Re: [linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

[m . silentcreek]

Am Dienstag, 30. Juni 2015 10:34:59 UTC+2 schrieb Luc Verhaegen:
> It is time to extend the negative marketing campaign to some of 
> Allwinners customers, and truly hit Allwinner where it hurts.

While I do think that a large-scale boycott could really make a change here and 
force Allwinner to release code and comply with licenses, I also think that the 
community utterly lacks the means to achieve an effective boycott.

Let's face it. The sunxi community is too small to have a considerable impact. 
Even with the help of sites like Phoronix, you'd still be missing many, many 
hobbyists and makers who buy cheap Allwinner devices without ever having heard 
of the community or licencing issues. Many users probably become aware of these 
issues just after they purchased such a device. And even if they know, it 
doesn't necessarily mean they care (there are use cases where the current 
limitations can be ignored). This is just the end-user side. The companies who 
buy from Allwinner directly, especially those within China, are yet another 
story which makes it even more unlikely to succeed.
Furthermore, if you look around, how many cheap alternatives to the Allwinner 
ARM devices do you find that come with open and fully released code?

Now, I'm not challenging your goals and motivation. You are absolutely right to 
point out the licensing issues and demand code, docs and compliance to 
licenses. However, unless you are confident that the call for a boycott will be 
successful, I think your approach is not helping your case. If you can't hurt 
them financially, who do you think they'd cooperate with more likely: someone 
who throws shit at them constantly (exaggerated) or someone, while persistently 
and repeatingly pointing out the issues, communicates in a constructive and 
polite way?

Cheers,

Timo

-- 
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.

Re: [linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

[Rodrigo Pereira]

Remember, this is a high priority reverse engineering project:

https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/reverse-engineering

Everybody must work on that.

The linking of gpl libraries in the binaries must make the task easier.
It's counterproductive
try to hurt the image of the company in hope they will regret and do the
right thing. They already have an $9 computer that is a tremendous
marketing campaign. No way they will change their minds.

2015-06-30 5:34 GMT-03:00 Luc Verhaegen :

> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 02:19:00AM +0200, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> > tor 2015-06-25 klockan 12:13 +0200 skrev Luc Verhaegen:
> > > The bad copyright headers is just stupidity. The direct loading of
> > > non-LGPLed binaries into LGPLed code is very deliberate.
> >
> > And to my best understanding is not in any way a violation of the LGPL
> > license. Care to explain what I am missing? (ignoring any past state of
> > these files)
> >
> > If the code had been GPL licensed then sure. But this is LGPL with it's
> > implicit linking exception.
>
> Yes, you are right. I always assumed that LGPL only worked upwards, but
> after a very thorough read there is nothing in the license that clearly
> defines this.
>
> It does however seriously push the boundary of derivative work, not only
> because it is being loaded into the LGPLed library and does not work
> standalone or with other software, but more importantly because this .so
> does not function without LGPLed infrastructure provided in the top
> level software. The line becomes very blurry here, and whether this is
> derivative work or not will probably differ upon which lawyer you ask.
>
> What is clear however is that Allwinner can no longer feign innocence,
> lack of information, lack of knowledge, lack of understanding or just
> plaing old stupidity. It clearly is very much aware of what its legal
> obligations are, and is very actively feeling for where those boundaries
> truly lie, and where the lines of the LGPL license become blurry.
>
> Allwinner is trying to get away with the maximum of what it thinks it
> can get away with, and nothing has changed. Allwinner has not learned a
> single thing, and still is actively hostile towards free software, and
> has no real intention of proactively working with the linux sunxi
> community and its customers. While we all knew that to be true, this
> action is solid proof to that end.
>
> It is time to extend the negative marketing campaign to some of
> Allwinners customers, and truly hit Allwinner where it hurts.
>
> Luc Verhaegen.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "linux-sunxi" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/linux-sunxi/-YMdSF99yc0/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> linux-sunxi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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.

Re: [linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

[Luc Verhaegen]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 02:19:00AM +0200, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> tor 2015-06-25 klockan 12:13 +0200 skrev Luc Verhaegen:
> > The bad copyright headers is just stupidity. The direct loading of
> > non-LGPLed binaries into LGPLed code is very deliberate.
> 
> And to my best understanding is not in any way a violation of the LGPL
> license. Care to explain what I am missing? (ignoring any past state of
> these files)
> 
> If the code had been GPL licensed then sure. But this is LGPL with it's
> implicit linking exception.

Yes, you are right. I always assumed that LGPL only worked upwards, but 
after a very thorough read there is nothing in the license that clearly 
defines this.

It does however seriously push the boundary of derivative work, not only 
because it is being loaded into the LGPLed library and does not work 
standalone or with other software, but more importantly because this .so 
does not function without LGPLed infrastructure provided in the top 
level software. The line becomes very blurry here, and whether this is 
derivative work or not will probably differ upon which lawyer you ask.

What is clear however is that Allwinner can no longer feign innocence, 
lack of information, lack of knowledge, lack of understanding or just 
plaing old stupidity. It clearly is very much aware of what its legal 
obligations are, and is very actively feeling for where those boundaries 
truly lie, and where the lines of the LGPL license become blurry.

Allwinner is trying to get away with the maximum of what it thinks it 
can get away with, and nothing has changed. Allwinner has not learned a 
single thing, and still is actively hostile towards free software, and 
has no real intention of proactively working with the linux sunxi 
community and its customers. While we all knew that to be true, this 
action is solid proof to that end.

It is time to extend the negative marketing campaign to some of 
Allwinners customers, and truly hit Allwinner where it hurts.

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.

Re: [linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

[Manuel Braga]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 02:19:00 +0200 Henrik Nordström
 wrote:
> tor 2015-06-25 klockan 12:13 +0200 skrev Luc Verhaegen:
> > The bad copyright headers is just stupidity. The direct loading of
> > non-LGPLed binaries into LGPLed code is very deliberate.
> 
> And to my best understanding is not in any way a violation of the LGPL
> license. Care to explain what I am missing? (ignoring any past state
> of these files)

We are all IANAL. And i can only give my opinion.


> If the code had been GPL licensed then sure. But this is LGPL with
> it's implicit linking exception.

LGPL was created to allow close-source proprietary programs linking to
LGPL licensed libraries. The user can choose to not use the proprietary
program, and by doing so, this doesn't have an effect in the user
ability or in the functionality of the LGPL library, to be used in other
uses.

In this case.
A LGPL licensed library is linking with a proprietary close-source
plugin. The user can choose to not use the proprietary plugin, but by
doing so, as the "interesting" functionality  are implemented in the
close-source plugin, the user is left with nothing more that a wrapper,
which doesn't have much useful. (expecting the existence of the plugins
with source available)

Repeating the IANAL, i don't know if the LGPL license allow or not
allows this case.

But.
We should not exit the context of why this new cedarx library came to
existence. As the license issues of the older cedarx library were so
out of proportion, that the only way to resolve them, was to accept
a rewrite of a new cedarx library with equal functionally.

After all of this, to get this new cedarx library with uses proprietary
close-source plugins, only appears to be a way that allwinner is using
to escape their responsibilities.

And this behaviour is not acceptable, and should be spoken out.

As Allwinner itself wrote:
"Allwinner is joining the Linux Foundation to support Linux and to
improve what we see as two important open source software development
capabilities: collaboration and compliance,"

> 
> Regards
> Henrik
> 

-- 
Manuel Braga

-- 
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.

