18 ms·

Allwinner GPL violations

118 points by iwwr 12y ago

ksk 12y ago
Always interesting to see people's reactions to copyright for GPL Code vs Music/Movies/Games.
- tspiteri 12y ago
  What is interesting about comparing reactions to GPL copyright against music copyright? Without saying that either of the two copyright cases is right/wrong, there are major differences. In GPL copyright violation, the violation hinders sharing. In music copyright violation, the violation usually helps sharing. So the comparison is a bit meaningless.
  - drzaiusapelord 12y ago
    How does it 'hurt sharing?' Maybe in the most trivial sense. The original code is still out there. How does not paying for works not hurt sharing? If return on investment on works is being hurt then that's a demotivator for future works. Monument Valley had something like a 95% pirating rate on Android. That affects the expectations of indie devs and investors. Brushing this under the carpet doesn't change the facts. If pirating was more under control, we'd see more innovation and top notch applications in the Android market. Instead, we see all the top notch applications go to iOS either exclusively or only to Android after they've made money on iOS and then publishers decide to push out a port because its just going to get pirated anyway. The difference between these two ecosystems is proof enough that pirating games hurts innovation, companies, and customers.
    - Anderkent 12y ago
      The usual argument for how nonGPL hurts sharing is that people write improvements to the open work that the original release cannot replicate, thus outperforming it. This causes people to use different (closed-source) works on different platforms, fragmenting the community and hurting sharing.
  - ksk 12y ago
    The original piece of code is left unchanged. The author can share it as much as they want. You certainly can ask people if they want to share their own work. You can't take it for granted that people have a moral obligation to share the products of their labor. People might say if you don't agree with the license "then stop using GPL code", similar to how someone might say "then stop using copyrighted music/movies/games". It seems to me, that these statements are equivalent, but the attitudes of people are not the same.
    - tracker1 12y ago
      But the people who modified the author's code didn't comply with the terms of use for that code... they took something and didn't "pay" for it... the price in terms of GPL and licensing code isn't money, but it is still payment. If a company doesn't want to pay for code that they take, they should write it all themselves or take code that doesn't require payment... GPL requires payment of including modified sources with redistribution.
      - ksk 12y ago
        You may have missed my first post. I understand all that. My point was the that people show differing attitudes to violating copyright when it comes to the GPL vs. Movies/Music/etc.
- quadrangle 12y ago
  They are totally different. The way Music/Movies work usually it's "don't f-ing share this, you need permission". The GPL is "we require that you share and provide freedoms to others" In other words, copyright is usually used to block people from being good sharing neighbors. GPL requires sharing. Not sharing is wrong. So, copyright for music is against the natural tendency to be a good neighbor and people rightly blame the copyright restrictions for being awful. GPL violations means you are both infringing copyright and being a bad citizen, bad neighbor.
  - ksk 12y ago
    Not everyone shares your particular idea of what a bad and good citizen is.
    - yellowapple 12y ago
      I'm pretty sure a significant majority would agree that generosity is an important trait for a good citizen, however. An unwillingness to share makes someone look more like an asshole.
      - ksk 12y ago
        A programmer deciding not to share the fruits of their own labor does NOT make them an asshole. The thread is about Copyright and GPL code, not everything-in-the-entire-world-that-can-be-shared.
        mcguire 12y ago
        Pretty much sure that violating a contractual agreement that you have voluntarily entered does, in fact, make you an arsehole. (Why do I have a British spell checker?)
        ksk 12y ago
        And? I don't know what you're point is in bring up something I already agree on. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9114161 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9114161
- chc 12y ago
  I detect a note of condescension in your comment, but I actually agree unironically: It is interesting to see people's reactions to copyright with different approaches and different situations. I think copyright is a useful tool, but I'm unhappy with the current infrastructure we have around it, so unusual cases like this help offer some perspective.
  - ksk 12y ago
    You're wrong. It's more a sense of amusement than anything else. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm neither a GPL fan, nor a supporter of Copyright law as-is.
    - chc 12y ago
      My apologies, then. I read it as the common Internet usage of "always interesting" where it means "I think this is completely stupid."
      - ksk 12y ago
        Well its certainly not stupid, I just thought that people have their own biases towards copyright law when it comes to GPL violations vs pirating Music/Movies/etc.
- belorn 12y ago
