4 ms·

Additional context in [0], [1]. LGR review of the machine [2]. I would recommend reading [1] because it confirms the GPL violation but paints interesting pict

Additional context in [0], [1]. LGR review of the machine [2]. I would recommend reading [1] because it confirms the GPL violation but paints interesting picture of the reason. [0] https://arstechnica.com/civis/threads/brand-new-laptop-recreates-1981%E2%80%99s-ibm-pc-complete-with-8088-cpu-and-640kb-of-ram.1492119/page-6#post-41895907 https://arstechnica.com/civis/threads/brand-new-laptop-recre... [1] https://arstechnica.com/civis/threads/brand-new-laptop-recreates-1981%E2%80%99s-ibm-pc-complete-with-8088-cpu-and-640kb-of-ram.1492119/page-6#post-41900498 https://arstechnica.com/civis/threads/brand-new-laptop-recre... [2] https://youtu.be/6bODiZ5bP84?t=442 https://youtu.be/6bODiZ5bP84?t=442 "So I Bought Those Weird New AliExpress Retro PCs…"

AllegedAlec 3y ago
Sounds very much like a Chinese PR OP. "Oh yeah we would've loved to attribute as per the license of the code we stole, but those dang online shops won't let us, so we just stole it and never mentioned it"
- dixie_land 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
    I wonder if it works the same when one would steal IP from Chinese company.
    - ronsor 3y ago
      Nice try, but Tencent cops will be at your door next week. Chinese companies stealing from each other is not counted, as the government makes them play "nice enough."
      - DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
        Tencent doesn't own anything worth stealing. If I suddenly found myself as the owner of TikTok I think I'd be terminally embarrassed.
  - AllegedAlec 3y ago
    > if there is no monetary loss then it is "no harm no foul" and completely reasonable I think am important added phrase there would be for Chinese companies. They have no issues stealing from non-Chinese to those people's detriment.
- squarefoot 3y ago
  I don't know how much of the explanation by the Book8088 dev is bullshit, but he exposes a valid point which could be rephrased as: if you attribute copyright to the author, and someone else complains about anything, the platform can take down the product page immediately. We've seen this happening in similar contexts quite often, such as bogus DMCA complaints on YouTube that result in immediate takedowns and enormous efforts from the authors to reinstate the pages. Might be just PR, but the point is sound to me; copyright laws are necessary, but the way they're implemented is total crap.
  - DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
    > if you attribute copyright to the author, and someone else complains about anything, the platform can take down the product page immediately I'm having trouble following your line of reasoning here...
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      If you aren't the copyright holder to the work you are presenting you can't counter-assert your rights to publish against the takedown claim. I don't get how this applies to this situation. Since the copyrighted work isn't being "published" outside of the physical computer.
      - kmeisthax 3y ago
        In this case you have a license to republish the work (the GPL, if you followed it correctly), so you have rights to counter-assert.
        anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        I'm sure Amazon, Google, and everyone else like them make it really difficult to communicate such nuance.
        jeroenhd 3y ago
dunham 3y ago
> I would recommend reading [1] because it confirms the GPL violation but paints interesting picture of the reason. I'm not seeing that, but maybe I'm misunderstanding something. [1] includes: > we are also shared our change without reservation to every enthusiast (buyer). Which to me says they're freely sharing the source with buyers. And I see in the GPL: > For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. Which I understand as "you only have to share source code with buyers" (but they can do what they will with it).
- justsomehnguy 3y ago
  >> BOOK8088: And the foreign trade company words will not even consider these details. A similar thing happens with naming products. For example, we gave it a name, called BOOK8088 . If the name is registered as a trademark, we can only change the name. There are many professional complainers who make money from this. Of course, I knew there was a big problem with violating the GPL at very beginning, and I was preparing for something later. I didn't even expect it to develop so fast. > Which I understand as "you only have to share source code with buyers" (but they can do what they will with it). You need a proper attribution. This comment goes at lengths explaining it [0] but removing the copyright and/or authorship (attribution in a general sense) is breaking the license attribution requirements. [0] https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4577/does-gplv3-require-attribution#4582 https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4577/does-gpl...
  - derefr 3y ago
    From your citation, I think it'd be valid attribution if the BIOS setup UI had a "licensing" tab, that spelled out the IP that this BIOS was derived from. (This is how e.g. iOS and Android do licensing: you drill down into Settings > About > Licensing and all the IP declarations are spelled out there.) Provided they had that, then the initial "vanity" copyright notice on boot would be extraneous, and they could freely change or remove it. Without that kind of thing, the on-boot notice is the "load-bearing" UI attribution, and must be retained.
RobotToaster 3y ago
It sounds like they are distributing the modified source code, so the only violation is removal of the attribution? I don't know anything about Amazon, &c, policies, to know if what they say is true, or possibly a misunderstanding?

