongkai to Open Source": http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4297 And the general lack of compatibility between western and eastern models of imaginary property. In this example allwinner is applying the eastern "share, modify, pass around" model, which isn't compatible with the western model of strict license adherence. In Bunnie's case they're trying to adapt hardware/software…
(a) They are not sharing the source at all. (b) Don't apologise for a huge company operating worldwide and breaking the law.
I don't think he was apologising for anything, he was merely drawing a parallel.
As for not sharing the source at all, I agree, this is why I think the analogy doesn't hold, but just for reference, the Chinese companies in Bunnie's case don't officially share share anything either, and yet in practice everything is shared. It's piracy, but no one minds because they all benefit from it.
Re: Allwinner GPL violations
#13Merely a minor LGPL violation.
Re: Allwinner GPL violations
#14This makes me think of Bunnie's "From Gongkai to Open Source": http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4297 And the general lack of compatibility between western and eastern models of imaginary property. In this example allwinner is applying the eastern "share, modify, pass around" model, which isn't compatible with the western model of strict license adherence. In Bunnie's case they're trying to adapt hardware/software…
> In this example allwinner is applying the eastern "share, modify, pass around" model
How is that different than the gist of the license. And isn't the whole problem here that they didn't share?
Re: Allwinner GPL violations
#15Allwinner's SOCs are popular as Raspberry Pi-ish single-board computers for hobbyist Linux users who want a dirt-cheap home server.
What are some alternatives that have better track records with the GPL?
Re: Allwinner GPL violations
#16This makes me think of Bunnie's "From Gongkai to Open Source": http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4297 And the general lack of compatibility between western and eastern models of imaginary property. In this example allwinner is applying the eastern "share, modify, pass around" model, which isn't compatible with the western model of strict license adherence. In Bunnie's case they're trying to adapt hardware/software…
They appear to be doing "take, modify, distribute as a compiled binary blob that no one else can modify and pass around". It's hard to reconcile that with the word "share".
"Share" does not implies they are sharing freely with everyone.
It does mean that if you crack open any product built around Allwinner (or other similar SOC's), you'll find PCB's that are all close variations of each other, and if you look at the code accompanying it, you'll find plenty of "sharing" going on even if they're not sharing the source with us.
Re: Allwinner GPL violations
#17This makes me think of Bunnie's "From Gongkai to Open Source": http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4297 And the general lack of compatibility between western and eastern models of imaginary property. In this example allwinner is applying the eastern "share, modify, pass around" model, which isn't compatible with the western model of strict license adherence. In Bunnie's case they're trying to adapt hardware/software…
> In this example allwinner is applying the eastern "share, modify, pass around" model, which isn't compatible with the western model of strict license adherence.
I don't think your comment matches reality. Eastern "share, modify, pass around"? How does that even remotely match what is discussed in the google group thread? What All Winner did was to take free and open source GPL code paid for by the community (including competitors), modify said code, make binaries, ship defective non-compliant hardware and software BSP to customers and expect everyone to be silent about it. Nope. That's not an "Eastern model" at all. No need to hide their behavior behind shadowy cultural claims. AllWinner knows what they're doing is illegal.
Re: Allwinner GPL violations
#18Seems like pretty blatant and long-lived violations. Anybody know why somebody doesn't take them to court and try to get an import ban, monetary damages, or both? If the punishment for blatantly violating the GPL or LGPL for years at a time while raking in millions of dollars in profits is getting bitched at on the internet, it seems likely to me that a lot of companies will do the cost-benefit analysis and decide th…
To have standing in most places, the "somebody" would need to be an author of one of the works they have infringed on. That limits the pool substantially to begin with. Then that somebody would need to be willing to take the risk and cost of a lawsuit that could drag out for ages, with an uncertain outcome.
That's why we see as few lawsuits as we do.
Re: Allwinner GPL violations
#19Allwinner is the rare, if not the only SOC ARM chip vendor, from China that sort of embraced Linux/GPL/LGPL in a public way to some extent. The rest of those similar companies does pretty much nothing meaningful at all, they use Linux too, just no public release whatsoever. In that sense, it's the least evil as far as GPL violation goes.
Re: Allwinner GPL violations
#20Allwinner's SOCs are popular as Raspberry Pi-ish single-board computers for hobbyist Linux users who want a dirt-cheap home server. What are some alternatives that have better track records with the GPL?
I'd suggest looking at the ODROID boards from Hardkernel (http://www.hardkernel.com/).