Re: [linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

[Manuel Braga]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 02:33:40 +0200 Henrik Nordström
 wrote:
> fre 2015-06-26 klockan 01:12 +1000 skrev Julian Calaby:
> > 
> > It's obvious what is required:
> > 1. Datasheets
> > 2. Programming manuals
> > 3. GPL compliant drivers
> > 4. (L)GPL compliant userspace stuff
> 
> > and maybe
> > 
> > 5. Some on-going contribution to the community
> 
> And
> 
> 6. That community uses and improves the free alternatives developed by
> the community instead of encouraging further bad actions in paths that
> is unlikely to ever result in anything meeting the broad community
> goals.
> 

This is rather a complicated matter, that all depends in the
definition of "community", in this case the "linux-sunxi community".

And only comes to my mind as answer: "What more do you want from us?"
Because this one side "taking" convey the felling of "whatever we do, is
not enough, and will never be enough".

What can we do?
If there are still "things" not done, is not because the people involved
in those "things", didn't work or are working harder enough. Maybe
even the opposite happened, they worked harder than they cloud, just at
the end to get their work felt unappreciated or even to the point of
being ignored.

What kind of motivation one can get, from seeing "users" (in random
places) asking/begging for open-source drivers, when those same
"users" not even acknowledge in those same asking/begging posts that we
exist.

With this conditions, is only natural to exist bigger priorities
greater than sunxi, and this is want makes us to arrive to this present
situation.


A "community" is not a community, when is always the same people
"giving", and the same people "taking".

And is my personal opinion, that the hardware vendors (the ones that are
getting monetary profit), and the users (the ones that gave money to
hardware vendors), are in fault.

Because without support, linux-sunxi community can't do more.

-- 
Manuel Braga

-- 
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.

Re: [linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

[Julian Calaby]

Hi Henrik,

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Henrik Nordström
 wrote:
> fre 2015-06-26 klockan 01:12 +1000 skrev Julian Calaby:
>>
>> It's obvious what is required:
>> 1. Datasheets
>> 2. Programming manuals
>> 3. GPL compliant drivers
>> 4. (L)GPL compliant userspace stuff
>
>> and maybe
>>
>> 5. Some on-going contribution to the community
>
> And
>
> 6. That community uses and improves the free alternatives developed by
> the community instead of encouraging further bad actions in paths that
> is unlikely to ever result in anything meeting the broad community
> goals.
>
>> They have #1 and #2 but aren't bothering to release them to us.
>
> I honestly do not believe they have any better manuals or datasheets
> than released. They have tons of other internal information (notes, CPU
> source code, talking with the person who wrote the CPU parts, etc)

I'd actually forgotten about their documentation github repository
when I wrote this, so I retract this point.

They've gotten much better at releasing documentation. I believe the
only thing they haven't directly released is documentation for the R8.

>> I believe most of the documentation we have has been obtained through
>> third parties.
>
> In past yes kind of.. but now we have
> https://github.com/allwinner-zh/documents/

Which had slipped my mind. Sigh.

>> #3 is almost happening, but with just about every code
>> release, there's something in there violating the licence.
>
> Community have also come very far in making clean GPL drivers for most
> components, including CedarX.

Oh, definitely. Cedarus appears to be as complete, if not more
complete than their official drivers. The mainline drivers I've seen
appear to be better than what Allwinner produces in almost every way.
My point here is that this is due to the community's efforts, not
Allwinner's.

>> We're
>> arguing over their lack of ability on #4 and their employees (with
>> the
>> possible exception of Kevin, who pops up every so often to announce
>> something) are absent from the community. This isn't hard, there are
>> thousands of companies doing it.
>
> No, we are arguing over AW repeatedly doing the same licensing
> mistakes.

Which makes the stuff they release not (L)GPL compliant. As I see it,
this is the same thing, just stated differently, but then I take an
absolutist view on licence compliance.

> Absense from the community is not strange. From a community perspective
> it would be very desireable that AW employees were more active in the
> community, but I fully understand that this is not an easy task to
> accomplish. Most AW employees have access to internal information, and
> likely bound by restrictions in both contract and cultural difference.

I understand that it's difficult, however a lot of companies have
succeeded in this. My knowledge of this is mostly from the WiFi
subsystem where the entire community is (for the most part) lead by
people employed by Intel, Qualcomm and Broadcom. Yes, they are huge
companies and Allwinner is tiny in comparison, but I'm not expecting
them to run our community here, all I'm hoping for someone who'll
essentially be a gateway between Allwinner corporate and us. Even if
they just pass out documentation, snippets of code and answer
technical questions promptly, (or if they can't answer them, explain
why) that'll be enough. Kevin appears to be doing most of that, but
he's not very active.

Thanks,

-- 
Julian Calaby

Email: julian.cal...@gmail.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/

-- 
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.

Re: [linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

[Henrik Nordström]

fre 2015-06-26 klockan 01:12 +1000 skrev Julian Calaby:
> 
> It's obvious what is required:
> 1. Datasheets
> 2. Programming manuals
> 3. GPL compliant drivers
> 4. (L)GPL compliant userspace stuff

> and maybe
> 
> 5. Some on-going contribution to the community

And

6. That community uses and improves the free alternatives developed by
the community instead of encouraging further bad actions in paths that
is unlikely to ever result in anything meeting the broad community
goals.

> They have #1 and #2 but aren't bothering to release them to us.

I honestly do not believe they have any better manuals or datasheets
than released. They have tons of other internal information (notes, CPU
source code, talking with the person who wrote the CPU parts, etc)

> I believe most of the documentation we have has been obtained through
> third parties.

In past yes kind of.. but now we have 
https://github.com/allwinner-zh/documents/


> #3 is almost happening, but with just about every code
> release, there's something in there violating the licence.

Community have also come very far in making clean GPL drivers for most
components, including CedarX.

> We're
> arguing over their lack of ability on #4 and their employees (with 
> the
> possible exception of Kevin, who pops up every so often to announce
> something) are absent from the community. This isn't hard, there are
> thousands of companies doing it.

No, we are arguing over AW repeatedly doing the same licensing
mistakes.

Absense from the community is not strange. From a community perspective
it would be very desireable that AW employees were more active in the
community, but I fully understand that this is not an easy task to
accomplish. Most AW employees have access to internal information, and
likely bound by restrictions in both contract and cultural difference.

Regards
Henrik

-- 
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.

Re: [linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

[Henrik Nordström]

tor 2015-06-25 klockan 12:13 +0200 skrev Luc Verhaegen:
> The bad copyright headers is just stupidity. The direct loading of
> non-LGPLed binaries into LGPLed code is very deliberate.

And to my best understanding is not in any way a violation of the LGPL
license. Care to explain what I am missing? (ignoring any past state of
these files)

If the code had been GPL licensed then sure. But this is LGPL with it's
implicit linking exception.

Regards
Henrik

-- 
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.

Re: [linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

[Clement Wong]

Hey buddy,

This issue has been fixed in the repo, so please don’t using aggressive words in
regards of this issue. It’s just mean to reply to their action with “nothing 
more than Software Pirates”.
They did actually wrote those code by themselves, and give them out for free, 
and it’s no under
restriction of GPL since they are not apart of the original program but modules.
See 
https://github.com/allwinner-zh/media-codec/commit/a912bbe300d522e199001bd903bab22e54eff37b
 

 .

