On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:25:19AM +0200, Simos Xenitellis wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Benjamin Henrion <zoo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Simos Xenitellis > > <simos.li...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Benjamin Henrion <zoo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tuesday, March 10, 2015, Quink <wantl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> I have communicated with the author of source code of libvdecoder.so. > >>>> The code has been rewrote completely, has no relationship with FFmpeg, > >>> > >>> I don't think it would resist a binary analysis. > >>> > >> > >> Doesn't pass the code of conduct (for example, > >> http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/conduct). > > > > I don't see how I am violating any code of conduct here, quite the contrary. > > > > The issue is that you *insinuate* that the claim (no relationship with > FFmpeg) is false. > What would be the next step to such a discussion? The one side claims > no, the other yes, ad infinitum. > > For this to go forward, you or someone else needs to do this "binary > analysis". > Once the binary analysis is done and you have something to show, you > can reply with your data. In that way, such a discussion could > potentially move forward.
I have done a full symbol analysis of libvecore as shipped on the cubieboard back in august. It clearly shows ffmpeg and libavcodec vs libvp62 and other questionable code whose origins are not clear. It's a txt file, but i should still toss it onto the wiki. I have done a brief nm of the newly "LGPL"ed binary to find libavcodec and libvp62 symbols. I will happily spend a few hours and take that new library apart as i did the older one. I stated that i would do so last week, but i of course have not gotten to that yet. Having an allwinner employee state that that violating code has all been removed now, in this last... Week? That is just not credible. After legal advice has been acquired, i will be happy to do the binary analysis, accounting for every hour, and Allwinner will then end up paying for my time. I can then get the cedrus guys a wide range of hw, and stick some cash in our linux-sunxi infrastructure. Everyone wins. Except allwinner. > In terms of "code of conduct" documents, the idea is, when replying, > to move a discussion forward. > If a thread veers off, then change the Subject:, thus start a new thread. > If you find any evidence of common binary code, you can present it > respectfully > and still it is going to be strong evidence (i.e. I did > "arm-linux-gnueabihf-objdump -d libvdecoder.so" > and the same to that other lib, and function xyz matches as shown here > and here). Again, if anyone who states anything that is supporting established and proven open source licenses, licenses which allwinner has been proven, without a doubt, to breach, you want to see them removed or at least silenced. How many people will be left in that ideal linux-sunxi community of yours, and how many of them will be able to usefully contribute code, documentation, or user help in your dystopia? Luc Verhaegen. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "linux-sunxi" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to linux-sunxi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
