GPL-Violator Allwinner Joins The Linux Foundation

[const]

*Puts on tin-foil hat*
Fix the society, not the well-intending companies.

i am talking facts, you're talking BS and i am the tin-foil hat?! when maintainers are from those "well-intending companies" of yours, no any small company or individual have any influence on the development and decisions that are made like API, etc. that's freedom - no, it's not!!

[bridgman]

I don't think anyone is discouraging or rejecting independent maintainers. The time required to be a subsystem maintainer makes it difficult for anyone who isn't doing at least some of the work as part of their paying job, but even so I don't think that is the explanation.

Many of the maintainers I know started doing the job as independents, but anyone demonstrating the skills and experience to be a good maintainer is going to also be a very attractive choice when companies active in Linux have positions open.

So look what happens -- people start working as independent maintainers, many of them eventually get hired by large companies, they keep doing the maintainer job the same way they had previously (maybe with a bit more time to do the work) but now "OMG all of the maintainers are controlled by big evil companies".

[jo-erlend]

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

Yes, _that's_ a good idea; let's react to GPL violations by violating the GPL. That'll teach them!

[Luke_Wolf]

...is this even doable? It may be possible to somehow prevent them from using the trademark, but not from forking, changing the name, keeping up with the mainline changes and carrying on like nothing happened.

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.

[Luke_Wolf]

Yes, _that's_ a good idea; let's react to GPL violations by violating the GPL. That'll teach them!

There's nothing that violates the GPL about revoking the license of someone who breaks the license. In fact that's kinda the whole point of the GPL isn't it?

[const]

<snip>So look what happens -- people start working as independent maintainers, many of them eventually get hired by large companies, they keep doing the maintainer job the same way they had previously (maybe with a bit more time to do the work) but now "OMG all of the maintainers are controlled by big evil companies".

this is textbook example of what is called conflict of interest. you cannot do something that requires to be independent, 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. 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, 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.

[duby229]

I don't think anyone is discouraging or rejecting independent maintainers. The time required to be a subsystem maintainer makes it difficult for anyone who isn't doing at least some of the work as part of their paying job, but even so I don't think that is the explanation.

Many of the maintainers I know started doing the job as independents, but anyone demonstrating the skills and experience to be a good maintainer is going to also be a very attractive choice when companies active in Linux have positions open.

So look what happens -- people start working as independent maintainers, many of them eventually get hired by large companies, they keep doing the maintainer job the same way they had previously (maybe with a bit more time to do the work) but now "OMG all of the maintainers are controlled by big evil companies".

Agreed 100%. OSS developers deserve to get paid. Those companies that hire devs are great for the whole OSS movement.

Companies may be evil, but it isn't evil to pay people what they deserve.

[MoonMoon]

Yes, _that's_ a good idea; let's react to GPL violations by violating the GPL. That'll teach them!

How is it violating the GPL when it is revoked due to them violating the license?

[const]

Agreed 100%. OSS developers deserve to get paid. Those companies that hire devs are great for the whole OSS movement.

Companies may be evil, but it isn't evil to pay people what they deserve.

apples and oranges... OSS developer is one thing, Linux kernel maintainer is another...

[duby229]

apples and oranges... OSS developer is one thing, Linux kernel maintainer is another...

What's the difference? Would you prefer a kernel where subsystems only compile on the kernel version they were originally written on? I wouldn't.