  About as interesting as peoples reactions to free speech for terrorists vs civil right advocates. If we want to live in a bubble deprived from context, enforcing a share-and-share-alike principle for mega companies is the exact same thing as suing a 8 year old girl for international piracy. I personally choose to not live in such bubbles.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  You are varying two things there. Apples to apples would be comparing GPL software to proprietary software, or proprietary music/movies/games to CC-BY-SA music/movies/games.
plaes 12y ago
Oh well, http://linux-sunxi.org/GPL_Violations http://linux-sunxi.org/GPL_Violations
zdw 12y ago
This makes me think of Bunnie's "From Gongkai to Open Source": http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4297 http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4297 And the general lack of compatibility between western and eastern models of imaginary property. In this example allwinner is applying the eastern "share, modify, pass around" model, which isn't compatible with the western model of strict license adherence. In Bunnie's case they're trying to adapt hardware/software developed with no apparent western-style license to a functional project.
- rwmj 12y ago
  (a) They are not sharing the source at all. (b) Don't apologise for a huge company operating worldwide and breaking the law.
  - 4ad 12y ago
    I don't think he was apologising for anything, he was merely drawing a parallel. As for not sharing the source at all, I agree, this is why I think the analogy doesn't hold, but just for reference, the Chinese companies in Bunnie's case don't officially share share anything either, and yet in practice everything is shared. It's piracy, but no one minds because they all benefit from it.
- cliffbean 12y ago
  They appear to be doing "take, modify, distribute as a compiled binary blob that no one else can modify and pass around". It's hard to reconcile that with the word "share".
  - vidarh 12y ago
    "Share" does not implies they are sharing freely with everyone. It does mean that if you crack open any product built around Allwinner (or other similar SOC's), you'll find PCB's that are all close variations of each other, and if you look at the code accompanying it, you'll find plenty of "sharing" going on even if they're not sharing the source with us.
- 12y ago
bhouston 12y ago
What recourse does one have against a Chinese company? Has anyone ever shown the GPL to have weight in China?
- rwmj 12y ago
  They sell worldwide. Allwinner are the leading supplier of SoCs for tablets, and are especially popular in "second tier" tablets and phones. All those tablets you see for sale in shops that aren't iPads, but have strange unknown names and sell for $150 - they will have AllWinner-designed chips* and AllWinner-compiled kernels/userspace full of binary blobs. So you can go after that. It's a real shame because their SoCs are cheap, powerful and very popular amongst Linux/ARM hobbyists - see http://linux-sunxi.org/Category:Devices http://linux-sunxi.org/Category:Devices * Well, AllWinner cut and paste ARM cores together. I wonder if ARM have this much trouble with licensing too?
  - TorKlingberg 12y ago
    > I wonder if ARM have this much trouble with licensing too? As far as I know, no. To actually produce chips Allwinner and others have to go through one of a small number of fabs. TSMC, Globalfoundries, UMC and Samsung will not make chips with pirated blocks.
- icebraining 12y ago
  IANAL, but I'd say the best bet would be to sue them in the US/Europe and try to get an injunction banning their products, much like the movie industry got DVDFab's domains and funds seized.
scott00 12y ago
Seems like pretty blatant and long-lived violations. Anybody know why somebody doesn't take them to court and try to get an import ban, monetary damages, or both? If the punishment for blatantly violating the GPL or LGPL for years at a time while raking in millions of dollars in profits is getting bitched at on the internet, it seems likely to me that a lot of companies will do the cost-benefit analysis and decide that GPL compliance isn't really worth the hassle.
- vidarh 12y ago
  To have standing in most places, the "somebody" would need to be an author of one of the works they have infringed on. That limits the pool substantially to begin with. Then that somebody would need to be willing to take the risk and cost of a lawsuit that could drag out for ages, with an uncertain outcome. That's why we see as few lawsuits as we do.
  - phkahler 12y ago
    >> Then that somebody would need to be willing to take the risk and cost of a lawsuit that could drag out for ages, with an uncertain outcome. I think an author with a proper lawyer would be able to use the DMCA to shut them down rather quickly - meaning it won't drag out for ages.
    - Xylakant 12y ago
      DCMA would get their repositories shut down and code taken off the internet - but it would not get the code off the devices etc. You'd need a lawsuit against a company based elsewhere - that's a pretty bad timesink potentially.
    - simosx 12y ago
      I thought DMCA was not kosher (https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca). Also, not in the US. That guy who started the thread on Google Groups (Luc), is prone to polarizing the discussion. I suppose that Allwinner can fix the issue and still keep their library closed. That would be bad for everyone.
jacob019 12y ago
Nothing will come of this. Who will bother to sue?
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  Busybox have filed multiple lawsuits over GPL violations, and won: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
  http://gpl-violations.org/ http://gpl-violations.org/ when it was still around (seems defunct since November 2014?).
ExpiredLink 12y ago
Merely a minor LGPL violation.
lfam 12y ago