I think Allwinner needs more encouragement than criticism now, as they are doing
some actual good works here.
I also think this whole drama was just a mistake made by Allwinner during the 
open sourcing process,
as all those files states that they were written from 2008, and I’m guessing 
that they just forgot to change
a few files’ header before they submit the code. Honestly Chinese companies 
does not care about licensing, they
only care if they should open source the code, once it is open source, they 
won’t think of licensing because
licensing of source code means not much in China.

Sure there are more works to be resolved, but they are in action, and wish them 
the best.

Clement

> On Jun 27, 2015, at 7:09 PM, rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 3:19:54 PM UTC+3, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> It's been a month since Allwinners big "open source" release, where they 
>> tried to shut up the big (and very justified) GPL violations noise by 
>> releasing some code which moves decoder codecs into modules, and by 
>> releasing some codecs as open source as well. As i predicted then, 
>> Allwinner now has taken the next step:
>> 
>> They produced a binary for the decoder, which is loaded in:
>> https://github.com/allwinner-zh/media-codec/blob/72f2b8537/sunxi-cedarx/SOURCE/vencoder/venc_device.c
>> 
>> Note the "Proprietary" license notice on top of this and other new 
>> files.
>> 
>> Even if we ignore the past, all of this is built together with LGPLed 
>> code, and the binary is being dlopened into this LGPLed code. Quite 
>> illegally so.
>> 
>> This is further deliberate avoidance of responsibility by Allwinner. One 
>> can only assume that Allwinner is incorrigible at this point. They have 
>> been told time and time again what is wrong and they have time and time 
>> again been given possible ways out, in great detail. All we get though, 
>> is microsteps to take off the heat, followed by further deliberate 
>> breaking/bending of the rules.
>> 
>> This also sheds a further shadow on the C.H.I.P. project. Clearly the 
>> Next Thing Co. guys were very gullible when they went into business with 
>> Allwinner (and believed the statements made by allwinner). Later during 
>> the run of the kickstarter campaign, after all the noise had been made 
>> on the internet about GPL Violations, Next Thing Co. loudly claimed that 
>> they are working the Free Electrons and that all promises of open 
>> sourceness and such would be kept (all?). While this move in itself was 
>> very laudable, it did underline the fact that Next Thing Co. had not 
>> done its homework beforehand. Now Allwinner does this, which clearly 
>> goes in against everything the Next Thing Co. people have promised us so 
>> far...
>> 
>> Allwinner has some explaining to do (as does Next Thing Co, to a lesser 
>> extent).
>> 
>> Luc Verhaegen.
> 
> == OFFTOPIC: ==
> 
> It is obvious after all this years that Allwinner are nothing more than 
> Software Pirates.
> 
> Years ago I was very naive hoping that the rise of these Chinese ARM chip 
> manufacturers would prevent Intel from taking over the embedded industry also.
> But because of their unlimited level of incompetency, unfortunately Intel has 
> already won even before the war has started.
> 
> You can't really expect a company with a thieves mindset to get the big 
> picture and make smart decisions they are always looking to make a quick buck.
> 
> -- 
> 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 
> .

-- 
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.

Re: [linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

[Clement Wong]

> From: allwinner-zh 
> Date: 26 June 2015 08:00:21 CEST
> To: allwinner-zh/media-codec 
> Subject: Re: [media-codec] Unsuitable copyright text in some source code 
> files (#8)
> Reply-To: allwinner-zh/media-codec 
> 
> 
> Thank you very much for your constructive suggestion, it has been fixed.
> 
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
> 



Clement

> On 25 Jun 2015, at 17:12, Julian Calaby  wrote:
> 
> Hi Simos,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 7:56 PM, 'Simos Xenitellis' via linux-sunxi
>  wrote:
>> Let's dissect.
> 
> Yes, let's dissect.
> 
>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Andrés Domínguez  
>>> wrote:
>>> 2015-06-24 21:25 GMT+02:00 Simos Xenitellis :
 
 If something needs to get fixed in those repositories
 (https://github.com/allwinner-zh/),
 point it out constructively.
>>> 
>>> Sorry, I didn't make the infringement statement and I don't know about it, 
>>> but
>>> knowing about allwinner's past behavior and libv it's clear that it has some
>>> credibility.
>> 
>> Here you say "it's clear" for a reference to _past behaviour_, while a
>> more appropriate
>> wording would be "I assume". You *assume* it has some credibility.
> 
> Allwinner's past behaviour is very clear. They release stuff without
> checking that it complies with the license they release it under then
> appear to ignore it (or at least don't communicate) when the
> community, us, rightly complains.
> 
> As for libv, arguably he's just the messenger here, the person who
> shouts the loudest about this. The fact that he keeps shouting this
> message when things don't change is commendable.
> 
> And you know what, he's right: GPL violations are serious business and
> ignoring them is simply not a viable strategy for anyone involved. Luc
> has been consistently right on this subject from the very beginning,
> that's credibility.
> 
>> You also use the term "past behavior", which is a term that probably
>> means a different thing
>> to each recipient of these emails. It is not constructive to use such
>> terms; in those
>> TV shows that depict family problems, you get to see family members picking
>> on each other for things that happened in the past, remaining stuck 
>> perpetually
>> for that other thing in the past.
> 
> I outlined the behaviour I, and a lot of other people, perceive from
> companies like Allwinner in my previous email. Again, it's very clear.
> 
> Are you saying that we shouldn't argue about serious legal issues
> because they happened in the past? Yet you attack Luc for the things
> he's done in the past. What exactly are you trying to argue here?
> 
> So maybe you're trying to argue that we should focus less on the past
> and more on the future. Focusing less on the past isn't going to
> happen. These are, again, serious legal issues, they're not going to
> just go away. As for focusing on the future, we've made it very clear
> what we want from Allwinner: (L)GPL compliant code to replace the
> binary blobs they keep releasing. Very simple.
> 
>>> What I criticized was your non constructive attitude with libv
>>> just because you don't like their way to say things, instead of explaining 
>>> why
>>> do you think that you are right and others are wrong.
>> 
>> My point has been that if there are things in the repository that
>> should be fixed,
>> then point them out and explain them.
> 
> This isn't just about some little changes in a repository. This is
> about a systematic company practice of violating the licence
> agreements the software their continued existence is built on.
> 
> As far as I know, every single SoC they've produced since the A10 has
> had GPL issues. _Every_ one. There's a saying: "Once is happenstance.
> Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action." We've seen
> this happen for ~9 different products. This is not a coincidence any
> more.
> 
>>> And no, saying that
>>> header files are easy to fix (it seems that you don't understand that 
>>> changing
>>> license text is not enough, but also fulfilling with the LGPL conditions, 
>>> like
>>> releasing source code) don't matter in this topic. About "Such cases occur
>>> frequently with many companies" (I doubt it) is sad if true.
>> 
>> Let's see a recent case.
>> It's about the MediaTek kernel for the bq E4.5 phone Ubuntu Edition,
>> and the post was written by Carsten Munk,
>> http://mer-project.blogspot.gr/2015/03/some-doubts-about-gpl-licensing-and-bq.html
>> Phoronix covered it with style,
>> https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=BQ-Ubuntu-Phone-Bad-Kernel
>> It was about header files and here is the commit that fixed it,
>> https://github.com/bq/aquaris-E4.5/commit/34cf494bca625acad06274c3cba10aca148813c0
> 
> You're missing the forest for the trees: the point is that code with
> proprietary licenses shouldn't have been released in the first place.
> It might be easy to change, the point was that the change didn't
> happen before it left their hands.
> 
> In the case of the BQ Ubunt

Re: [linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

[Julian Calaby]

Hi Simos,

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 7:56 PM, 'Simos Xenitellis' via linux-sunxi
 wrote:
> Let's dissect.

