7 ms·

Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

138 points by brethil 4y ago

noisy_boy 4y ago
Genuine question: what happens if they refuse to release? How is it enforced? If the answer is going to court, who sues them? EFF?
- IceWreck 4y ago
  Afaik anyone who contributed to the Linux kernel can sue them.
- Sesse__ 4y ago
  The short answer: It's complicated. But to give answers at face value: 1. Unfortunately, in most cases, nothing. GPL violations are rampant, and usually without serious consequence for the infringer. 2. Like any other copyright violation, through the courts. But there is a history of successful GPL enforcement by the mere threat of going to court (since what you're usually after is compliance, not damages). 3. Depends heavily on the jurisdiction, but in most of them, it certainly helps to have a copyright holder involved (I would go as far as to say it's a necessity). But you also need money, so most likely, something like the EFF or SFLC.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- warp 4y ago
  I think the Software Freedom Conservancy is probably the most active in trying to enforce GPL compliance on free software in general, and for the Linux kernel in particular. Some kernel developers have assigned their copyrights directly to the SFC, and some have signed agreements for SFC to do this enforcement on their behalf. (see https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ ) Obviously there are many people and organizations who own copyright to parts of the linux kernel, and any of those can attempt to enforce the GPL on the kernel in court.
  - pabs3 4y ago
    If Conservancy win their lawsuit against Vizio, then a precedent will be set that anyone who receives binaries based on GPL code will be able to sue for compliance, based on the third party beneficiary doctrine within contract law. This potentially depends on if the jurisdiction allows for specific performance as a remedy for contract violation. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_beneficiary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_beneficiary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance
  - onphonenow 4y ago
    Actually, the Linux kernel devs and SFC really don't see eye to eye on this. I'd say Harald Welte did a ton for GPL enforcement - really very impressive. He asked for but did not demand release of stuff he didn't have copyright for as well which normally worked. Also does a vendor FAQ - https://gpl-violations.org/faq/vendor-faq/ https://gpl-violations.org/faq/vendor-faq/ to help folks get it right.
- mdasen 4y ago
  Anyone who has copyrighted code in the kernel they're using can sue or a copyright holder can work with an organization like the EFF or Software Freedom Conservancy to sue them. One of the big things with the Linux kernel is that it's GPLv2 and the GPLv2 doesn't offer an opportunity to come back into compliance. Any violation leads to an automatic termination to all rights. Most of the big kernel developers have said that they won't enforce GPLv2 "death penalty", but there's a lot of Linux developers out there and Linux doesn't have authors assign copyright so there's a huge number of copyright holders. > You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. There are lots of articles on this like http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/most-android-vendors-lost-their-linux.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/most-android-vendors-lost..., https://www.samba.org/samba/samba/ftp/slides/linuxcollab-why-samba-went-gplv3.pdf https://www.samba.org/samba/samba/ftp/slides/linuxcollab-why... Realistically, most of these things get settled or ignored and the world moves on with a bare minimum of enforcement.
natly 4y ago
That "NEVER SETTLE" author bio here is funny in this context. I thought it the whole repo creator was some disgruntled coder who wrote it to push for never settling out of court (but it turns out to be the slogan for the phone).
- AshamedCaptain 4y ago
  It's actually OnePlus' company motto. Have done that joke to death...
oneplane 4y ago
sm8250 sounds like a Snapdragon thing from Qualcomm. In other words: unlikely to happen because of NDAs. Even if one plus wanted to it wouldn't be up to them. Edit: It seems there are a lot of FOSS warriors in here, let me clarify: historically, Qualcomm has been legally hostile with both FOSS software communities as well as with their own customers. They will not give anything for free, and if they can slap a ton of NDAs on it, they will. This isn't about if it is GPL compliant or if it is legal or not in some court somewhere in the world, it is about their track record (which is similar to Broadcom). If oneplus has unencumbered source code they have to ship it with their GPL release, if not, they did a stupid thing by being dual-encumbered by conflicting licenses and it's anyones guess what the end result is going to be.
- car_analogy 4y ago
  An NDA does not override the GPL, and does not shield from its obligations. As you say, it's "not up to them" to decide which legal obligations they will honor.
  - oneplane 4y ago
    I didn't write anything about overriding, did I? I presented a problem scenario where one plus is screwed because they are in between conflicting legal settings.
    - car_analogy 4y ago
      > I didn't write anything about overriding, did I? > In other words: unlikely to happen because of NDAs
      - trasz 4y ago
        What are real-life consequences of violating GPL, compared to breaking the NDA?
        car_analogy 4y ago
DiabloD3 4y ago
This happens every new Android version with OnePlus. OnePlus releases them usually a few months behind the end of initially release cycle getting all the older phones onto the newer build. Covid has been making this worse, plus people left the team when Oppo and OnePlus merged teams. Kinda wish they would just stop doing it, but this is why phones maybe shouldn't ship with a working OS anyways and make the user supply it instead.
- rafram 4y ago
  > this is why phones maybe shouldn't ship with a working OS anyways and make the user supply it instead. I really hope you’re joking. In what way would that be better for anyone but the most hardcore tinkerers?
  - snvzz 4y ago
    Standardization of boot process, driver availability, ease of install. While at it, erradication of shovelware.
    - rafram 4y ago
      How would not shipping with an operating system accomplish those things?
      - Nextgrid 4y ago
        If by law you can't ship your own OS then you have an incentive to make it as easy as possible for third-party OS developers to make it work with your device and to make it as easy as possible for the user to install said third-party OS.
  - enriquto 4y ago
    So that you are not betrayed by a software that you just purchased but that you cannot change? In what way allowing this betrayal is better for anyone but the people who benefit from it (e.g. by selling your private data, or whatever their unchangeable proprietary software does)?
pt_PT_guy 4y ago
why is so damn hard for manufacturers to release sources?
- megous 4y ago
  It's not hard. They should just upload the ones they used to build the image they distribute. If they don't they are just not worth buying anything from. I wish more developers would care. Are you a known license violator? No responsible disclosure for you, no "workaround in our app to make it work better on your device, fix your shit yourself", etc., etc.
- fucktelemetry 4y ago
  Why would they even bother? The weird Western altruism embedded in the GPL is completely alien to Chinese culture.

