4 ms·

The Linux kernel sets the standard here of not really enforcing the license. Complying is additional cost and companies are not going to do it unless forced to

The Linux kernel sets the standard here of not really enforcing the license. Complying is additional cost and companies are not going to do it unless forced to. SoC manufacturers are not going to stop supporting android just because they're forced to release their changes. We're long past the days where it was questionable if open source would gain traction and everyone had to be deferential. License holders should start setting the standard of enforcing the terms of the license they chose.

michaelt 8y ago
License holders should start setting the standard of enforcing the terms of the license they chose. As I understand things, the prize if you're successful in enforcement is... a copy of the GPL appears in some sub-menu somewhere, and you get a dump of the GPL-derived source code. This dump might not compile, might not be possible to flash onto the device, and might not provide all functions. I can understand why a philanthropist with the money to pay for such a legal battle might spend it on other things instead.
- jcelerier 8y ago
  > This dump might not compile, might not be possible to flash onto the device, and might not provide all functions. no, since there are some LGPLv3 parts they would break the license if there was no easy way to go from their dump to a device with modified code.
  - stefan_ 8y ago
    Wow, you have to be crazy to just blatantly ignore LGPLv3. Coming into compliance with the kernel style GPL is easy enough, but v3 is a whole other ball game. If I was Garmin, I'd fund one of the guys they stole from to fund an injunction. Wahoo is a US company, it's easy enough.
- slededit 8y ago
  In the case of these SoCs the drivers and kernel modifications are kept hidden and under NDA. Ironically these same details are "leaked" in Chinese engineering circles because nobody there will put up with it. If release of this code was forced smaller companies would be able to make use of these SoCs. It would greatly expand access to cheap computing. The GPL and derivatives also anticipated people playing tricks wrt to compiling and forces you to release everything needed to build it.

michaelt 8y ago

License holders should start setting the standard of enforcing the terms of the license they chose. As I understand things, the prize if you're successful in enforcement is... a copy of the GPL appears in some sub-menu somewhere, and you get a dump of the GPL-derived source code. This dump might not compile, might not be possible to flash onto the device, and might not provide all functions. I can understand why a philanthropist with the money to pay for such a legal battle might spend it on other things instead.

jcelerier 8y ago
> This dump might not compile, might not be possible to flash onto the device, and might not provide all functions. no, since there are some LGPLv3 parts they would break the license if there was no easy way to go from their dump to a device with modified code.
- stefan_ 8y ago
  Wow, you have to be crazy to just blatantly ignore LGPLv3. Coming into compliance with the kernel style GPL is easy enough, but v3 is a whole other ball game. If I was Garmin, I'd fund one of the guys they stole from to fund an injunction. Wahoo is a US company, it's easy enough.
slededit 8y ago
In the case of these SoCs the drivers and kernel modifications are kept hidden and under NDA. Ironically these same details are "leaked" in Chinese engineering circles because nobody there will put up with it. If release of this code was forced smaller companies would be able to make use of these SoCs. It would greatly expand access to cheap computing. The GPL and derivatives also anticipated people playing tricks wrt to compiling and forces you to release everything needed to build it.