Yes, let's dissect.

> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Andrés Domínguez  
> wrote:
>> 2015-06-24 21:25 GMT+02:00 Simos Xenitellis :
>>>
>>> If something needs to get fixed in those repositories
>>> (https://github.com/allwinner-zh/),
>>> point it out constructively.
>>
>> Sorry, I didn't make the infringement statement and I don't know about it, 
>> but
>> knowing about allwinner's past behavior and libv it's clear that it has some
>> credibility.
>
> Here you say "it's clear" for a reference to _past behaviour_, while a
> more appropriate
> wording would be "I assume". You *assume* it has some credibility.

Allwinner's past behaviour is very clear. They release stuff without
checking that it complies with the license they release it under then
appear to ignore it (or at least don't communicate) when the
community, us, rightly complains.

As for libv, arguably he's just the messenger here, the person who
shouts the loudest about this. The fact that he keeps shouting this
message when things don't change is commendable.

And you know what, he's right: GPL violations are serious business and
ignoring them is simply not a viable strategy for anyone involved. Luc
has been consistently right on this subject from the very beginning,
that's credibility.

> You also use the term "past behavior", which is a term that probably
> means a different thing
> to each recipient of these emails. It is not constructive to use such
> terms; in those
> TV shows that depict family problems, you get to see family members picking
> on each other for things that happened in the past, remaining stuck 
> perpetually
> for that other thing in the past.

I outlined the behaviour I, and a lot of other people, perceive from
companies like Allwinner in my previous email. Again, it's very clear.

Are you saying that we shouldn't argue about serious legal issues
because they happened in the past? Yet you attack Luc for the things
he's done in the past. What exactly are you trying to argue here?

So maybe you're trying to argue that we should focus less on the past
and more on the future. Focusing less on the past isn't going to
happen. These are, again, serious legal issues, they're not going to
just go away. As for focusing on the future, we've made it very clear
what we want from Allwinner: (L)GPL compliant code to replace the
binary blobs they keep releasing. Very simple.

>> What I criticized was your non constructive attitude with libv
>> just because you don't like their way to say things, instead of explaining 
>> why
>> do you think that you are right and others are wrong.
>
> My point has been that if there are things in the repository that
> should be fixed,
> then point them out and explain them.

This isn't just about some little changes in a repository. This is
about a systematic company practice of violating the licence
agreements the software their continued existence is built on.

As far as I know, every single SoC they've produced since the A10 has
had GPL issues. _Every_ one. There's a saying: "Once is happenstance.
Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action." We've seen
this happen for ~9 different products. This is not a coincidence any
more.

>> And no, saying that
>> header files are easy to fix (it seems that you don't understand that 
>> changing
>> license text is not enough, but also fulfilling with the LGPL conditions, 
>> like
>> releasing source code) don't matter in this topic. About "Such cases occur
>> frequently with many companies" (I doubt it) is sad if true.
>>
>
> Let's see a recent case.
> It's about the MediaTek kernel for the bq E4.5 phone Ubuntu Edition,
> and the post was written by Carsten Munk,
> http://mer-project.blogspot.gr/2015/03/some-doubts-about-gpl-licensing-and-bq.html
> Phoronix covered it with style,
> https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=BQ-Ubuntu-Phone-Bad-Kernel
> It was about header files and here is the commit that fixed it,
> https://github.com/bq/aquaris-E4.5/commit/34cf494bca625acad06274c3cba10aca148813c0

You're missing the forest for the trees: the point is that code with
proprietary licenses shouldn't have been released in the first place.
It might be easy to change, the point was that the change didn't
happen before it left their hands.

In the case of the BQ Ubuntu phone issue, a company released thousands
of lines of code and got a couple of bits wrong. In our case we're
looking at a source release that touched 29 files. 9 were added with
unusable headers: that's 1/3 of the files they touched and almost 70%
of the code they released. This sort of thing doesn't happen by
accident. This was deliberate. Also, it was almost a week ago, if it's
such a small change, why hasn't it been made?

> The way I see the whole situation is this: It is true that Allwinner
> did not make effort over the years
> for mainline Linux kernel support. Whatever su

Re: [linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

[Michal Suchanek]

Hello,

On 25 June 2015 at 11:56, 'Simos Xenitellis' via linux-sunxi
 wrote:

> The way I see the whole situation is this: It is true that Allwinner
> did not make effort over the years
> for mainline Linux kernel support. Whatever support is there for the
> A10, A13, A20, etc,
> is the result of the hard work of this community. Working on mainline
> support is initially expensive
> in terms of resources but builds an ecosystem and opens up markets. It
> makes business sense.
>
> As a community, we need to figure out what we need from Allwinner.
> Do we need specific SoC information so that we do the mainline effort
> on our own? And among all things that can be asked,
> we prioritize to those that are really needed at the moment.
> Do we need Allwinner to fund some developers so that they work
> full-time on this? We would need to start talking about goals and
> targets.
>

The goal in general is to get enough information and/or opensource
properly licensed code to run GNU/Linux and *BSD on the allwinner SoCs
with full feature support on current and future versions of these
systems.

Given that we have reverse-engineered documentation for Cedar there is
really not much technical benefit in Allwinner releasing the Cedar
driver source with proper licensing so it can be reused as-is. It
might be mere convenience to reuse some of the code.

On the other hand, given the documentation exists there is little
reason for Allwinner to pretend there are secrets protected by not
releasing the code.

There is also legal obligation to release the source of the binaries
of ffmepg which is (L)GPL even after adding the proprietary bits. That
said the ffmpeg author(s) do not seem to press the legal issue.

Overall the Cedar discussion is pretty much pointless. It only
restarts for no good when somebody (from Allwinner or otherwise)
points at the repo and says "Look, allwinner released the Cedar
sources" and then there is half of the implementation or binary blob.

So to say it clearly:

To fulfill the legal obligations to the letter allwinner has to
release the full source under (L)GPL compatible license of all the
Cedar codec binaries it released in the past since it has been pointed
out that these binaries contain substantial portions of ffmpeg which
is (L)GPL licensed. Using (L)GPL code brings this obligation.

To fulfill the obligation in spirit without possibly infringing on
license of some third party proprietary modules linked into said
ffmpeg binaries Allwinner could release an alternative fully
opensource and (L)GPL compatible codec implementing all the features
of those binaries.

Given that this isn't really needed for the goal of getting full
support for Allwinner SoCs I personally do not really care if such
thing happens or not. It might change for future revisions of the
codec with new features, though.

Thanks

Michal

-- 
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.

Re: [linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

[Luc Verhaegen]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 12:56:37PM +0300, 'Simos Xenitellis' via linux-sunxi 
wrote:
> 
> My point has been that if there are things in the repository that
> should be fixed,
> then point them out and explain them.

The bad copyright headers is just stupidity. The direct loading of 
non-LGPLed binaries into LGPLed code is very deliberate.

We could very well push for a full and complete release of the original 
code, and get Allwinner in even more legal trouble with other parties. 
Or, and this is, or was if allwinner keeps this bullshit up, clearly 
what i was aiming for, Allwinner plays nice and releases _everything_ in 
freshly written code which does not violate the IP/copyright of non-open 
source participants. Allwinner clearly does not want to go there, so 
perhaps we should go do what we legally can do.

