3 ms·

I think your real question here is: Is GPL enforceable in a Chinese court? This is something the 3D printer firmware Marlin deals with, Chinese 3D printer vend

I think your real question here is: Is GPL enforceable in a Chinese court? This is something the 3D printer firmware Marlin deals with, Chinese 3D printer vendors are infamous for using Marlin on their devices but not releasing any source. Chinese vendors want an exception to keep their source closed for a limited time, which isn't something the Marlin project can grant without the agreement of every contributor. I wouldn't grant a GPL exception on my contributions and many others feel the same way. Chinese printer vendors think China is a special enough case to get a free pass. (btw don't disagree with Naomi Wu about this or she'll consider you a "harasser" and block you) In theory, China is a signatory to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, so the GPL should be binding in a Chinese court like it has been proven in US courts. In practice, there is precedent that two separate Chinese courts don't give a damn about the GPL: https://www.chinaiplawyer.com/china-court-protects-violation-gpl-license-agreement/ https://www.chinaiplawyer.com/china-court-protects-violation... So good luck. If you don't like how Xiaomi handle their devices, vote with your wallet and don't buy them.

yorwba 4y ago
> In practice, there is precedent that two separate Chinese courts don't give a damn about the GPL: https://www.chinaiplawyer.com/china-court-protects-violation-gpl-license-agreement/ https://www.chinaiplawyer.com/china-court-protects-violation... The GPLv3 states https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you. so I think the two courts were correct in concluding that the former employee did not have a license to his former employer's unpublished modifications to GPL code. Maybe there is precedent of courts not giving a damn about the GPL, but that example isn't such a case.

yorwba 4y ago

> In practice, there is precedent that two separate Chinese courts don't give a damn about the GPL: https://www.chinaiplawyer.com/china-court-protects-violation-gpl-license-agreement/ https://www.chinaiplawyer.com/china-court-protects-violation... The GPLv3 states https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you. so I think the two courts were correct in concluding that the former employee did not have a license to his former employer's unpublished modifications to GPL code. Maybe there is precedent of courts not giving a damn about the GPL, but that example isn't such a case.