7 ms·

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.

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
        The NDA probably has explicit terms outlining the consequences of breaking it, so I can't answer that. But as for the GPL, whatever damages or remedy a court might impose for the violation of copyright. Not complying with the GPL makes this legally equivalent to distributing a copy of Star Wars: Return of the Jedi with each phone. I'm sure no-one would be dismissing that as something unlikely to bear consequences. And the law protects Star Wars and GPL'd code equally.
        Semaphor 4y ago
        > And the law protects Star Wars and GPL'ed code equally. The law, maybe. But governments/courts protect them very unequally, as only one of them has people throwing money at politicians.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - yyyk2 4y ago
        Being sued for copyright infringement.
        oneplane 4y ago
        Does that matter if the company is based in China? Unless they are mainly exporting to a western country where customs could halt imports, legal action against china hasn't been very effective.
      - oneplane 4y ago
        It's hard to tell since most GPL violations are simply ignored, and most NDAs are secret to begin with. In general, the NDA-spamming companies have more money than GPL-defending groups, so from that perspective a real-life consequence could be that the company has to spend money on legal either way, and might simply pick the cheapest route. In some cases (Linksys for example), making a small modification and then releasing everything that wasn't encumbered was enough to solve both issues. In general, breaking an NDA is far more costly than violating the GPL, even if it were enforced like NDAs are.
    - oneplane 4y ago
      Just because it's unlikely to happen doesn't mean it's overriding anything. They might simply delete all references, out-lawyer anyone who tries to sue them or simply ignore everything since they are based in China. Again, just because it is illegal doesn't mean therefore something will change. It just means it's illegal. Then you have litigation, but that might not change anything either. So the situation is the same, which means that your proposed action is unlikely to be the resulting outcome.
BaseballPhysics 4y ago
Then they can remove that code from their kernel tree and repackage and redistribute it as a separate binary module.
- oneplane 4y ago
  Well, go tell them I guess? Thanks for your reply anyway.
- temac 4y ago
  If running in kernel mode under Linux, it is debatable whether most separate binary modules can and are effectively organized in a way they can be considered not a derived work of Linux. The only one I've personally seen managing to do that without much doubt was nvidia.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    The binary blobs question has never really been resolved. You'll find kernel devs and other open source community members on both sides of the issue. My sense is that most have no interest in forcing the issue. The closest (something similar) came to being forced was the VMware ESX-related GPL case but that ended up dismissed for unrelated reasons.
    - teddyh 4y ago
      This is not the “binary blobs” issue (which is still debated, as you say). This is the “binary kernel modules” issue, which is pretty much settled: Even though they are commonly used and distributed, the kernel can never explicitly allow it! This is what would happen if they did: https://lwn.net/Articles/162686/ https://lwn.net/Articles/162686/
      - maxloh 4y ago
        What's the situation now? Did kernel developers revert their decision?
my123 4y ago
Btw, Qualcomm and MediaTek do _not_ block kernel source releases by OEMs in any way. You will still want to get the source tree from the OEM even for new devices though. While the GKI means that kernels are the same across recent devices, kernel modules and device tree sources for the specific device aren't part of that.
- oneplane 4y ago
  They don't block source releases indeed, but only for unencumbered sources. What the ODM should probably have done is either make it out-of-tree or make an unencumbered implementation (if that is the problem at all) and ship that. Or maybe they just made a mistake or were lazy and will include it after the weekend when people are actually back at work.

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
      The NDA probably has explicit terms outlining the consequences of breaking it, so I can't answer that. But as for the GPL, whatever damages or remedy a court might impose for the violation of copyright. Not complying with the GPL makes this legally equivalent to distributing a copy of Star Wars: Return of the Jedi with each phone. I'm sure no-one would be dismissing that as something unlikely to bear consequences. And the law protects Star Wars and GPL'd code equally.
      - Semaphor 4y ago
        > And the law protects Star Wars and GPL'ed code equally. The law, maybe. But governments/courts protect them very unequally, as only one of them has people throwing money at politicians.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - yyyk2 4y ago
      Being sued for copyright infringement.
      - oneplane 4y ago
        Does that matter if the company is based in China? Unless they are mainly exporting to a western country where customs could halt imports, legal action against china hasn't been very effective.
    - oneplane 4y ago
      It's hard to tell since most GPL violations are simply ignored, and most NDAs are secret to begin with. In general, the NDA-spamming companies have more money than GPL-defending groups, so from that perspective a real-life consequence could be that the company has to spend money on legal either way, and might simply pick the cheapest route. In some cases (Linksys for example), making a small modification and then releasing everything that wasn't encumbered was enough to solve both issues. In general, breaking an NDA is far more costly than violating the GPL, even if it were enforced like NDAs are.
  - oneplane 4y ago
    Just because it's unlikely to happen doesn't mean it's overriding anything. They might simply delete all references, out-lawyer anyone who tries to sue them or simply ignore everything since they are based in China. Again, just because it is illegal doesn't mean therefore something will change. It just means it's illegal. Then you have litigation, but that might not change anything either. So the situation is the same, which means that your proposed action is unlikely to be the resulting outcome.

BaseballPhysics 4y ago

Then they can remove that code from their kernel tree and repackage and redistribute it as a separate binary module.

oneplane 4y ago
Well, go tell them I guess? Thanks for your reply anyway.
temac 4y ago
If running in kernel mode under Linux, it is debatable whether most separate binary modules can and are effectively organized in a way they can be considered not a derived work of Linux. The only one I've personally seen managing to do that without much doubt was nvidia.
- ghaff 4y ago
  The binary blobs question has never really been resolved. You'll find kernel devs and other open source community members on both sides of the issue. My sense is that most have no interest in forcing the issue. The closest (something similar) came to being forced was the VMware ESX-related GPL case but that ended up dismissed for unrelated reasons.
  - teddyh 4y ago
    This is not the “binary blobs” issue (which is still debated, as you say). This is the “binary kernel modules” issue, which is pretty much settled: Even though they are commonly used and distributed, the kernel can never explicitly allow it! This is what would happen if they did: https://lwn.net/Articles/162686/ https://lwn.net/Articles/162686/
    - maxloh 4y ago
      What's the situation now? Did kernel developers revert their decision?

my123 4y ago

Btw, Qualcomm and MediaTek do _not_ block kernel source releases by OEMs in any way. You will still want to get the source tree from the OEM even for new devices though. While the GKI means that kernels are the same across recent devices, kernel modules and device tree sources for the specific device aren't part of that.

oneplane 4y ago
They don't block source releases indeed, but only for unencumbered sources. What the ODM should probably have done is either make it out-of-tree or make an unencumbered implementation (if that is the problem at all) and ship that. Or maybe they just made a mistake or were lazy and will include it after the weekend when people are actually back at work.