Allwinner's SOCs are popular as Raspberry Pi-ish single-board computers for hobbyist Linux users who want a dirt-cheap home server. What are some alternatives that have better track records with the GPL?
- mwcampbell 12y ago
  I'd suggest looking at the ODROID boards from Hardkernel (http://www.hardkernel.com/ http://www.hardkernel.com/).
  - mkesper 12y ago
    Rather not: http://forum.odroid.com/viewtopic.php?f=111&t=9639 http://forum.odroid.com/viewtopic.php?f=111&t=9639 I bought one assuming the openness status was better, but https://www.olimex.com/Products/OLinuXino/ https://www.olimex.com/Products/OLinuXino/ looks better, sadly.
- simosx 12y ago
  As far as I understand, until recently Allwinner has been doing kernel development with sole focus to get Android shipped as fast as possible. It is a fact that they did not work to get mainline Linux support for their SoCs. Developing for mainline might be slower but in the long-run it's better and even cheaper. I think that they are seeing this now. You can check the slides at https://fosdem.org/2015/schedule/event/allwinner_upstream/ https://fosdem.org/2015/schedule/event/allwinner_upstream/ for the current level of support. This is about the community work for mainline support.
  - pseudonom- 12y ago
    > It is a fact that they did not work to get mainline Linux support for their SoCs. Though it is possible. I got mainline Linux running on an A10.
    - khuey 12y ago
      Yeah, because the sunxi community formed and did all the work.
ausjke 12y ago
Allwinner is the rare, if not the only SOC ARM chip vendor, from China that sort of embraced Linux/GPL/LGPL in a public way to some extent. The rest of those similar companies does pretty much nothing meaningful at all, they use Linux too, just no public release whatsoever. In that sense, it's the least evil as far as GPL violation goes.
- joezydeco 12y ago
  I'll have to disagree there. Freescale does an excellent job of putting all of their stuff up on Github. The iMX6 family is a joy to work with thanks to their efforts. https://github.com/freescale https://github.com/freescale They also go above and beyond with documentation. No NDA/MDA needed. Tens of thousands of pages of freely available technical reference including the entire TRMs for the SoCs: http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=i.MX6Q&fpsp=1&tab=Documentation_Tab http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?co...
  - swinglock 12y ago
    Freescale isn't Chinese.
    - joezydeco 12y ago
      True. Sorry to misread the parent post.
- convivialdingo 12y ago
  I have to disagree here a bit as well. Allwinner has really helped open up RockChip code as well. For instance, the vpu kernel driver (GPL license) is now open: https://github.com/omegamoon/rockchip-rk30xx-mk808/blob/master/arch/arm/plat-rk/vpu_service.c https://github.com/omegamoon/rockchip-rk30xx-mk808/blob/mast... And the libstagefright (includes libvpu) as Apache license: https://github.com/HermanChen/Rockchip_4.2_release_libstagefright https://github.com/HermanChen/Rockchip_4.2_release_libstagef... The Mali GPU driver is still stuck in proprietary limbo though, AFAIK. Rockchip can't release the code without ARM's permission, and ARM has only released partial support as of now. They claim that it's working, though I am still trying to get a complete X11/Wayland driver running myself (mostly due to all the android dependencies which I don't need under pure Linux) http://community.arm.com/message/21331 http://community.arm.com/message/21331 http://malideveloper.arm.com/develop-for-mali/drivers/open-source-mali-t6xx-gpu-kernel-device-drivers/ http://malideveloper.arm.com/develop-for-mali/drivers/open-s... So things are getting better, though there is still some wide gaping holes in development.
oracle2025 12y ago
They only people who may complain about those violations are the copyrightholders of the code that has been violated. Everyone else who is chiming in here and bashing the offender is IMHO suffering from some kind of torches and pitchforks mob mentality. GPL violations as far as I understand it are always a matter to be settled between the original authors and the offenders. I am not aware that the GPL gives bystanders and angry fanboys'n girls the right to sue anyone.
- dubya 12y ago
  I don't know of the legal status, but I believe the GPL originated when Stallman and others wanted access to the source code for the drivers of a printer. Anyone who uses the software, which is anyone who uses the hardware, should have standing to demand the code.
  - p8952 12y ago
    The history is correct. However the enforcement comes between the author of the code and the distributor. The author(A) allows the distributor(D) to distribute their(A) code so long as they(D) provide the source plus any modifications to the recipient. The recipient has no right to demand the code due to there being no agreement to provide it between the distributor and the recipient. So the author, on behalf of the recipient, must be the one to enforce the conditions of the agreement they made with the distributor. In cases involving projects like Linux or BusyBox this can be anyone who has committed code, as these projects do not require copyright assignment. In cases involving projects like GNU and Ubuntu all committed code is owned by the parent organization, the FSF and Canonical respectively. So they are the only ones who can enforce the GPL. That said, the end user can report violations to groups like The Software Freedom Law Center and GPL-Violations.org. These groups have contacts to various copyright holders and will assist with enforcing them on a pro bono basis.
- click170 12y ago
  We don't have the right to sue, but we have the right to help the original author(s) sue by providing funds for a legal challenge.

