5 ms·

Kogan Violating GPL

Kogan refuse to supply source code for GPL licensed software running on Kogan branded Android devices.

blueblob 13y ago
Sorry for the naievety, but it's not just modules that are inserted into the kernel that provide the support that they need (I am not a systems/kernel programmer)? And in that case, could they license the modules separately?
- Xylakant 13y ago
  Sort of a grey area, but given that binary drivers exist for video cards they could at least cite a precedent.
  - Argorak 13y ago
    I don't know about how this is done currently, but isn't that the reason why those drivers often don't ship installed but have to be installed by user request?
- jevinskie 13y ago
  They must provide any and all GPL code that gets shipped to the customer, even if they do not modify it.
  - michael_h 13y ago
    Isn't pointing the customer to AOSP "providing" the code?
    - belorn 13y ago
      No. The GPLv2 license is explicit in how one provides the source code. Either bundle the binary and source code together, or provide a written offer for source code that is valid at minimum 3 years or as long support is valid, depending on what is highest. GPLv3 however changed this to reflect the new invention called the Internet. You can now use a simple link to the repository where source code reside.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
thejosh 13y ago
no fucking shit. Kogan is as shady as they come, they rebrand cheap chinese hardware with their own firmware, rebrand hardware with a Kogan sticker and once you restore it you're back to the manufacturers firmware. They do have to abide by Australian consumer laws though, which is always a plus.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
belorn 13y ago
Noted a few other things: Their manual/documentations has no mentioning of BSD licensed software. While its possible that bsd license is included in paper form with the devices with reference to each software package, it is unlikely. As such, 99% sure that Kogan is violating BSD licensed software too. Kogan is aware that they are using open source software (http://www.kogan.com/uk/newsroom/kogan-releases-119-android-tablet-55/ http://www.kogan.com/uk/newsroom/kogan-releases-119-android-...), as is indicated by their press releases. As such, if an infringement is found, it likely to be seen as intentionally and willingly regarding that product. Otherwise, it seems as a common misunderstanding by Kogan in how one provide source code to users. Its not very complicated, but hand waving users towards Google is not enough. Had the kernel been gplv3, then they could just given the user a link, but since the kernel is gplv2, the options are either a written offer for minimum 3 years or to include the source code alongside the binaries. GPLv3 changed the license text regarding source distribution because they did not want to still live in 1990s. Kernel drivers however are a separate issue as the primary author of the kernel (Linus) has given explicit permission to produce "some form" of drivers without having to follow the license. For most people, that is enough safety against lawsuits, even if copyright do not care who is the primary author, and gives equal copyright rights to each author of a project.
- blueblob 13y ago
  This is quite a good answer to my other comment as well. Thanks!
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  So if I'm reading you right, they are in full compliance of the improved GPL terms that don't apply in this case. Meaning their noncompliance is an accident of history, not a violation of the spirit of the license. In that case, I don't see why anyone should care.
tzs 13y ago
This could be a bit more subtle than it might first appear. Most countries have in their copyright something that allows an entity that has a lawfully made and lawfully obtained physical object that they obtained from someone else to resell that particular object without violating copyright. This is why used bookstores can exist legally. This is also why when you buy a Samsung TV from Best Buy, and want the GPL code, you have to ask Samsung rather than Best Buy. Best Buy did distribute the TV (and thus the binary software contained therein) to you, but since that distribution did not require permission of the copyright owner Best Buy has no GPL obligation. Note that this works for Best Buy because they are essentially receiving copies of the software and then just passing those copies through to their customers, in a one to one manner. If Best Buy were modifying the code in the TV, of if they were copying the code into other TVs (say copying the code from a high end TV model to a lower end model to enable premium features), then they would no longer be operating in a one to one pass through fashion, and would need permission of the copyright owner--and then WOULD have GPL obligations and you would turn to Best Buy for the code to your television. Now suppose some OEM makes a generic TV platform. It consists of the guts of the TV (display, power supply, electronics, and firmware), ready to be put in to a case. A company like Kogan or Best Buy that wants a house brand TV can buy the guts from the OEM, put it into a case they have someone else make for them that has their name on it, and sell it as their own. Suppose also that the firmware consists of a minimal Linux system, configured to automatically start a shell running as user 'tv' after boot, and the startup scripts for the 'tv' user start a minimal X server, and then run ~/tvapp, which just puts up a minimal TV GUI that lets you change channels and adjust the volume. The company buying these and rebranding them (who I shall call "the store") as their own writes their own version of tvapp that puts up a full featured GUI that allows for control of all the TV features (or they license a full featured tvapp from someone else and just replace the graphics and modify the text so it looks like it is theirs). If the OEM that made the generic TV guts was careful, all modifications the store makes consist of just replacing ~/tvapp. They do not do anything that would create a derivative work of any of the open source code that the OEM used, and that code is just passed through from the OEM to the consumer one to one with no copying, and the net result is that the store does not end up with any obligation to provide anyone with copies of the source to the open source code in their TV. Applying this to the present case, the big question then is just what is Kogan doing to produce their branded phones and tablets and TVs? Are they dealing with an OEM like the hypothetical one I described above, and just adding user mode applications to a generic system that is being treated as a black box? If so, then they in fact not be violating any licenses, and it would be the OEM that people need to turn to for their copies of the source. On the other hand, if they were doing something like getting generic devices from one OEM, and taking firmware that got from a contractor, and installing copies of that firmware into the OEM devices, and the contractor used open source in that firmware, then Kogan would be responsible for providing the source code. In this case, they are making copies, not just passing on copies they received one for one to their customers. Based on a quick (and perhaps imperfect) read of the article, I was not able to tell which of the above best describes what Kogan is doing. Do we know?
nucleardog 13y ago
Didn't have much better luck with HTC. "Hey, you only have the source for Android 1.5 for this phone on your website - can you please provide me the source for the Android 1.6 binaries you released." "The only source available is that on our website." "Okay, but under the terms of the GPL (which covers some of the code released as part of that binary), you must provide source code on request. You have the binary on your site and no associated source code. Please either provide the source code or a direct link to where it exists on your website." "We only provide the source code on our website. Stop contacting us and have a nice day." I mean, they did make an effort in releasing most of the source code, so they're by no means at the level of this company, however they're still in violation. Cool story bro, I know. Just really irked me.