> The way I see the whole situation is this: It is true that Allwinner
> did not make effort over the years
> for mainline Linux kernel support. Whatever support is there for the
> A10, A13, A20, etc,
> is the result of the hard work of this community. Working on mainline
> support is initially expensive
> in terms of resources but builds an ecosystem and opens up markets. It
> makes business sense.
> 
> As a community, we need to figure out what we need from Allwinner.
> Do we need specific SoC information so that we do the mainline effort
> on our own? And among all things that can be asked,
> we prioritize to those that are really needed at the moment.
> Do we need Allwinner to fund some developers so that they work
> full-time on this? We would need to start talking about goals and
> targets.

Stop it, you are just stalling.

Allwinner knows what we want, but it very clearly does not want to give 
it.

Let me quote a recent comment on phoronix:
> But to find people accusing phoronix of "copy-paste journalism" (which 
> as far as I know would be no crime) and at the same time justifying a 
> multimillion company for taking the work of others and infringing the 
> law is astonishing. So big companies must be prompty excused and 
> gently persuaded that obeying the law is good for them so that they 
> maybe can find a way to further their profits even without selling 
> other people's (companies and volunteers) works without their consent, 
> but a website must be required to excel in journalistic fact-checking 
> and never blow the whistle? What's next ? Are they going to arrest me 
> for public disorder if I cry "thief!" at someone running away with my 
> wallet ? Someone which of course has a different enterpreneurship 
> culture, faces neck-breaking competition and tries hard to improve 
> best practices in his pickpocketing cutting edge innovation, so should 
> be invited to tea in a cozy lobby at his earliest convenience and 
> nicely begged (again) asking to maybe please return the wallet or at 
> least some documents there when he can spare a little moment and 
> kindly get his busy fingers to it.

Simos, you are not in any way credible. You very one-sidedly chose 
Allwinners side, and have always downplayed allwinners legal 
obligations. Whatever Allwinner has promised you or is paying you, it is 
being wasted, as very few people take you seriously. You are noise, and 
are wasting a lot of our time in the process, and on top of that giving 
Allwinner false ideas of what they could potentially get away with.

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.

Re: [linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

['Simos Xenitellis' via linux-sunxi]

Let's dissect.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Andrés Domínguez  wrote:
> 2015-06-24 21:25 GMT+02:00 Simos Xenitellis :
>>
>> If something needs to get fixed in those repositories
>> (https://github.com/allwinner-zh/),
>> point it out constructively.
>
> Sorry, I didn't make the infringement statement and I don't know about it, but
> knowing about allwinner's past behavior and libv it's clear that it has some
> credibility.

Here you say "it's clear" for a reference to _past behaviour_, while a
more appropriate
wording would be "I assume". You *assume* it has some credibility.

You also use the term "past behavior", which is a term that probably
means a different thing
to each recipient of these emails. It is not constructive to use such
terms; in those
TV shows that depict family problems, you get to see family members picking
on each other for things that happened in the past, remaining stuck perpetually
for that other thing in the past.

> What I criticized was your non constructive attitude with libv
> just because you don't like their way to say things, instead of explaining why
> do you think that you are right and others are wrong.

My point has been that if there are things in the repository that
should be fixed,
then point them out and explain them.

> And no, saying that
> header files are easy to fix (it seems that you don't understand that changing
> license text is not enough, but also fulfilling with the LGPL conditions, like
> releasing source code) don't matter in this topic. About "Such cases occur
> frequently with many companies" (I doubt it) is sad if true.
>

Let's see a recent case.
It's about the MediaTek kernel for the bq E4.5 phone Ubuntu Edition,
and the post was written by Carsten Munk,
http://mer-project.blogspot.gr/2015/03/some-doubts-about-gpl-licensing-and-bq.html
Phoronix covered it with style,
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=BQ-Ubuntu-Phone-Bad-Kernel
It was about header files and here is the commit that fixed it,
https://github.com/bq/aquaris-E4.5/commit/34cf494bca625acad06274c3cba10aca148813c0


The way I see the whole situation is this: It is true that Allwinner
did not make effort over the years
for mainline Linux kernel support. Whatever support is there for the
A10, A13, A20, etc,
is the result of the hard work of this community. Working on mainline
support is initially expensive
in terms of resources but builds an ecosystem and opens up markets. It
makes business sense.

As a community, we need to figure out what we need from Allwinner.
Do we need specific SoC information so that we do the mainline effort
on our own? And among all things that can be asked,
we prioritize to those that are really needed at the moment.
Do we need Allwinner to fund some developers so that they work
full-time on this? We would need to start talking about goals and
targets.

Simos

-- 
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.

Re: [linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

[Andrés Domínguez]

2015-06-24 21:25 GMT+02:00 Simos Xenitellis :
>
> If something needs to get fixed in those repositories
> (https://github.com/allwinner-zh/),
> point it out constructively.

Sorry, I didn't make the infringement statement and I don't know about it, but
knowing about allwinner's past behavior and libv it's clear that it has some
credibility. What I criticized was your non constructive attitude with libv
just because you don't like their way to say things, instead of explaining why
do you think that you are right and others are wrong. And no, saying that
header files are easy to fix (it seems that you don't understand that changing
license text is not enough, but also fulfilling with the LGPL conditions, like
releasing source code) don't matter in this topic. About "Such cases occur
frequently with many companies" (I doubt it) is sad if true.

Andrés

-- 
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.

Re: [linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

[Luc Verhaegen]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:25:16PM +0300, 'Simos Xenitellis' via linux-sunxi 
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:51 PM,   wrote:
> 
> If something needs to get fixed in those repositories
> (https://github.com/allwinner-zh/),
> point it out constructively.
> It is constructive to pinpoint the list of files that need changing, as in
> https://github.com/allwinner-zh/media-codec/issues/8
> 
> Simos

Ben and Kevin had been told in the region of a dozen times that all 
those files needed to be LGPLed. There has been no excuse for 
misunderstanding this. Their lack of comprehension is very deliberate, 
and can only be understood as deceipt.

And that is how i understand you as well.

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.

Re: [linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

['Simos Xenitellis' via linux-sunxi]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:51 PM,   wrote:
> On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 3:29:18 PM UTC+2, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is another 'Luc drama' installment
>
> We are talking about licence infringement, but you talk
> as if the crime were how a guy with lack of social
> intelligence writes an email. Wow, I'm very surprised by
> your moral principles.

If something needs to get fixed in those repositories
(https://github.com/allwinner-zh/),
point it out constructively.
It is constructive to pinpoint the list of files that need changing, as in
https://github.com/allwinner-zh/media-codec/issues/8

Simos

-- 
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.

Re: [linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

[jonsm...@gmail.com]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:57 PM,   wrote:
> On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 5:45:38 PM UTC+2, Jon Smirl wrote:
>>
>> Personally I'm more of a believer in positive reinforcement than
>> negative. In general I would say that at the top levels Allwinner
>> still does not totally understand the benefits of the open source
>> world.
>
> They know the benefits of open source, they are making tons of
> money thanks to linux, android or gcc.

Now that Allwinner went public a few weeks ago, we can see that they
are running at break-even to a small loss. That's not making tons of
money.

The benefit to us is sub-$5 chips when many other vendors charge
$25-80 for similar chips.

Having said that, they did raise $100M in the IPO so they have enough
money now to increase their level of Linaro membership and hire a
company or consultants to get their kernel mainlined for all CPUs.


>
> Andrés
>
> --
> 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.



-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsm...@gmail.com

-- 
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.

