4 ms·

They are. They actively refuse to release the sources. And yeah they should be avoided. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onyx_Boox#GPL_Compliance https://en.m.w

by erinnh 3y ago

They are. They actively refuse to release the sources. And yeah they should be avoided. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onyx_Boox#GPL_Compliance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onyx_Boox#GPL_Compliance

tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago
If your principles are such that you won’t buy a product due to a realistically immaterial instance of a GPL violation, sure. Given the number of GPL violations in the wild I refuse to believe that anyone but the most Stallman-esque among us are living to this standard.
- erinnh 3y ago
  I don’t see how it’s immaterial. Because they are not releasing sources, it’s really hard to install alternative Android distributions on their devices. Last I looked (which was 1-2 years ago), there were no alternative firmware for their devices. Given the GPL violations in the wild, we should maybe try and not encourage them.
- danmur 3y ago
  It's not immaterial, it's literally the point of the GPL. If they don't want to release their modifications they shouldn't take advantage of the huge effort that went into the linux kernel. Maybe use a different OS and license it..
- freeopinion 3y ago
  Fair enough. Everybody can try to create their own community with their own rules. You seem to have decided that you prefer a community that doesn't adhere to licensing agreements. Don't be surprised if other communities exclude you. Edited for clarity
- otikik 3y ago
  Eeehmm. I mean. I can understand not being ideologically aligned with Stallman and Co. I also agree that there must be lots of violations of the GPL out there. Software is often invisible. That said, I don’t think there’s many big companies out there openly doing it. If get caught, they comply with the minimum effort possible, but they comply. I don’t see them being blatant or cavalier about it. Two main reasons for me to avoid them: 1. The attitude makes them untrustworthy. If they are blatantly violating this, what else are they willing to ignore? They have obligations towards me as a consumer, for example. Will they respect those? Will they sale my data to others? 2. There’s no guarantee that they will continue being able to operate in my country. A judge could theoretically force them to close shop. So I’d rather not put my data on their product.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  Imagine if we treated copyright material like this. "You bought tickets to Avatar 2? Given the number of pirated copies online, I refuse to believe that anyone but the idiots among us are willing to pay for content."
freetanga 3y ago
You are right. But I bought one knowingly and it works well. Microsoft has been a horrible, anti competitor company built on unethical values yet I chose their Office 365 in my company. Many here use their products and take a salary from such a company. Google has left the “don’t be evil” in the dust, with anti competitive measures and short changing employees. Hardly ethical, yet widely used in this crowd, and many here choose to draw a salary from them. I hate the Castro brothers and what it does to Cuban people, but I do smoke a cigar now and then. I hate Nestle, but have a Nespresso. I hate Big Oil but drive an ICE as is only viable option. And so on. My point is both parts are right. Companies can un unethical or illegal things, we can stay away from their products out of principles, or cave in out of (a) having no principles or (b) being practical. In reality I think we all cave in a bit (even Stallman and co), so virtue signaling for choosing the hard path sometimes feels hypocrital.

by erinnh 3y ago

tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago

If your principles are such that you won’t buy a product due to a realistically immaterial instance of a GPL violation, sure. Given the number of GPL violations in the wild I refuse to believe that anyone but the most Stallman-esque among us are living to this standard.

erinnh 3y ago
I don’t see how it’s immaterial. Because they are not releasing sources, it’s really hard to install alternative Android distributions on their devices. Last I looked (which was 1-2 years ago), there were no alternative firmware for their devices. Given the GPL violations in the wild, we should maybe try and not encourage them.
danmur 3y ago
It's not immaterial, it's literally the point of the GPL. If they don't want to release their modifications they shouldn't take advantage of the huge effort that went into the linux kernel. Maybe use a different OS and license it..
freeopinion 3y ago
Fair enough. Everybody can try to create their own community with their own rules. You seem to have decided that you prefer a community that doesn't adhere to licensing agreements. Don't be surprised if other communities exclude you. Edited for clarity
otikik 3y ago
Eeehmm. I mean. I can understand not being ideologically aligned with Stallman and Co. I also agree that there must be lots of violations of the GPL out there. Software is often invisible. That said, I don’t think there’s many big companies out there openly doing it. If get caught, they comply with the minimum effort possible, but they comply. I don’t see them being blatant or cavalier about it. Two main reasons for me to avoid them: 1. The attitude makes them untrustworthy. If they are blatantly violating this, what else are they willing to ignore? They have obligations towards me as a consumer, for example. Will they respect those? Will they sale my data to others? 2. There’s no guarantee that they will continue being able to operate in my country. A judge could theoretically force them to close shop. So I’d rather not put my data on their product.
smoldesu 3y ago
Imagine if we treated copyright material like this. "You bought tickets to Avatar 2? Given the number of pirated copies online, I refuse to believe that anyone but the idiots among us are willing to pay for content."

freetanga 3y ago

You are right. But I bought one knowingly and it works well. Microsoft has been a horrible, anti competitor company built on unethical values yet I chose their Office 365 in my company. Many here use their products and take a salary from such a company. Google has left the “don’t be evil” in the dust, with anti competitive measures and short changing employees. Hardly ethical, yet widely used in this crowd, and many here choose to draw a salary from them. I hate the Castro brothers and what it does to Cuban people, but I do smoke a cigar now and then. I hate Nestle, but have a Nespresso. I hate Big Oil but drive an ICE as is only viable option. And so on. My point is both parts are right. Companies can un unethical or illegal things, we can stay away from their products out of principles, or cave in out of (a) having no principles or (b) being practical. In reality I think we all cave in a bit (even Stallman and co), so virtue signaling for choosing the hard path sometimes feels hypocrital.