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

Allwinner GPL violations

groups.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 82 posts

Re: Allwinner GPL violations

#61

Post by mcguire »

ksk wrote: post #57
yellowapple wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure a significant majority would agree that generosity is an important trait for a good citizen, however. An unwillingness to share makes someone look more like an asshole.

A programmer deciding not to share the fruits of their own labor does NOT make them an asshole. The thread is about Copyright and GPL code, not everything-in-the-entire-world-that-can-be-shared.

Pretty much sure that violating a contractual agreement that you have voluntarily entered does, in fact, make you an arsehole. (Why do I have a British spell checker?)

Re: Allwinner GPL violations

#62

Post by mschuster91 »

ausjke wrote: post #19

Allwinner 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.

> The rest of those similar companies does pretty much nothing meaningful at all, they use Linux too, just no public release whatsoever.

That depends on the end manufacturer. There are lots of Mediatek source code dumps on Github, for example. The problem is that the chipset manufacturers don't actively tell their customers what they are obliged to do under the license - and so they assume that the chipset vendor has given the code and docs under "gongkai" terms.

Re: Allwinner GPL violations

#63

Post by ksk »

mcguire wrote: post #61
ksk wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A programmer deciding not to share the fruits of their own labor does NOT make them an asshole. The thread is about Copyright and GPL code, not everything-in-the-entire-world-that-can-be-shared.

Pretty much sure that violating a contractual agreement that you have voluntarily entered does, in fact, make you an arsehole. (Why do I have a British spell checker?)

And? I don't know what you're point is in bring up something I already agree on.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9114161

Re: Allwinner GPL violations

#64

Post by chc »

ksk wrote: post #35

Always interesting to see people's reactions to copyright for GPL Code vs Music/Movies/Games.

I detect a note of condescension in your comment, but I actually agree unironically: It is interesting to see people's reactions to copyright with different approaches and different situations. I think copyright is a useful tool, but I'm unhappy with the current infrastructure we have around it, so unusual cases like this help offer some perspective.

Re: Allwinner GPL violations

#65

Post by yaur »

scott00 wrote: post #8

Seems 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…

It doesn't make it right but it seems like a big part of it is ffmpeg which is one of the most common GPL violations out there. Specifically since Zeranoe's builds are GPL3 the vast majority of windows products that bundles ffmpeg (e.g. games from Funcom and EA among other) are violating the GPL.

Re: Allwinner GPL violations

#66

Post by ksk »

chc wrote: post #64
ksk wrote: post #35

Always interesting to see people's reactions to copyright for GPL Code vs Music/Movies/Games.

I detect a note of condescension in your comment, but I actually agree unironically: It is interesting to see people's reactions to copyright with different approaches and different situations. I think copyright is a useful tool, but I'm unhappy with the current infrastructure we have around it, so unusual cases like this help offer some perspective.

You're wrong. It's more a sense of amusement than anything else. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm neither a GPL fan, nor a supporter of Copyright law as-is.

Re: Allwinner GPL violations

#67

Post by chc »

ksk wrote: post #66
chc wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I detect a note of condescension in your comment, but I actually agree unironically: It is interesting to see people's reactions to copyright with different approaches and different situations. I think copyright is a useful tool, but I'm unhappy with the current infrastructure we have around it, so unusual cases like this help offer some perspective.

You're wrong. It's more a sense of amusement than anything else. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm neither a GPL fan, nor a supporter of Copyright law as-is.

My apologies, then. I read it as the common Internet usage of "always interesting" where it means "I think this is completely stupid."

Re: Allwinner GPL violations

#68

Post by jpierre »

briandh wrote: post #58
ausjke wrote: post #19

Allwinner 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.

AMLogic seems to be decent, though I haven't had to delve into it personally so I can't say for sure how complete their source releases are. See here, for instance: http://openlinux.amlogic.com:8000/download/ARM/

Not for naught, AMLogic is an American company founded and HQ'd in Santa Clara CA - though that shouldn't detract from their source releases.

Re: Allwinner GPL violations

#69

Post by khuey »

pseudonom- wrote: post #59
simosx wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I understand, until recently Allwinner has been doing kernel development with sole focus to get Android shipped as fast as possible. It is a fact that they did not work to get mainline Linux support for their SoCs. Developing for mainline might be slower but in the long-run it's better and even cheaper. I think that they are seeing this now. You can check the slides at https://fosdem.org/2015/schedule/event…

> It is a fact that they did not work to get mainline Linux support for their SoCs. Though it is possible. I got mainline Linux running on an A10.

Yeah, because the sunxi community formed and did all the work.

Re: Allwinner GPL violations

#70

Post by pseudonom- »

khuey wrote: post #69
pseudonom- wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is a fact that they did not work to get mainline Linux support for their SoCs. Though it is possible. I got mainline Linux running on an A10.

Yeah, because the sunxi community formed and did all the work.

Yeah, I didn't mean that as an endorsement of Allwinner. Just a potentially useful piece of information.
Post reply on HN