118 points by iwwr 12y ago

ksk 12y ago

Always interesting to see people's reactions to copyright for GPL Code vs Music/Movies/Games.

tspiteri 12y ago
What is interesting about comparing reactions to GPL copyright against music copyright? Without saying that either of the two copyright cases is right/wrong, there are major differences. In GPL copyright violation, the violation hinders sharing. In music copyright violation, the violation usually helps sharing. So the comparison is a bit meaningless.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  How does it 'hurt sharing?' Maybe in the most trivial sense. The original code is still out there. How does not paying for works not hurt sharing? If return on investment on works is being hurt then that's a demotivator for future works. Monument Valley had something like a 95% pirating rate on Android. That affects the expectations of indie devs and investors. Brushing this under the carpet doesn't change the facts. If pirating was more under control, we'd see more innovation and top notch applications in the Android market. Instead, we see all the top notch applications go to iOS either exclusively or only to Android after they've made money on iOS and then publishers decide to push out a port because its just going to get pirated anyway. The difference between these two ecosystems is proof enough that pirating games hurts innovation, companies, and customers.
  - Anderkent 12y ago
    The usual argument for how nonGPL hurts sharing is that people write improvements to the open work that the original release cannot replicate, thus outperforming it. This causes people to use different (closed-source) works on different platforms, fragmenting the community and hurting sharing.
- ksk 12y ago
  The original piece of code is left unchanged. The author can share it as much as they want. You certainly can ask people if they want to share their own work. You can't take it for granted that people have a moral obligation to share the products of their labor. People might say if you don't agree with the license "then stop using GPL code", similar to how someone might say "then stop using copyrighted music/movies/games". It seems to me, that these statements are equivalent, but the attitudes of people are not the same.
  - tracker1 12y ago
    But the people who modified the author's code didn't comply with the terms of use for that code... they took something and didn't "pay" for it... the price in terms of GPL and licensing code isn't money, but it is still payment. If a company doesn't want to pay for code that they take, they should write it all themselves or take code that doesn't require payment... GPL requires payment of including modified sources with redistribution.
    - ksk 12y ago
      You may have missed my first post. I understand all that. My point was the that people show differing attitudes to violating copyright when it comes to the GPL vs. Movies/Music/etc.
quadrangle 12y ago
They are totally different. The way Music/Movies work usually it's "don't f-ing share this, you need permission". The GPL is "we require that you share and provide freedoms to others" In other words, copyright is usually used to block people from being good sharing neighbors. GPL requires sharing. Not sharing is wrong. So, copyright for music is against the natural tendency to be a good neighbor and people rightly blame the copyright restrictions for being awful. GPL violations means you are both infringing copyright and being a bad citizen, bad neighbor.
- ksk 12y ago
  Not everyone shares your particular idea of what a bad and good citizen is.
  - yellowapple 12y ago
    I'm pretty sure a significant majority would agree that generosity is an important trait for a good citizen, however. An unwillingness to share makes someone look more like an asshole.
    - ksk 12y ago