AllegedAlec 3y ago

Sounds very much like a Chinese PR OP. "Oh yeah we would've loved to attribute as per the license of the code we stole, but those dang online shops won't let us, so we just stole it and never mentioned it"

dixie_land 3y ago
[flagged]
- TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
  I wonder if it works the same when one would steal IP from Chinese company.
  - ronsor 3y ago
    Nice try, but Tencent cops will be at your door next week. Chinese companies stealing from each other is not counted, as the government makes them play "nice enough."
    - DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
      Tencent doesn't own anything worth stealing. If I suddenly found myself as the owner of TikTok I think I'd be terminally embarrassed.
- AllegedAlec 3y ago
  > if there is no monetary loss then it is "no harm no foul" and completely reasonable I think am important added phrase there would be for Chinese companies. They have no issues stealing from non-Chinese to those people's detriment.
squarefoot 3y ago
I don't know how much of the explanation by the Book8088 dev is bullshit, but he exposes a valid point which could be rephrased as: if you attribute copyright to the author, and someone else complains about anything, the platform can take down the product page immediately. We've seen this happening in similar contexts quite often, such as bogus DMCA complaints on YouTube that result in immediate takedowns and enormous efforts from the authors to reinstate the pages. Might be just PR, but the point is sound to me; copyright laws are necessary, but the way they're implemented is total crap.
- DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
  > if you attribute copyright to the author, and someone else complains about anything, the platform can take down the product page immediately I'm having trouble following your line of reasoning here...
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    If you aren't the copyright holder to the work you are presenting you can't counter-assert your rights to publish against the takedown claim. I don't get how this applies to this situation. Since the copyrighted work isn't being "published" outside of the physical computer.
    - kmeisthax 3y ago
      In this case you have a license to republish the work (the GPL, if you followed it correctly), so you have rights to counter-assert.
      - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        I'm sure Amazon, Google, and everyone else like them make it really difficult to communicate such nuance.
        jeroenhd 3y ago

dunham 3y ago

> I would recommend reading [1] because it confirms the GPL violation but paints interesting picture of the reason. I'm not seeing that, but maybe I'm misunderstanding something. [1] includes: > we are also shared our change without reservation to every enthusiast (buyer). Which to me says they're freely sharing the source with buyers. And I see in the GPL: > For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. Which I understand as "you only have to share source code with buyers" (but they can do what they will with it).

justsomehnguy 3y ago
>> BOOK8088: And the foreign trade company words will not even consider these details. A similar thing happens with naming products. For example, we gave it a name, called BOOK8088 . If the name is registered as a trademark, we can only change the name. There are many professional complainers who make money from this. Of course, I knew there was a big problem with violating the GPL at very beginning, and I was preparing for something later. I didn't even expect it to develop so fast. > Which I understand as "you only have to share source code with buyers" (but they can do what they will with it). You need a proper attribution. This comment goes at lengths explaining it [0] but removing the copyright and/or authorship (attribution in a general sense) is breaking the license attribution requirements. [0] https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4577/does-gplv3-require-attribution#4582 https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4577/does-gpl...
- derefr 3y ago
  From your citation, I think it'd be valid attribution if the BIOS setup UI had a "licensing" tab, that spelled out the IP that this BIOS was derived from. (This is how e.g. iOS and Android do licensing: you drill down into Settings > About > Licensing and all the IP declarations are spelled out there.) Provided they had that, then the initial "vanity" copyright notice on boot would be extraneous, and they could freely change or remove it. Without that kind of thing, the on-boot notice is the "load-bearing" UI attribution, and must be retained.

RobotToaster 3y ago

It sounds like they are distributing the modified source code, so the only violation is removal of the attribution? I don't know anything about Amazon, &c, policies, to know if what they say is true, or possibly a misunderstanding?