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

51–60 of 66 posts

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#51

Post by abofh »

isodev wrote: post #31
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 convenie…

I think you presume too much idealism. It's more along the lines of "if you want a 'free' phone, you take the shiniest one your carrier gives you for contract renewal"

Oh you want more GB's (metric unspecified)? This one is only 100 currencies more, but it'll just be five more per month for 24 months.

That's all? What about for a better camera? Oh, for a top of the line photo app, you'll want our xl series, just ten more currencies a month!

For 70% of sales, the is matters zero.

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#52

Post by oneplane »

car_analogy wrote: post #17
oneplane wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't write anything about overriding, did I? I presented a problem scenario where one plus is screwed because they are in between conflicting legal settings.

> I didn't write anything about overriding, did I? > In other words: unlikely to happen because of NDAs

Just because it's unlikely to happen doesn't mean it's overriding anything. They might simply delete all references, out-lawyer anyone who tries to sue them or simply ignore everything since they are based in China. Again, just because it is illegal doesn't mean therefore something will change. It just means it's illegal. Then you have litigation, but that might not change anything either. So the situation is the same, which means that your proposed action is unlikely to be the resulting outcome.

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#53

Post by oneplane »

yyyk2 wrote: post #27
trasz wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are real-life consequences of violating GPL, compared to breaking the NDA?

Being sued for copyright infringement.

Does that matter if the company is based in China? Unless they are mainly exporting to a western country where customs could halt imports, legal action against china hasn't been very effective.

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#54

Post by oneplane »

trasz wrote: post #22
car_analogy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I didn't write anything about overriding, did I? > In other words: unlikely to happen because of NDAs

What are real-life consequences of violating GPL, compared to breaking the NDA?

It's hard to tell since most GPL violations are simply ignored, and most NDAs are secret to begin with. In general, the NDA-spamming companies have more money than GPL-defending groups, so from that perspective a real-life consequence could be that the company has to spend money on legal either way, and might simply pick the cheapest route. In some cases (Linksys for example), making a small modification and then releasing everything that wasn't encumbered was enough to solve both issues.

In general, breaking an NDA is far more costly than violating the GPL, even if it were enforced like NDAs are.

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#55

Post by trasz »

sokoloff wrote: post #47
pengaru wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we had regulatory consumer protections at this level, I think it goes without saying the same regulations would require any such locking down during the initial provisioning would require opt-in by the consumer. The intended salient point of my previous comment is there's just no reason for this to be something impossible to navigate for the majority of users. Personally I think it's important for the provisioning…

If you had a strong regulatory framework, it seems like it would suffice for the law to include "it must be possible to install an alternate OS image without the use of tools [other than cables supplied with the device]; completely wiping the device may be required to prepare it for an alternate OS." I don't see it being a good tradeoff to make hundreds of millions of users take the action and wait out the delay of a…

It could be argued that not being able to boot alternate software, which might be necessary to diagnose the hardware, goes against the right to repair.

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#56

Post by pengaru »

trasz wrote: post #55
sokoloff wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you had a strong regulatory framework, it seems like it would suffice for the law to include "it must be possible to install an alternate OS image without the use of tools [other than cables supplied with the device]; completely wiping the device may be required to prepare it for an alternate OS." I don't see it being a good tradeoff to make hundreds of millions of users take the action and wait out the delay of a…

It could be argued that not being able to boot alternate software, which might be necessary to diagnose the hardware, goes against the right to repair.

> It could be argued that not being able to boot alternate software, which might be necessary to diagnose the hardware, goes against the right to repair.

We really need to amend Right to Repair with explicit concepts WRT programmable devices. If the software/firmware isn't strictly immutable (think a ROM in a microwave or fancy digital scale or thermometer type thing), the owner should have an ensured and reasonably facilitated Right to Reprogram (perhaps with additional clauses regarding reproducibility, i.e. ensuring owner's ability to reproduce the original mutable state as delivered at first-sale).

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#57

Post by sam_lowry_ »

car_analogy wrote: post #45
isodev wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 convenie…

> 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. I.e. anti-competitive bundling of software and hardware. There is no reason one could not buy a generic phone, the same as one buys a generic PC, and then install whatever "mainstream" OS one wants. You are also assuming that because installing an alternate OS is…

Yup. Instead of requiring USB Type C chargers EU should have required selling chargers separately.

Same for OS and computers and phones.

The setup process is already cumbersome both for Windows and for MacOS.

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#58

Post by megous »

pt_PT_guy wrote: post #29

why is so damn hard for manufacturers to release sources?

It's not hard. They should just upload the ones they used to build the image they distribute. If they don't they are just not worth buying anything from. I wish more developers would care. Are you a known license violator? No responsible disclosure for you, no "workaround in our app to make it work better on your device, fix your shit yourself", etc., etc.

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#60

Post by longtimelistnr »

usrn wrote: post #46
dagmx wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Most of these SoCs can boot from SDcards so you'd probably buy a phone+boot disk at the same time.

I really am not sure most anybody would want to deal with that. Beyond the hassle I’m not sure many people would know what to do
Post reply on HN