GPL-Violator Allwinner Joins The Linux Foundation

[bridgman]

... that's because when you're hired by a corporation that implies it's to serve the agenda of that corporation...

The point you might be missing is that there's a "rising tide lifts all boats" aspect to funding Linux development, especially when the companies doing the funding are distro vendors who make a living selling products/services/support into the Linux ecosystem. If you look at which companies are employing maintainers you'll tend to find a lot more distro vendors than, say, HW vendors or application vendors. It's not as black-and-white as you think.

Do you have any examples of situations where you think companies have influenced maintainers to make decisions they would not have made as independents ? I know there are a lot of complaints about decisions made by distro development teams (eg adoption of systemd or use of gnome) but those are not maintainer decisions.

[randomizer]

If someone violates a license then the person who released the code has the right to revoke said license. Now that said I don't think this has ever actually been tested in court against a company, and in practical terms you can't stop Allwinner from using the Linux source, but you can make it illegal for them to do so, and possibly stop imports of their product.

Even if the Linux Foundation could revoke Allwinner's licence to use the code distributed by the Linux Foundation, Allwinner can just get the code from someone else and this would be fine. Clause 6 of the GPL v2 states:

Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions.

Furthermore, if you check the less authoritative GPL FAQ it states (in the context of relicencing for exclusive use) that:

...the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.

The only reason we're picking on Allwinner is because they're a known violator. There are plenty of other smaller players violating the GPL and nobody will probably ever know. It's not an easy thing to police.

[LightBit]

If they are violating GPL, they are violating copyright law. Authors should sue them, but they rarely do, because it is expensive and slow.
That is why for individual person GPL is same shit as BSD license, CC0, or public domain.

[h**2]

If they are violating GPL, they are violating copyright law. Authors should sue them, but they rarely do, because it is expensive and slow.
That is why for individual person GPL is same shit as BSD license, CC0, or public domain.

Or you just enter an FLA with the FSFE and they sue for you?

https://fsfe.org/activities/ftf/fiduciary.en.html

[LightBit]

Or you just enter an FLA with the FSFE and they sue for you?

https://fsfe.org/activities/ftf/fiduciary.en.html

Then you are not copyright holder anymore.

[wizard69]

Delete

[wizard69]

Delete

[wizard69]

Should be pretty easy to get them to stop violating the GPL,

They are working on it, what more do you want?

now that they are in the Linux Foundation: Give them 6 months time to get their shit together, if it doesn't happen throw them out and revoke their license to use the Linux kernel, all accompanied by a huge media campaign about that.

Actually the Linux Foundation needs more manufactures involved. I'd rather see the Linux Foundation work with AllWinner to obtain broader adoption and compliance rather than to see AllWinner attacked like it has been in the past.

Nonsense! First off most of the contributors to the Linux code based are in fact working for somebody to support the kernel. Second you can't be robbed of something that you have given away.

It is far better for the Linux community to work with AllWinner to make sure the kernel gets wider acceptance. In the end all the negativity directed at AllWinner has a very negative impact on the Linux communities public image. The issue of compliance should be managed in such a way that the community wins and sets a positive example.

[wizard69]

Delete multiple post (beta software)

[wizard69]

this is textbook example of what is called conflict of interest.

Only in your warped imagination. In many cases developers are working at companies with a direct interest in Linux, as such you can't have a conflict of interest because the kernel is your interest.

you cannot do something that requires to be independent,

There is zero requirement to be independent to write code. In fact it can be counter productive. Say you are a software developer writing code for the latest GPU, access to the hardware team can make your efforts far more productive. The same thing goes for the latest CPU or applications accelerator.

when you're paid by someone, even more so paid by a big corporation, to do anything related to that, no matter you state those payments do not affect your judgement. that's because when you're hired by a corporation that implies it's to serve the agenda of that corporation.

A smart developer finds a corporation to work for that has a similar agenda. Even so do you honestly believe that people working at corporations don't have disagreements with directions taken by the corporation at large or individuals there? Seriously because you seem to imply a conflict free world if no one works for a corporation.

same way as when you're on public servant position (IMHO in FOSS spirit Linux kernel maintainer should be considered as such), then even accepting more expensive gift is corruption, that person should have no choice, but resign and then be prosecuted and eventually go to jail,

Don't take this the wrong way but I really think you need mental health help, maybe confinement. You do realize that developers need to eat, buy Coke-Cola, buy toilet paper and even take a vacation from time to time! As such they need to make money.

no matter if that gift influenced his/her decisions or not. it's just not ethical and that's the least reason, why there is conflict of interest.

There is no conflict of interest here at all. Developer, being human, need employment to pay for the things humans need to survive. As such the only way to have enough time to effectively work on that kernel is to be employed by somebody willing to support that effort. From the corporations point of view it makes sense that those employees spend a good portion of their time on the corporations products. There is no conflict of interest here unless the developer got himself hired into the wrong corporation.