      A programmer deciding not to share the fruits of their own labor does NOT make them an asshole. The thread is about Copyright and GPL code, not everything-in-the-entire-world-that-can-be-shared.
      - mcguire 12y ago
        Pretty much sure that violating a contractual agreement that you have voluntarily entered does, in fact, make you an arsehole. (Why do I have a British spell checker?)
        ksk 12y ago
        And? I don't know what you're point is in bring up something I already agree on. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9114161 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9114161
chc 12y ago
I detect a note of condescension in your comment, but I actually agree unironically: It is interesting to see people's reactions to copyright with different approaches and different situations. I think copyright is a useful tool, but I'm unhappy with the current infrastructure we have around it, so unusual cases like this help offer some perspective.
- ksk 12y ago
  You're wrong. It's more a sense of amusement than anything else. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm neither a GPL fan, nor a supporter of Copyright law as-is.
  - chc 12y ago
    My apologies, then. I read it as the common Internet usage of "always interesting" where it means "I think this is completely stupid."
    - ksk 12y ago
      Well its certainly not stupid, I just thought that people have their own biases towards copyright law when it comes to GPL violations vs pirating Music/Movies/etc.
belorn 12y ago
About as interesting as peoples reactions to free speech for terrorists vs civil right advocates. If we want to live in a bubble deprived from context, enforcing a share-and-share-alike principle for mega companies is the exact same thing as suing a 8 year old girl for international piracy. I personally choose to not live in such bubbles.
dllthomas 12y ago
You are varying two things there. Apples to apples would be comparing GPL software to proprietary software, or proprietary music/movies/games to CC-BY-SA music/movies/games.

plaes 12y ago

Oh well, http://linux-sunxi.org/GPL_Violations http://linux-sunxi.org/GPL_Violations

zdw 12y ago

This makes me think of Bunnie's "From Gongkai to Open Source": http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4297 http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4297 And the general lack of compatibility between western and eastern models of imaginary property. In this example allwinner is applying the eastern "share, modify, pass around" model, which isn't compatible with the western model of strict license adherence. In Bunnie's case they're trying to adapt hardware/software developed with no apparent western-style license to a functional project.

rwmj 12y ago
(a) They are not sharing the source at all. (b) Don't apologise for a huge company operating worldwide and breaking the law.
- 4ad 12y ago
  I don't think he was apologising for anything, he was merely drawing a parallel. As for not sharing the source at all, I agree, this is why I think the analogy doesn't hold, but just for reference, the Chinese companies in Bunnie's case don't officially share share anything either, and yet in practice everything is shared. It's piracy, but no one minds because they all benefit from it.
cliffbean 12y ago
They appear to be doing "take, modify, distribute as a compiled binary blob that no one else can modify and pass around". It's hard to reconcile that with the word "share".
- vidarh 12y ago
  "Share" does not implies they are sharing freely with everyone. It does mean that if you crack open any product built around Allwinner (or other similar SOC's), you'll find PCB's that are all close variations of each other, and if you look at the code accompanying it, you'll find plenty of "sharing" going on even if they're not sharing the source with us.
12y ago

bhouston 12y ago

What recourse does one have against a Chinese company? Has anyone ever shown the GPL to have weight in China?