Kogan refuse to supply source code for GPL licensed software running on Kogan branded Android devices.

Sorry for the naievety, but it's not just modules that are inserted into the kernel that provide the support that they need (I am not a systems/kernel programmer)? And in that case, could they license the modules separately?

Xylakant 13y ago
Sort of a grey area, but given that binary drivers exist for video cards they could at least cite a precedent.
- Argorak 13y ago
  I don't know about how this is done currently, but isn't that the reason why those drivers often don't ship installed but have to be installed by user request?
jevinskie 13y ago
They must provide any and all GPL code that gets shipped to the customer, even if they do not modify it.
- michael_h 13y ago
  Isn't pointing the customer to AOSP "providing" the code?
  - belorn 13y ago
    No. The GPLv2 license is explicit in how one provides the source code. Either bundle the binary and source code together, or provide a written offer for source code that is valid at minimum 3 years or as long support is valid, depending on what is highest. GPLv3 however changed this to reflect the new invention called the Internet. You can now use a simple link to the repository where source code reside.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

thejosh 13y ago

no fucking shit. Kogan is as shady as they come, they rebrand cheap chinese hardware with their own firmware, rebrand hardware with a Kogan sticker and once you restore it you're back to the manufacturers firmware. They do have to abide by Australian consumer laws though, which is always a plus.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

belorn 13y ago

Noted a few other things: Their manual/documentations has no mentioning of BSD licensed software. While its possible that bsd license is included in paper form with the devices with reference to each software package, it is unlikely. As such, 99% sure that Kogan is violating BSD licensed software too. Kogan is aware that they are using open source software (http://www.kogan.com/uk/newsroom/kogan-releases-119-android-tablet-55/ http://www.kogan.com/uk/newsroom/kogan-releases-119-android-...), as is indicated by their press releases. As such, if an infringement is found, it likely to be seen as intentionally and willingly regarding that product. Otherwise, it seems as a common misunderstanding by Kogan in how one provide source code to users. Its not very complicated, but hand waving users towards Google is not enough. Had the kernel been gplv3, then they could just given the user a link, but since the kernel is gplv2, the options are either a written offer for minimum 3 years or to include the source code alongside the binaries. GPLv3 changed the license text regarding source distribution because they did not want to still live in 1990s. Kernel drivers however are a separate issue as the primary author of the kernel (Linus) has given explicit permission to produce "some form" of drivers without having to follow the license. For most people, that is enough safety against lawsuits, even if copyright do not care who is the primary author, and gives equal copyright rights to each author of a project.

