Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Allwinner Continues Violating The LGPL

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Allwinner Continues Violating The LGPL

    Phoronix: Allwinner Continues Violating The LGPL

    It's been a week since Allwinner's most recent proof of violating of the (L)GPL license for FFmpeg and libVP6. In the week since, they haven't rectified the issue but today just slapped in a LICENSE file saying the non-existent code is LGPL...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...nues-Violating

  • #2
    These guys don't learn, won't learn unless they get some financial penalties.

    It amazes me when people just take gpl software, do some modifications, then think it's now their software. You want your own software, make it from scratch!

    Comment


    • #3
      They're in China, right? Now good luck then as they copy about anything. I vaguely remember saying someone in China is trying to patent Wine (the Linux app).

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by AndyChow View Post
        These guys don't learn, won't learn unless they get some financial penalties.

        It amazes me when people just take gpl software, do some modifications, then think it's now their software. You want your own software, make it from scratch!
        That's exactly why such people love the BSD licence.

        Comment


        • #5
          Technically, they don't have to post the source, they just have to make it available upon request:

          3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

          a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
          b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
          c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
          http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html

          6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.

          You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:

          a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange.
          b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
          c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord with subsection 6b.
          d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.
          e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no charge under subsection 6d.
          http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

          (Emphasis added by me.)

          Now, having said that, I don't see any written offer for the code so it seems they are still not in compliance. Hopefully the FSF or someone can smack some sense in to them, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

          Comment


          • #6
            Considering you're required to give sources of every version you release to all its users who ask for the sources and each of the users can freely redistribute the sources, it's effectively the path of least efffort just post sources of every version preemptively

            Comment


            • #7
              whatever they did, if they were forced to release sources, they'd give you the original ffmpeg sources, no build scripts, tools, no docs and no nuthin'. This is worthless.

              Comment


              • #8
                Allwinner. Whatever

                Why this fuss about breaking the LGPL? Apple has been violating it for years. Just check if you can even find any opensources packages for an iOS version newer than 6.1. And even in that the WebKit package is shipping partially binary, but they don't even bother with that trick anymore, now they just don't publish the LGPL webkit packages for iOS at all anymore (only for iOS though, the OS X version is maintained in public and sources published with every release).

                Comment


                • #9
                  complaint to Amazon

                  I have made a formal complaint to Amazon, stating that they sell or aid selling of AllWinner products. Since AllWinner make commercial gain from violating intellectual property rights, this is a criminal act in the UK, and asked them to ban all AllWinner-based products.

                  It will be interesting if they respond at all.
                  linux addict, got the scars, the grey beard and the t-shirt.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by jacob View Post
                    That's exactly why such people love the BSD licence.
                    I strongly agree here. That's exactly the reason why my company loves the BSD licenses too.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X