138 points by brethil 4y ago

Genuine question: what happens if they refuse to release? How is it enforced? If the answer is going to court, who sues them? EFF?

IceWreck 4y ago
Afaik anyone who contributed to the Linux kernel can sue them.
Sesse__ 4y ago
The short answer: It's complicated. But to give answers at face value: 1. Unfortunately, in most cases, nothing. GPL violations are rampant, and usually without serious consequence for the infringer. 2. Like any other copyright violation, through the courts. But there is a history of successful GPL enforcement by the mere threat of going to court (since what you're usually after is compliance, not damages). 3. Depends heavily on the jurisdiction, but in most of them, it certainly helps to have a copyright holder involved (I would go as far as to say it's a necessity). But you also need money, so most likely, something like the EFF or SFLC.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
warp 4y ago
I think the Software Freedom Conservancy is probably the most active in trying to enforce GPL compliance on free software in general, and for the Linux kernel in particular. Some kernel developers have assigned their copyrights directly to the SFC, and some have signed agreements for SFC to do this enforcement on their behalf. (see https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ ) Obviously there are many people and organizations who own copyright to parts of the linux kernel, and any of those can attempt to enforce the GPL on the kernel in court.
- pabs3 4y ago
  If Conservancy win their lawsuit against Vizio, then a precedent will be set that anyone who receives binaries based on GPL code will be able to sue for compliance, based on the third party beneficiary doctrine within contract law. This potentially depends on if the jurisdiction allows for specific performance as a remedy for contract violation. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_beneficiary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_beneficiary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance
- onphonenow 4y ago
  Actually, the Linux kernel devs and SFC really don't see eye to eye on this. I'd say Harald Welte did a ton for GPL enforcement - really very impressive. He asked for but did not demand release of stuff he didn't have copyright for as well which normally worked. Also does a vendor FAQ - https://gpl-violations.org/faq/vendor-faq/ https://gpl-violations.org/faq/vendor-faq/ to help folks get it right.
mdasen 4y ago
Anyone who has copyrighted code in the kernel they're using can sue or a copyright holder can work with an organization like the EFF or Software Freedom Conservancy to sue them. One of the big things with the Linux kernel is that it's GPLv2 and the GPLv2 doesn't offer an opportunity to come back into compliance. Any violation leads to an automatic termination to all rights. Most of the big kernel developers have said that they won't enforce GPLv2 "death penalty", but there's a lot of Linux developers out there and Linux doesn't have authors assign copyright so there's a huge number of copyright holders. > You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. There are lots of articles on this like http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/most-android-vendors-lost-their-linux.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/most-android-vendors-lost..., https://www.samba.org/samba/samba/ftp/slides/linuxcollab-why-samba-went-gplv3.pdf https://www.samba.org/samba/samba/ftp/slides/linuxcollab-why... Realistically, most of these things get settled or ignored and the world moves on with a bare minimum of enforcement.