rwmj 12y ago
They sell worldwide. Allwinner are the leading supplier of SoCs for tablets, and are especially popular in "second tier" tablets and phones. All those tablets you see for sale in shops that aren't iPads, but have strange unknown names and sell for $150 - they will have AllWinner-designed chips* and AllWinner-compiled kernels/userspace full of binary blobs. So you can go after that. It's a real shame because their SoCs are cheap, powerful and very popular amongst Linux/ARM hobbyists - see http://linux-sunxi.org/Category:Devices http://linux-sunxi.org/Category:Devices * Well, AllWinner cut and paste ARM cores together. I wonder if ARM have this much trouble with licensing too?
- TorKlingberg 12y ago
  > I wonder if ARM have this much trouble with licensing too? As far as I know, no. To actually produce chips Allwinner and others have to go through one of a small number of fabs. TSMC, Globalfoundries, UMC and Samsung will not make chips with pirated blocks.
icebraining 12y ago
IANAL, but I'd say the best bet would be to sue them in the US/Europe and try to get an injunction banning their products, much like the movie industry got DVDFab's domains and funds seized.

scott00 12y ago

Seems like pretty blatant and long-lived violations. Anybody know why somebody doesn't take them to court and try to get an import ban, monetary damages, or both? If the punishment for blatantly violating the GPL or LGPL for years at a time while raking in millions of dollars in profits is getting bitched at on the internet, it seems likely to me that a lot of companies will do the cost-benefit analysis and decide that GPL compliance isn't really worth the hassle.

vidarh 12y ago
To have standing in most places, the "somebody" would need to be an author of one of the works they have infringed on. That limits the pool substantially to begin with. Then that somebody would need to be willing to take the risk and cost of a lawsuit that could drag out for ages, with an uncertain outcome. That's why we see as few lawsuits as we do.
- phkahler 12y ago
  >> Then that somebody would need to be willing to take the risk and cost of a lawsuit that could drag out for ages, with an uncertain outcome. I think an author with a proper lawyer would be able to use the DMCA to shut them down rather quickly - meaning it won't drag out for ages.
  - Xylakant 12y ago
    DCMA would get their repositories shut down and code taken off the internet - but it would not get the code off the devices etc. You'd need a lawsuit against a company based elsewhere - that's a pretty bad timesink potentially.
  - simosx 12y ago
    I thought DMCA was not kosher (https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca). Also, not in the US. That guy who started the thread on Google Groups (Luc), is prone to polarizing the discussion. I suppose that Allwinner can fix the issue and still keep their library closed. That would be bad for everyone.

jacob019 12y ago

Nothing will come of this. Who will bother to sue?

vezzy-fnord 12y ago
Busybox have filed multiple lawsuits over GPL violations, and won: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits
TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
http://gpl-violations.org/ http://gpl-violations.org/ when it was still around (seems defunct since November 2014?).

ExpiredLink 12y ago

Merely a minor LGPL violation.

lfam 12y ago

Allwinner's SOCs are popular as Raspberry Pi-ish single-board computers for hobbyist Linux users who want a dirt-cheap home server. What are some alternatives that have better track records with the GPL?

mwcampbell 12y ago
I'd suggest looking at the ODROID boards from Hardkernel (http://www.hardkernel.com/ http://www.hardkernel.com/).
- mkesper 12y ago
  Rather not: http://forum.odroid.com/viewtopic.php?f=111&t=9639 http://forum.odroid.com/viewtopic.php?f=111&t=9639 I bought one assuming the openness status was better, but https://www.olimex.com/Products/OLinuXino/ https://www.olimex.com/Products/OLinuXino/ looks better, sadly.
simosx 12y ago
As far as I understand, until recently Allwinner has been doing kernel development with sole focus to get Android shipped as fast as possible. It is a fact that they did not work to get mainline Linux support for their SoCs. Developing for mainline might be slower but in the long-run it's better and even cheaper. I think that they are seeing this now. You can check the slides at https://fosdem.org/2015/schedule/event/allwinner_upstream/ https://fosdem.org/2015/schedule/event/allwinner_upstream/ for the current level of support. This is about the community work for mainline support.
- pseudonom- 12y ago
  > It is a fact that they did not work to get mainline Linux support for their SoCs. Though it is possible. I got mainline Linux running on an A10.
  - khuey 12y ago
    Yeah, because the sunxi community formed and did all the work.

