Re: [linux-sunxi] GPL Violations round-up.

tor 2014-08-28 klockan 16:25 +0200 skrev Luc Verhaegen: > Plus, if we have the source code for libnand for a20, then why is > it listed on: http://linux-sunxi.org/A20#GPL_Violations We do have GPL source code for one version of libnand for A20. But NAND for all platform have reverted to binary

Re: [linux-sunxi] GPL Violations round-up.

tor 2014-08-28 klockan 18:20 +0200 skrev Michal Suchanek: > I cannot say anything about a23, a31, a80 and whatnot but I noticed > somebody provided a link for quite complete a20 SDK from which this > code comes: > https://github.com/hramrach/linux-sunxi/commit/043021b2d365894d5226ea5b6f7a0aa870dc

Re: [linux-sunxi] GPL Violations round-up.

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 02:51:56PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 02:29:46PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > On 28 August 2014 13:57, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:07:46AM +0300, Simos Xenitellis wrote: > > >> It is indeed bad blood. Let's see a few

Re: [linux-sunxi] GPL Violations round-up.

On 28 August 2014 16:25, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:07:11PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: >> On 28 August 2014 14:51, Luc Verhaegen wrote: >> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 02:29:46PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: >> > >> > Facts please. >> > >> > I know Oliver got sent a 50usd

Re: [linux-sunxi] GPL Violations round-up.

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:07:11PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > On 28 August 2014 14:51, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 02:29:46PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > > > Facts please. > > > > I know Oliver got sent a 50usd A33 tablet just now, even though he got > > told he wou

Re: [linux-sunxi] GPL Violations round-up.

On 28 August 2014 14:51, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 02:29:46PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: >> On 28 August 2014 13:57, Luc Verhaegen wrote: >> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:07:46AM +0300, Simos Xenitellis wrote: >> >> It is indeed bad blood. Let's see a few: >> >> >> >> 1. "*

Re: [linux-sunxi] GPL Violations round-up.

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 02:29:46PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > On 28 August 2014 13:57, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:07:46AM +0300, Simos Xenitellis wrote: > >> It is indeed bad blood. Let's see a few: > >> > >> 1. "*Allwinner does not

Re: [linux-sunxi] GPL Violations round-up.

On 28 August 2014 13:57, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:07:46AM +0300, Simos Xenitellis wrote: >> It is indeed bad blood. Let's see a few: >> >> 1. "*Allwinner does not actively >> participate in or support this community. In fact, it is violat

Re: [linux-sunxi] GPL Violations round-up.

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:07:46AM +0300, Simos Xenitellis wrote: > It is indeed bad blood. Let's see a few: > > 1. "*Allwinner does not actively > participate in or support this community. In fact, it is violating the > GPLv2 license

Re: [linux-sunxi] GPL Violations round-up.

Le jeudi 28 août 2014 à 10:07 +0300, Simos Xenitellis a écrit : > It is indeed bad blood. Let's see a few: What exactly is your point here? Who cares that GPL violations personally annoy people in addition to being damaging to our community? And when that is the case, how exactly is it not legitim

Re: [linux-sunxi] GPL Violations round-up.

It is indeed bad blood. Let's see a few: 1. "*Allwinner does not actively participate in or support this community. In fact, it is violating the GPLv2 license in several ways and has so far not shown willingness to resolve

Re: [linux-sunxi] GPL Violations round-up.

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:21:20 +0200 Luc Verhaegen wrote: > It is impossible to ignore this. If allwinner wishes to participate in > anything, then the first thing they should do is to adhere to copyright > law and well established open source license. Yes, it is impossible to ignore this. Howev

Re: [linux-sunxi] GPL Violations round-up.

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 11:13:36PM +0300, Simos Xenitellis wrote: > I think that there is so much bad blood that there is no way that Luc would > happily code/contribute in the future for the sun[4-7]i family of SoCs. > This family would be a dead-end for him, and perhaps another family might > be

Re: [linux-sunxi] GPL Violations round-up.

I think that there is so much bad blood that there is no way that Luc would happily code/contribute in the future for the sun[4-7]i family of SoCs. This family would be a dead-end for him, and perhaps another family might be more appropriate. I think that no matter what the outcome of this thread i

Re: [linux-sunxi] GPL Violations round-up.

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:33:02AM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote: >> Luc, why don't you file a GPL lawsuit while you're at it? You need to >> be 100% sure that we are going to get zero cooperation out of them. > > These issues have been pr

Re: [linux-sunxi] GPL Violations round-up.

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:33:02AM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote: > Luc, why don't you file a GPL lawsuit while you're at it? You need to > be 100% sure that we are going to get zero cooperation out of them. These issues have been present for a few years now, but as usual, no-one has ever docum

Re: [linux-sunxi] GPL Violations round-up.

Luc, why don't you file a GPL lawsuit while you're at it? You need to be 100% sure that we are going to get zero cooperation out of them. On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > In order to satisfy wikipedia, i have to provide a more reliable source > than our wiki. Plus, i am su

[linux-sunxi] GPL Violations round-up.

In order to satisfy wikipedia, i have to provide a more reliable source than our wiki. Plus, i am sure that very few of those who were stating that GPL violations are not as important as getting an email address, have actually looked at the wiki. So here is a rather complete list. * CedarX: re-