Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 66 posts

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#31

Post by isodev »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #13

This happens every new Android version with OnePlus. OnePlus releases them usually a few months behind the end of initially release cycle getting all the older phones onto the newer build. Covid has been making this worse, plus people left the team when Oppo and OnePlus merged teams. Kinda wish they would just stop doing it, but this is why phones maybe shouldn't ship with a working OS anyways and make the user suppl…

> this is why phones maybe shouldn't ship with a working OS anyways and make the user supply it instead

I think this goes against the main reason people buy phones from mainstream brands. The reason is the features and ecosystem that come with such devices.

If you are a tinkerer or prefer to install your custom OS, then you'd choose a "foss" device like the pinephone, librem or other.

If you buy a device for convenience, with the expectation that it just works, you buy an iPhone.

If you are somewhat in the middle of that spectrum, you consider an Android device where you trade some convenience with the ability to intervene more deeply with how the device works.

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#32

Post by temac »

BaseballPhysics wrote: post #10
oneplane wrote: post #7

sm8250 sounds like a Snapdragon thing from Qualcomm. In other words: unlikely to happen because of NDAs. Even if one plus wanted to it wouldn't be up to them. Edit: It seems there are a lot of FOSS warriors in here, let me clarify: historically, Qualcomm has been legally hostile with both FOSS software communities as well as with their own customers. They will not give anything for free, and if they can slap a ton of…

Then they can remove that code from their kernel tree and repackage and redistribute it as a separate binary module.

If running in kernel mode under Linux, it is debatable whether most separate binary modules can and are effectively organized in a way they can be considered not a derived work of Linux. The only one I've personally seen managing to do that without much doubt was nvidia.

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#33

Post by mdasen »

noisy_boy wrote: post #2

Genuine question: what happens if they refuse to release? How is it enforced? If the answer is going to court, who sues them? EFF?

Anyone who has copyrighted code in the kernel they're using can sue or a copyright holder can work with an organization like the EFF or Software Freedom Conservancy to sue them.

One of the big things with the Linux kernel is that it's GPLv2 and the GPLv2 doesn't offer an opportunity to come back into compliance. Any violation leads to an automatic termination to all rights. Most of the big kernel developers have said that they won't enforce GPLv2 "death penalty", but there's a lot of Linux developers out there and Linux doesn't have authors assign copyright so there's a huge number of copyright holders.

> You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

There are lots of articles on this like http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/most-android-vendors-lost..., https://www.samba.org/samba/samba/ftp/slides/linuxcollab-why...

Realistically, most of these things get settled or ignored and the world moves on with a bare minimum of enforcement.

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#34

Post by pengaru »

rafram wrote: post #23
enriquto wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So that you are not betrayed by a software that you just purchased but that you cannot change? In what way allowing this betrayal is better for anyone but the people who benefit from it (e.g. by selling your private data, or whatever their unchangeable proprietary software does)?

Of course users should be allowed to install new operating systems, but there’s no reason for the phone not to come with one at all. You don’t need to boot the stock ROM even once if you don’t want to - just boot into recovery mode and flash a new one right out of the box. A phone shipping without an operating system at all would make it unusable for the vast majority of the general public.

> A phone shipping without an operating system at all would make it unusable for the vast majority of the general public.

You're assuming the bootstrapping process is complicated, manual, and failure-prone though.

There's absolutely no reason why the initial boot couldn't simply involve plugging an included usb thumbdrive into the usb port and turning the device on. It comes on in an uninitialized state, finds an appropriate image provided by the vendor in a normalized format on the thumbdrive, tosses on the screen some information and a YES/NO option. DONE.

When the vendor is providing the phone and the image, the shit should Just Work.

But by requiring this be the initial process, we'd ensure that everyone could always easily install another image on their hardware by the same mechanism.

It literally just adds a step as difficult as plugging in the phone to charge when first turning it on.

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#35

Post by Nextgrid »

rafram wrote: post #24
snvzz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standardization of boot process, driver availability, ease of install. While at it, erradication of shovelware.

How would not shipping with an operating system accomplish those things?

If by law you can't ship your own OS then you have an incentive to make it as easy as possible for third-party OS developers to make it work with your device and to make it as easy as possible for the user to install said third-party OS.

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#36

Post by ghaff »

temac wrote: post #32
BaseballPhysics wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then they can remove that code from their kernel tree and repackage and redistribute it as a separate binary module.

If running in kernel mode under Linux, it is debatable whether most separate binary modules can and are effectively organized in a way they can be considered not a derived work of Linux. The only one I've personally seen managing to do that without much doubt was nvidia.

The binary blobs question has never really been resolved. You'll find kernel devs and other open source community members on both sides of the issue.

My sense is that most have no interest in forcing the issue. The closest (something similar) came to being forced was the VMware ESX-related GPL case but that ended up dismissed for unrelated reasons.

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#37

Post by sokoloff »

pengaru wrote: post #34
rafram wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course users should be allowed to install new operating systems, but there’s no reason for the phone not to come with one at all. You don’t need to boot the stock ROM even once if you don’t want to - just boot into recovery mode and flash a new one right out of the box. A phone shipping without an operating system at all would make it unusable for the vast majority of the general public.

> A phone shipping without an operating system at all would make it unusable for the vast majority of the general public. You're assuming the bootstrapping process is complicated, manual, and failure-prone though. There's absolutely no reason why the initial boot couldn't simply involve plugging an included usb thumbdrive into the usb port and turning the device on. It comes on in an uninitialized state, finds an app…

What prevents that initial image from locking the bootloader to prevent the installation of alternate images (possibly by blowing fuses or another OTP mechanism)?

Addressing only the first-boot problem doesn't guarantee down the line ability, which seems more important to me than first-boot ability.

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#38

Post by [deleted] »

Semaphor wrote: post #28
car_analogy wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NDA probably has explicit terms outlining the consequences of breaking it, so I can't answer that. But as for the GPL, whatever damages or remedy a court might impose for the violation of copyright. Not complying with the GPL makes this legally equivalent to distributing a copy of Star Wars: Return of the Jedi with each phone. I'm sure no-one would be dismissing that as something unlikely to bear consequences. An…

> And the law protects Star Wars and GPL'ed code equally. The law, maybe. But governments/courts protect them very unequally, as only one of them has people throwing money at politicians.

[deleted]

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#39

Post by sgjohnson »

temac wrote: post #32
BaseballPhysics wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then they can remove that code from their kernel tree and repackage and redistribute it as a separate binary module.

If running in kernel mode under Linux, it is debatable whether most separate binary modules can and are effectively organized in a way they can be considered not a derived work of Linux. The only one I've personally seen managing to do that without much doubt was nvidia.

> The only one I've personally seen managing to do that without much doubt was nvidia.

And nvidia recently decided that they actually don’t care about any of that and decided to release their sources anyway.

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#40

Post by dagmx »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #13

This happens every new Android version with OnePlus. OnePlus releases them usually a few months behind the end of initially release cycle getting all the older phones onto the newer build. Covid has been making this worse, plus people left the team when Oppo and OnePlus merged teams. Kinda wish they would just stop doing it, but this is why phones maybe shouldn't ship with a working OS anyways and make the user suppl…

> but this is why phones maybe shouldn't ship with a working OS anyways and make the user supply it instead

Do you believe this is something most people would want as a product experience, or something most people would be capable of doing?

Post reply on HN