Re: [linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

[andresdju]

On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 3:29:18 PM UTC+2, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This is another 'Luc drama' installment

We are talking about licence infringement, but you talk
as if the crime were how a guy with lack of social
intelligence writes an email. Wow, I'm very surprised by
your moral principles.

> , full of loaded, sentimental phrases.
> Just like watching another episode of "The Thick of It" while it has
> ceased to be funny any more.
> The main character in that series is trying to be the central figure
> by being ferocious on anything
> that does not go through him first. All that leads to a dysfunctional result 
> and
> makes the viewers think: do we really need that? Finest satire that
> show, I tell you.
> 
> Are we able to get any important bits out of the sentimental stuff?

Your email is more melodramatic than Luc's, you got it!
>From there your email didn't even got sense.

Andrés

-- 
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.

Re: [linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

[andresdju]

On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 5:45:38 PM UTC+2, Jon Smirl wrote:
> 
> Personally I'm more of a believer in positive reinforcement than
> negative. In general I would say that at the top levels Allwinner
> still does not totally understand the benefits of the open source
> world.

They know the benefits of open source, they are making tons of
money thanks to linux, android or gcc.

Andrés

-- 
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.

Re: [linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

[Clement Wong]

Guys,

I think Jon is just saying how all hardware (and hardware + software) companies 
think,
not just for AW, same apply to Nvidia, AMD, Apple, etc.
So there isn’t really much we should troll here.

I personally believe AW has valid reason internally why not to open source 
directly
but taking time to open up piece by piece, as reviewing code to make sure it is 
not
violating copyrights is a huge task even for us a western company.

Therefore I believe and encourage AW taking action to this license issue, and 
keep
improving the driver, although it takes time.

I hope there would be a day that all hardware companies will work with mainline 
kernel
community in order to compete, but for now we’ll need to be shaking hands and 
keep
encouraging each others, instead of throwing shit.

Big thanks to all that concerns.

Clement

> On Jun 22, 2015, at 7:59 PM, Manuel Braga  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 12:07:24 -0400 "jonsm...@gmail.com"
>  wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Rodrigo Pereira
>>  wrote:
>>> I don't understand any advantages of put a device driver code in
>>> secret. Someone can explain the advantage of a secret device
>>> driver? Maybe is about money. They want to license the code to some
>>> company and charge money for that. In case I want to buy the source
>>> code, how much this will cost?
>> 
>> There are many reasons for keeping device drivers code secret...
> 
> I am answering, not to oppose this points, but because i believe that
> this answer should be complemented in the context of allwinner's video
> engine. That has been in the focus of this discussions. So here goes.
> 
> 
>> 1) You believe you have an innovative hardware implementation and are
>> protecting it via trade secret. Releasing the driver source code will
>> provide register definitions and an understanding of how the hardware
>> works. Competitors will see this and copy your hardware.
> 
> Register definitions, which in large part have been already Reverse
> Engineered by the people involved in the Cedrus effort, that had
> started 2 years ago and which results can be seen in the wiki for
> everyone that wants to see.
> http://linux-sunxi.org/VE_Register_guide
> 
> What little is still missing is only a question of priorities and
> needs, because as everyone can see, this information was and is
> more than enough for the creation of a working vdpau implementation.
> http://linux-sunxi.org/Cedrus
> https://github.com/linux-sunxi/libvdpau-sunxi
> 
> There is nothing to hide.
> 
> 
>> 
>> 2) Your hardware implementation is violating patents or you are afraid
>> that people will sue you for patent infringement even when you aren't.
>> Closed source makes it much hard for trolls to launch a patent suit.
> 
> This patent trolls will not be very successful if they can be stopped by
> close source software, or are the patent trolls too greed to paid
> someone to look for targets.
> 
> This video engine was already successful reverse engineered, where it
> was found that this video engine hardware is of fixed-function-kind.
> Meaning that everything (the codec) are done by the hardware in the
> silicon die. The software driver task in only one of feeding the
> hardware.
> 
> All the secrets or patenta are in the hardware, and not in the software.
> 
> 
>> 3) You have licensed third party code for use in your device driver
>> and you don't have the ability to open source. The third party that
>> wrote this code wants to sell it multiple times so they refuse to open
>> source.  Common example -- lighting or physic engines in GPU drivers.
> 
> Then here, the solution is to rewrite what can not be open-sourced, 
> and as this video engine is very simples, this is not difficult task.
> 
> As can be seen, by the current cedarx driver, which is a rewrite.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 4) You are afraid competitors with similar hardware will take the
>> source you have worked hard to write, modify a few lines, and have a
>> free driver for their hardware.
> 
> Free, like taking the linux kernel source and the android kernel source,
> and modify to add support for the some particular socs.
> Or by taking some LGPL license source code and include in a video
> engine driver.
> 
> 
>> 
>> 5) Your hardware is really messed up and almost broken. These warts
>> are embarrassing and you hide the work arounds in closed source.
> 
> Actually, this video engine is not bad.
> It has some (hardware) limitations, but this has been improving in
> newer versions, and up to now, i only found one undefined (maybe
> better to say unexpected because should not happen in normal use)
> This to say, that this video engine hardware is very well behaved,
> whatever can be writing to registers or whatever state the hardware get
> into, can always be recovered from.
> 
> 
>> 6) You licensed the IP for the hardware. As part of the IP licensing
>> agreement you are required to keep the register definitions closed.
> 
> Register definitions that are already here,
> http

