Hacker News Reader

Comment by naraic0o | Hacker News Reader

Allwinner? Maybe, but I highly doubt it. They're one of the worst offenders when it comes to releasing sources.[0]

[0] https://linux-sunxi.org/GPL_Violations

Allwinner wants to sell as many SoCs as possible. Being open and having good Linux support is good business. The serve the low-end sector, which means they may not spend a lot of money for Linux support. But Linux support is good for business.

About a decade ago, Allwinner was providing an "SDK" to vendors to customize the Linux kernel for their devices. This "SDK" was a tarball of the compiled Linux kernel. In it, there were object files for drivers by third-parties for devices in the SoC that Allwinner sourced from other companies. Allwinner had the source code but obviously could not release it. They did not think better, and included those object files because it helps device integrators (mainly Android) to get the job done.

How do you deal with this issue with this blatant GPL violation? Obviously, you do not alienate the company. They fcked up but it's not the end of the world. They cannot release the source code of parts they do not own. You build a relationship and get them through to the right path.

But what happened in reality? A colossal fck-up. An attempt to "blackmail" the company to release the full source code and enforce the GPL. Listen to this, an attempt to enforce the GPL to a company "located in China". Not even on vendors that sell products in Europe or the US.

This alienated any attempts to get Allwinner's upper management to work with Linux. Allwinner made an effort and released some stuff (https://github.com/allwinner-zh) including the bootloader source and documentation (2015). The damage was done.

In 2016, Linus and other kernel developers posted their position on enforcing the GPL (https://lwn.net/Articles/698452/). Very pragmatic and should have been followed with Allwinner.

>Allwinner was providing an "SDK" to vendors to customize the Linux kernel for their devices

I tried contacting them to get the SDK for a tablet I had and they just asked me how many SOCs I am planning to buy.

Well, that's pretty much what "providing SDK to vendors to customize their devices" means; if you're not planning to buy SOCs to make large quantities of custom devices, you're not a vendor for whom the manufacturer cares to provide an SDK.

Allwinner isn't the only vendor guilty of that. Ever try finding a datasheet for any Broadcom or Qualcomm part? I'm not defending the practice. I wish all SOC vendors would give full access to any/all documentation. They can still have a policy of "no support unless you sign a contract to buy X number of parts."

> an attempt to enforce the GPL to a company "located in China"

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Companies in certain areas shouldnt have to follow the same rules as the rest of us? The GPL doesn't mention any geographical areas where it doesn't apply

The GPL, and copyright in general, only applies in jurisdictions where you can effectively enforce it. Elsewhere, it might as well not exist.

Naomi Wu's actions in China brought Umidigi into GPL compliance, so it seems possible to get Chinese companies to comply with the GPL.

As a practical matter the rule of law in China is more or less nonexistent.

Since 2014, there have been specialized IP courts in major cities, and the volume of IP litigation in China is now similar to that in the US. China used to be the Wild West of IP, but that's been changing.

Giant company willfully violates the rules, and when someone tries to make them follow the rules, the poor, poor little giant company is "blackmailed" and it shouldn't have been done because they're "located in China". Or something.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com