blueblob 13y ago
This is quite a good answer to my other comment as well. Thanks!
Dylan16807 13y ago
So if I'm reading you right, they are in full compliance of the improved GPL terms that don't apply in this case. Meaning their noncompliance is an accident of history, not a violation of the spirit of the license. In that case, I don't see why anyone should care.

tzs 13y ago

This could be a bit more subtle than it might first appear. Most countries have in their copyright something that allows an entity that has a lawfully made and lawfully obtained physical object that they obtained from someone else to resell that particular object without violating copyright. This is why used bookstores can exist legally. This is also why when you buy a Samsung TV from Best Buy, and want the GPL code, you have to ask Samsung rather than Best Buy. Best Buy did distribute the TV (and thus the binary software contained therein) to you, but since that distribution did not require permission of the copyright owner Best Buy has no GPL obligation. Note that this works for Best Buy because they are essentially receiving copies of the software and then just passing those copies through to their customers, in a one to one manner. If Best Buy were modifying the code in the TV, of if they were copying the code into other TVs (say copying the code from a high end TV model to a lower end model to enable premium features), then they would no longer be operating in a one to one pass through fashion, and would need permission of the copyright owner--and then WOULD have GPL obligations and you would turn to Best Buy for the code to your television. Now suppose some OEM makes a generic TV platform. It consists of the guts of the TV (display, power supply, electronics, and firmware), ready to be put in to a case. A company like Kogan or Best Buy that wants a house brand TV can buy the guts from the OEM, put it into a case they have someone else make for them that has their name on it, and sell it as their own. Suppose also that the firmware consists of a minimal Linux system, configured to automatically start a shell running as user 'tv' after boot, and the startup scripts for the 'tv' user start a minimal X server, and then run ~/tvapp, which just puts up a minimal TV GUI that lets you change channels and adjust the volume. The company buying these and rebranding them (who I shall call "the store") as their own writes their own version of tvapp that puts up a full featured GUI that allows for control of all the TV features (or they license a full featured tvapp from someone else and just replace the graphics and modify the text so it looks like it is theirs). If the OEM that made the generic TV guts was careful, all modifications the store makes consist of just replacing ~/tvapp. They do not do anything that would create a derivative work of any of the open source code that the OEM used, and that code is just passed through from the OEM to the consumer one to one with no copying, and the net result is that the store does not end up with any obligation to provide anyone with copies of the source to the open source code in their TV. Applying this to the present case, the big question then is just what is Kogan doing to produce their branded phones and tablets and TVs? Are they dealing with an OEM like the hypothetical one I described above, and just adding user mode applications to a generic system that is being treated as a black box? If so, then they in fact not be violating any licenses, and it would be the OEM that people need to turn to for their copies of the source. On the other hand, if they were doing something like getting generic devices from one OEM, and taking firmware that got from a contractor, and installing copies of that firmware into the OEM devices, and the contractor used open source in that firmware, then Kogan would be responsible for providing the source code. In this case, they are making copies, not just passing on copies they received one for one to their customers. Based on a quick (and perhaps imperfect) read of the article, I was not able to tell which of the above best describes what Kogan is doing. Do we know?

nucleardog 13y ago

Didn't have much better luck with HTC. "Hey, you only have the source for Android 1.5 for this phone on your website - can you please provide me the source for the Android 1.6 binaries you released." "The only source available is that on our website." "Okay, but under the terms of the GPL (which covers some of the code released as part of that binary), you must provide source code on request. You have the binary on your site and no associated source code. Please either provide the source code or a direct link to where it exists on your website." "We only provide the source code on our website. Stop contacting us and have a nice day." I mean, they did make an effort in releasing most of the source code, so they're by no means at the level of this company, however they're still in violation. Cool story bro, I know. Just really irked me.