Allwinner Continues Violating The LGPL

[lowflyer]

Technically, they don't have to post the source, they just have to make it available upon request

Please, can a brave Allwinner-owner just stand up and officially (and publicly) ask them for the sources?

[panda84]

Technically, they don't have to post the source, they just have to make it available upon request

Practically they are NOT stating that they are using LGPL or GPL code. So you (might) have to ask them for code when you have been provided the binary AND the GPL / LGPL license. Actually they're just giving out the binaries, so the problem is they're doubly violating the GPL / LGPL:

1. acting as the binaries are not using code under GPL / LGPL
2. not providing the source, even upon request (people have already requested them)

[panda84]

Please, can a brave Allwinner-owner just stand up and officially (and publicly) ask them for the sources?

See my previous post. There isn't such a thing as "official" request. Problem is they aren't even stating the source is GPL / LGPL.

Quoting the license:

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program.

[speculatrix]

So, I emailed Jeff Bezos on 4th March to ask about Amazon banning AllWinner products. Today, two days later I received an email:

Hello,

Thank you for notifying us of this alleged infringement. Please visit the below link to file a formal complaint to our investigations team:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/reports/infringement

I've forwarded your issue to our IP review team for consideration.

Each complaint they receive is investigated and the appropriate action is taken. However, we won't be able to release the outcome of the investigation.

We look forward to seeing you again soon.

Regards,

Purna Chander N.
Executive Customer Relations
Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com

That link they sent is for the owner of the IPR to complain to Amazon, with additional links for reporting problems with specific marketplace resellers.

I don't have any IPR in the linux kernel, let alone the parts which AllWinner violate, so I can't complain.

We need people whose rights are being violation to complain to Amazon to get the products banned.

[Svartalf]

I don't have any IPR in the linux kernel, let alone the parts which AllWinner violate, so I can't complain.

We need people whose rights are being violation to complain to Amazon to get the products banned.

Heh...this could be ANYONE where a portion of the Kernel is turned ON in the Amazon/Allwinner combination. The magic trick here is that you lose ALL rights to distribute the Linux kernel if you don't comply with the only license you have to distribute it. There is no parts which Allwiner violates in this mix- they're on the hook for the WHOLE of the kernel binaries they ship.

Don't comply? You lose it all for that work. If they're not complying with the terms, then they're guilty of <X> number of clear and willful violations. How many units did they ship in this condition? (Oh, and as Verizon found out...Amazon's on the hook for it as well...)

[Kano]

The media-codec is not in the kernel, openmax is userspace. You could use a binary lib together with LGPL code, but you may not link it together. I guess what will happen is that the binary part will get separated as a dynamic libary, but you wont gain much.

[AndyChow]

That's exactly why such people love the BSD licence.

That's why I hate the BSD licence. Or love/hate. If I do something, I want to get paid for it. And well. But I understand some things are bigger than me. And gpl, the internet even, it's that. It's some combination of human intellect and processing power which is universal. And if you modify it and keep it internal, it's yours. But if you want to redistrube it, it's not yours.

You can adapt gpl software and then use it to profit, but if you want to distribute it, you have to show the code.

BSD assumes you are a good guy. GPL forces you to be.

BTW, all these softwares can be modified and used internally without having to give back anything. It's just if you try to distribute it that there is a problem. I don't find GPL restrictive at all. I think only thieves think GPL is restrictive.

[bridgman]

BTW, all these softwares can be modified and used internally without having to give back anything. It's just if you try to distribute it that there is a problem. I don't find GPL restrictive at all. I think only thieves think GPL is restrictive.

The main reason for pushback against GPL is not about having to give back changes you make to the code, it's that if you build even a small amount of GPL code into an otherwise proprietary software product you have to provide source for all the proprietary code, not just changes to the GPL code. For applications or any other relatively standalone programs (where building into a much larger program is not an issue) GPL is probably the ideal license.