ausjke 12y ago

Allwinner is the rare, if not the only SOC ARM chip vendor, from China that sort of embraced Linux/GPL/LGPL in a public way to some extent. The rest of those similar companies does pretty much nothing meaningful at all, they use Linux too, just no public release whatsoever. In that sense, it's the least evil as far as GPL violation goes.

joezydeco 12y ago
I'll have to disagree there. Freescale does an excellent job of putting all of their stuff up on Github. The iMX6 family is a joy to work with thanks to their efforts. https://github.com/freescale https://github.com/freescale They also go above and beyond with documentation. No NDA/MDA needed. Tens of thousands of pages of freely available technical reference including the entire TRMs for the SoCs: http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=i.MX6Q&fpsp=1&tab=Documentation_Tab http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?co...
- swinglock 12y ago
  Freescale isn't Chinese.
  - joezydeco 12y ago
    True. Sorry to misread the parent post.
convivialdingo 12y ago
I have to disagree here a bit as well. Allwinner has really helped open up RockChip code as well. For instance, the vpu kernel driver (GPL license) is now open: https://github.com/omegamoon/rockchip-rk30xx-mk808/blob/master/arch/arm/plat-rk/vpu_service.c https://github.com/omegamoon/rockchip-rk30xx-mk808/blob/mast... And the libstagefright (includes libvpu) as Apache license: https://github.com/HermanChen/Rockchip_4.2_release_libstagefright https://github.com/HermanChen/Rockchip_4.2_release_libstagef... The Mali GPU driver is still stuck in proprietary limbo though, AFAIK. Rockchip can't release the code without ARM's permission, and ARM has only released partial support as of now. They claim that it's working, though I am still trying to get a complete X11/Wayland driver running myself (mostly due to all the android dependencies which I don't need under pure Linux) http://community.arm.com/message/21331 http://community.arm.com/message/21331 http://malideveloper.arm.com/develop-for-mali/drivers/open-source-mali-t6xx-gpu-kernel-device-drivers/ http://malideveloper.arm.com/develop-for-mali/drivers/open-s... So things are getting better, though there is still some wide gaping holes in development.

oracle2025 12y ago

They only people who may complain about those violations are the copyrightholders of the code that has been violated. Everyone else who is chiming in here and bashing the offender is IMHO suffering from some kind of torches and pitchforks mob mentality. GPL violations as far as I understand it are always a matter to be settled between the original authors and the offenders. I am not aware that the GPL gives bystanders and angry fanboys'n girls the right to sue anyone.

dubya 12y ago
I don't know of the legal status, but I believe the GPL originated when Stallman and others wanted access to the source code for the drivers of a printer. Anyone who uses the software, which is anyone who uses the hardware, should have standing to demand the code.
- p8952 12y ago
  The history is correct. However the enforcement comes between the author of the code and the distributor. The author(A) allows the distributor(D) to distribute their(A) code so long as they(D) provide the source plus any modifications to the recipient. The recipient has no right to demand the code due to there being no agreement to provide it between the distributor and the recipient. So the author, on behalf of the recipient, must be the one to enforce the conditions of the agreement they made with the distributor. In cases involving projects like Linux or BusyBox this can be anyone who has committed code, as these projects do not require copyright assignment. In cases involving projects like GNU and Ubuntu all committed code is owned by the parent organization, the FSF and Canonical respectively. So they are the only ones who can enforce the GPL. That said, the end user can report violations to groups like The Software Freedom Law Center and GPL-Violations.org. These groups have contacts to various copyright holders and will assist with enforcing them on a pro bono basis.
click170 12y ago
We don't have the right to sue, but we have the right to help the original author(s) sue by providing funds for a legal challenge.