Re: [linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

[jonsm...@gmail.com]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Julian Calaby  wrote:
> Hi Simos,
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:28 PM, 'Simos Xenitellis' via linux-sunxi
>  wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Luc Verhaegen  wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is another 'Luc drama' installment, full of loaded, sentimental phrases.
>> Just like watching another episode of "The Thick of It" while it has
>> ceased to be funny any more.
>> The main character in that series is trying to be the central figure
>> by being ferocious on anything
>> that does not go through him first. All that leads to a dysfunctional result 
>> and
>> makes the viewers think: do we really need that? Finest satire that
>> show, I tell you.
>>
>> Are we able to get any important bits out of the sentimental stuff?
>
> Obvious troll is obvious, but I'm taking the bait anyway.
>
>>> It's been a month since Allwinners big "open source" release, where they
>>> tried to shut up the big (and very justified) GPL violations noise by
>>
>> "shut up"
>>
>>> releasing some code which moves decoder codecs into modules, and by
>>> releasing some codecs as open source as well. As i predicted then,
>>
>> "i predicted"
>
> Come on. It's not like this is hard to predict. I've predicted parts
> of what happens. Am I going to get called out over it now?
>
> Almost every occurrence of GPL violations happens the same way:
>
> 1. Community calls out company for not following the rules
> 2. Company tries to ignore it
> 3. Company does a half-hearted release
> 4. Company doesn't change.
>
> It's rare (but thankfully getting less rare) that a company completely opens 
> up.
>
> People, not just Luc, have been calling out Allwinner for years over
> their GPL violations. They've tried ignoring it, they've done a couple
> of half-hearted releases, but ultimately they haven't changed: they're
> still releasing (partially) closed source drivers. The only difference
> is that this time the amount of GPL / LGPL violation is less clear.
>
>>> Allwinner now has taken the next step:
>>>
>>> They produced a binary for the decoder, which is loaded in:
>>> https://github.com/allwinner-zh/media-codec/blob/72f2b8537/sunxi-cedarx/SOURCE/vencoder/venc_device.c
>>>
>>> Note the "Proprietary" license notice on top of this and other new
>>> files.
>>>
>>
>> The licence text in a header file. It's one of the easy things to fix.
>> Such cases occur frequently with many companies. There was a similar
>> issue earlier
>> and got fixed.
>
> A proprietary license means either:
> 1. This wasn't officially released
> 2. They don't care
> 3. They're hoping that we use it and then sue us over it later.
>
> Yes, it's easy to change, but we _cannot_ use proprietary licensed
> stuff as it can kill potentially thriving projects.
>
> E.g. The first generation of TI's WiFi cards have a driver that cannot
> be mainlined as the developers _might_ have peeked at stuff they
> shouldn't have - so if it were mainlined and TI decided to sue over
> it, there would be serious consequences which might affect the
> entirety of Linux. Yes, the developer certificate of origin should
> limit the damage, but I don't believe it's been legally tested yet.
> Nobody wants to find out what would happen in this situation.
>
>>> Even if we ignore the past, all of this is built together with LGPLed
>>> code, and the binary is being dlopened into this LGPLed code. Quite
>>> illegally so.
>>>
>>
>> The question is, what options are there for an LGPL library to use
>> dynamically other (non-LGPL) code,
>> or how can your program use that LGPL library and dynamically some
>> other (closed-source) code as well.
>>
>> Here is a good summary,
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works
>
> This isn't about proprietary code using (L)GPL code, it's about (L)GPL
> using proprietary code. This is a whole different kettle of fish and
> _very_ murky legally.
>
> Don't jump to conclusions.
>
>>> This is further deliberate avoidance of responsibility by Allwinner. One
>>> can only assume that Allwinner is incorrigible at this point. They have
>>> been told time and time again what is wrong and they have time and time
>>> again been given possible ways out, in great detail. All we get though,
>>> is microsteps to take off the heat, followed by further deliberate
>>> breaking/bending of the rules.
>>>
>>
>> "deliberate breaking/bending of the rules"
>>
>> One may ask, "deliberate"? (if it is even really "breaking/bending").
>> On the Internet apparently it does not matter if you justify a claim.
>
> They could release the source, they haven't and haven't justified
> this, therefore it's deliberate. The code makes it clear that they
> didn't just "forget" to include the source for this blob.
>
>>> This also sheds a further shadow on the C.H.I.P. project. Clearly the
>>> Next Thing Co. guys were very gullible when they went into business with
>>> Allwinner (and believed the statements made by allwinner). Later d

Re: [linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

[Julian Calaby]

Hi Simos,

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:28 PM, 'Simos Xenitellis' via linux-sunxi
 wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Luc Verhaegen  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> This is another 'Luc drama' installment, full of loaded, sentimental phrases.
> Just like watching another episode of "The Thick of It" while it has
> ceased to be funny any more.
> The main character in that series is trying to be the central figure
> by being ferocious on anything
> that does not go through him first. All that leads to a dysfunctional result 
> and
> makes the viewers think: do we really need that? Finest satire that
> show, I tell you.
>
> Are we able to get any important bits out of the sentimental stuff?

Obvious troll is obvious, but I'm taking the bait anyway.

>> It's been a month since Allwinners big "open source" release, where they
>> tried to shut up the big (and very justified) GPL violations noise by
>
> "shut up"
>
>> releasing some code which moves decoder codecs into modules, and by
>> releasing some codecs as open source as well. As i predicted then,
>
> "i predicted"

Come on. It's not like this is hard to predict. I've predicted parts
of what happens. Am I going to get called out over it now?

Almost every occurrence of GPL violations happens the same way:

1. Community calls out company for not following the rules
2. Company tries to ignore it
3. Company does a half-hearted release
4. Company doesn't change.

It's rare (but thankfully getting less rare) that a company completely opens up.

People, not just Luc, have been calling out Allwinner for years over
their GPL violations. They've tried ignoring it, they've done a couple
of half-hearted releases, but ultimately they haven't changed: they're
still releasing (partially) closed source drivers. The only difference
is that this time the amount of GPL / LGPL violation is less clear.

>> Allwinner now has taken the next step:
>>
>> They produced a binary for the decoder, which is loaded in:
>> https://github.com/allwinner-zh/media-codec/blob/72f2b8537/sunxi-cedarx/SOURCE/vencoder/venc_device.c
>>
>> Note the "Proprietary" license notice on top of this and other new
>> files.
>>
>
> The licence text in a header file. It's one of the easy things to fix.
> Such cases occur frequently with many companies. There was a similar
> issue earlier
> and got fixed.

A proprietary license means either:
1. This wasn't officially released
2. They don't care
3. They're hoping that we use it and then sue us over it later.

Yes, it's easy to change, but we _cannot_ use proprietary licensed
stuff as it can kill potentially thriving projects.

E.g. The first generation of TI's WiFi cards have a driver that cannot
be mainlined as the developers _might_ have peeked at stuff they
shouldn't have - so if it were mainlined and TI decided to sue over
it, there would be serious consequences which might affect the
entirety of Linux. Yes, the developer certificate of origin should
limit the damage, but I don't believe it's been legally tested yet.
Nobody wants to find out what would happen in this situation.

>> Even if we ignore the past, all of this is built together with LGPLed
>> code, and the binary is being dlopened into this LGPLed code. Quite
>> illegally so.
>>
>
> The question is, what options are there for an LGPL library to use
> dynamically other (non-LGPL) code,
> or how can your program use that LGPL library and dynamically some
> other (closed-source) code as well.
>
> Here is a good summary,
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works

This isn't about proprietary code using (L)GPL code, it's about (L)GPL
using proprietary code. This is a whole different kettle of fish and
_very_ murky legally.

Don't jump to conclusions.

>> This is further deliberate avoidance of responsibility by Allwinner. One
>> can only assume that Allwinner is incorrigible at this point. They have
>> been told time and time again what is wrong and they have time and time
>> again been given possible ways out, in great detail. All we get though,
>> is microsteps to take off the heat, followed by further deliberate
>> breaking/bending of the rules.
>>
>
> "deliberate breaking/bending of the rules"
>
> One may ask, "deliberate"? (if it is even really "breaking/bending").
> On the Internet apparently it does not matter if you justify a claim.

They could release the source, they haven't and haven't justified
this, therefore it's deliberate. The code makes it clear that they
didn't just "forget" to include the source for this blob.

>> This also sheds a further shadow on the C.H.I.P. project. Clearly the
>> Next Thing Co. guys were very gullible when they went into business with
>> Allwinner (and believed the statements made by allwinner). Later during
>> the run of the kickstarter campaign, after all the noise had been made
>> on the internet about GPL Violations, Next Thing Co. loudly claimed that
>> they are working the Free Electrons and that all promises 