natly 4y ago

That "NEVER SETTLE" author bio here is funny in this context. I thought it the whole repo creator was some disgruntled coder who wrote it to push for never settling out of court (but it turns out to be the slogan for the phone).

AshamedCaptain 4y ago
It's actually OnePlus' company motto. Have done that joke to death...

oneplane 4y ago

sm8250 sounds like a Snapdragon thing from Qualcomm. In other words: unlikely to happen because of NDAs. Even if one plus wanted to it wouldn't be up to them. Edit: It seems there are a lot of FOSS warriors in here, let me clarify: historically, Qualcomm has been legally hostile with both FOSS software communities as well as with their own customers. They will not give anything for free, and if they can slap a ton of NDAs on it, they will. This isn't about if it is GPL compliant or if it is legal or not in some court somewhere in the world, it is about their track record (which is similar to Broadcom). If oneplus has unencumbered source code they have to ship it with their GPL release, if not, they did a stupid thing by being dual-encumbered by conflicting licenses and it's anyones guess what the end result is going to be.

car_analogy 4y ago
An NDA does not override the GPL, and does not shield from its obligations. As you say, it's "not up to them" to decide which legal obligations they will honor.
- oneplane 4y ago
  I didn't write anything about overriding, did I? I presented a problem scenario where one plus is screwed because they are in between conflicting legal settings.
  - car_analogy 4y ago
    > I didn't write anything about overriding, did I? > In other words: unlikely to happen because of NDAs
    - trasz 4y ago
      What are real-life consequences of violating GPL, compared to breaking the NDA?
      - car_analogy 4y ago

DiabloD3 4y ago

This happens every new Android version with OnePlus. OnePlus releases them usually a few months behind the end of initially release cycle getting all the older phones onto the newer build. Covid has been making this worse, plus people left the team when Oppo and OnePlus merged teams. Kinda wish they would just stop doing it, but this is why phones maybe shouldn't ship with a working OS anyways and make the user supply it instead.

rafram 4y ago
> this is why phones maybe shouldn't ship with a working OS anyways and make the user supply it instead. I really hope you’re joking. In what way would that be better for anyone but the most hardcore tinkerers?
- snvzz 4y ago
  Standardization of boot process, driver availability, ease of install. While at it, erradication of shovelware.
  - rafram 4y ago
    How would not shipping with an operating system accomplish those things?
    - Nextgrid 4y ago
      If by law you can't ship your own OS then you have an incentive to make it as easy as possible for third-party OS developers to make it work with your device and to make it as easy as possible for the user to install said third-party OS.
- enriquto 4y ago
  So that you are not betrayed by a software that you just purchased but that you cannot change? In what way allowing this betrayal is better for anyone but the people who benefit from it (e.g. by selling your private data, or whatever their unchangeable proprietary software does)?

pt_PT_guy 4y ago

why is so damn hard for manufacturers to release sources?

megous 4y ago
It's not hard. They should just upload the ones they used to build the image they distribute. If they don't they are just not worth buying anything from. I wish more developers would care. Are you a known license violator? No responsible disclosure for you, no "workaround in our app to make it work better on your device, fix your shit yourself", etc., etc.
fucktelemetry 4y ago
Why would they even bother? The weird Western altruism embedded in the GPL is completely alien to Chinese culture.