Re: [linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

[Luc Verhaegen]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 04:28:56PM +0300, 'Simos Xenitellis' via linux-sunxi 
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Luc Verhaegen  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is another 'Luc drama' installment, full of loaded, sentimental phrases.
> Just like watching another episode of "The Thick of It" while it has
> ceased to be funny any more.
> The main character in that series is trying to be the central figure
> by being ferocious on anything
> that does not go through him first. All that leads to a dysfunctional result 
> and
> makes the viewers think: do we really need that? Finest satire that
> show, I tell you.
> 
> Are we able to get any important bits out of the sentimental stuff?
> 
> > It's been a month since Allwinners big "open source" release, where they
> > tried to shut up the big (and very justified) GPL violations noise by
> 
> "shut up"
> 
> > releasing some code which moves decoder codecs into modules, and by
> > releasing some codecs as open source as well. As i predicted then,
> 
> "i predicted"
> 
> > Allwinner now has taken the next step:
> >
> > They produced a binary for the decoder, which is loaded in:
> > https://github.com/allwinner-zh/media-codec/blob/72f2b8537/sunxi-cedarx/SOURCE/vencoder/venc_device.c
> >
> > Note the "Proprietary" license notice on top of this and other new
> > files.
> >
> 
> The licence text in a header file. It's one of the easy things to fix.
> Such cases occur frequently with many companies. There was a similar
> issue earlier
> and got fixed.
> 
> > Even if we ignore the past, all of this is built together with LGPLed
> > code, and the binary is being dlopened into this LGPLed code. Quite
> > illegally so.
> >
> 
> The question is, what options are there for an LGPL library to use
> dynamically other (non-LGPL) code,
> or how can your program use that LGPL library and dynamically some
> other (closed-source) code as well.
> 
> Here is a good summary,
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works
> 
> > This is further deliberate avoidance of responsibility by Allwinner. One
> > can only assume that Allwinner is incorrigible at this point. They have
> > been told time and time again what is wrong and they have time and time
> > again been given possible ways out, in great detail. All we get though,
> > is microsteps to take off the heat, followed by further deliberate
> > breaking/bending of the rules.
> >
> 
> "deliberate breaking/bending of the rules"
> 
> One may ask, "deliberate"? (if it is even really "breaking/bending").
> On the Internet apparently it does not matter if you justify a claim.
> 
> > This also sheds a further shadow on the C.H.I.P. project. Clearly the
> > Next Thing Co. guys were very gullible when they went into business with
> > Allwinner (and believed the statements made by allwinner). Later during
> > the run of the kickstarter campaign, after all the noise had been made
> > on the internet about GPL Violations, Next Thing Co. loudly claimed that
> > they are working the Free Electrons and that all promises of open
> > sourceness and such would be kept (all?). While this move in itself was
> > very laudable, it did underline the fact that Next Thing Co. had not
> > done its homework beforehand. Now Allwinner does this, which clearly
> > goes in against everything the Next Thing Co. people have promised us so
> > far...
> >
> 
> Apparently, this e-mail is meant for those like Phoronix, so that they
> can rehash without checking
> and quickly repost.
> 
> Is there really need for such drama? The A13 has been largely
> mainlined by members of this community
> and the R8, being a bit different, needs some extra work. Instead of
> making it a volunteer effort to linux-sunxi,
> they are working with Free Electrons in order to fix any issues
> pertaining to mainline support.
> 
> Simos

You can stop attempting to justify Allwinners' (and their partners') 
actions now, it's simply no longer credible.

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.

Re: [linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

['Simos Xenitellis' via linux-sunxi]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Luc Verhaegen  wrote:
> Hi,
>

Hi,

This is another 'Luc drama' installment, full of loaded, sentimental phrases.
Just like watching another episode of "The Thick of It" while it has
ceased to be funny any more.
The main character in that series is trying to be the central figure
by being ferocious on anything
that does not go through him first. All that leads to a dysfunctional result and
makes the viewers think: do we really need that? Finest satire that
show, I tell you.

Are we able to get any important bits out of the sentimental stuff?

> It's been a month since Allwinners big "open source" release, where they
> tried to shut up the big (and very justified) GPL violations noise by

"shut up"

> releasing some code which moves decoder codecs into modules, and by
> releasing some codecs as open source as well. As i predicted then,

"i predicted"

> Allwinner now has taken the next step:
>
> They produced a binary for the decoder, which is loaded in:
> https://github.com/allwinner-zh/media-codec/blob/72f2b8537/sunxi-cedarx/SOURCE/vencoder/venc_device.c
>
> Note the "Proprietary" license notice on top of this and other new
> files.
>

The licence text in a header file. It's one of the easy things to fix.
Such cases occur frequently with many companies. There was a similar
issue earlier
and got fixed.

> Even if we ignore the past, all of this is built together with LGPLed
> code, and the binary is being dlopened into this LGPLed code. Quite
> illegally so.
>

The question is, what options are there for an LGPL library to use
dynamically other (non-LGPL) code,
or how can your program use that LGPL library and dynamically some
other (closed-source) code as well.

Here is a good summary,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works

> This is further deliberate avoidance of responsibility by Allwinner. One
> can only assume that Allwinner is incorrigible at this point. They have
> been told time and time again what is wrong and they have time and time
> again been given possible ways out, in great detail. All we get though,
> is microsteps to take off the heat, followed by further deliberate
> breaking/bending of the rules.
>

"deliberate breaking/bending of the rules"

One may ask, "deliberate"? (if it is even really "breaking/bending").
On the Internet apparently it does not matter if you justify a claim.

> This also sheds a further shadow on the C.H.I.P. project. Clearly the
> Next Thing Co. guys were very gullible when they went into business with
> Allwinner (and believed the statements made by allwinner). Later during
> the run of the kickstarter campaign, after all the noise had been made
> on the internet about GPL Violations, Next Thing Co. loudly claimed that
> they are working the Free Electrons and that all promises of open
> sourceness and such would be kept (all?). While this move in itself was
> very laudable, it did underline the fact that Next Thing Co. had not
> done its homework beforehand. Now Allwinner does this, which clearly
> goes in against everything the Next Thing Co. people have promised us so
> far...
>

Apparently, this e-mail is meant for those like Phoronix, so that they
can rehash without checking
and quickly repost.

Is there really need for such drama? The A13 has been largely
mainlined by members of this community
and the R8, being a bit different, needs some extra work. Instead of
making it a volunteer effort to linux-sunxi,
they are working with Free Electrons in order to fix any issues
pertaining to mainline support.

Simos

-- 
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.

[linux-sunxi] Further Allwinner misbehaviour.

[Luc Verhaegen]

Hi,

It's been a month since Allwinners big "open source" release, where they 
tried to shut up the big (and very justified) GPL violations noise by 
releasing some code which moves decoder codecs into modules, and by 
releasing some codecs as open source as well. As i predicted then, 
Allwinner now has taken the next step:

They produced a binary for the decoder, which is loaded in:
https://github.com/allwinner-zh/media-codec/blob/72f2b8537/sunxi-cedarx/SOURCE/vencoder/venc_device.c

Note the "Proprietary" license notice on top of this and other new 
files.

Even if we ignore the past, all of this is built together with LGPLed 
code, and the binary is being dlopened into this LGPLed code. Quite 
illegally so.

This is further deliberate avoidance of responsibility by Allwinner. One 
can only assume that Allwinner is incorrigible at this point. They have 
been told time and time again what is wrong and they have time and time 
again been given possible ways out, in great detail. All we get though, 
is microsteps to take off the heat, followed by further deliberate 
breaking/bending of the rules.

This also sheds a further shadow on the C.H.I.P. project. Clearly the 
Next Thing Co. guys were very gullible when they went into business with 
Allwinner (and believed the statements made by allwinner). Later during 
the run of the kickstarter campaign, after all the noise had been made 
on the internet about GPL Violations, Next Thing Co. loudly claimed that 
they are working the Free Electrons and that all promises of open 
sourceness and such would be kept (all?). While this move in itself was 
very laudable, it did underline the fact that Next Thing Co. had not 
done its homework beforehand. Now Allwinner does this, which clearly 
goes in against everything the Next Thing Co. people have promised us so 
far...

Allwinner has some explaining to do (as does Next Thing Co, to a lesser 
extent).

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.