Xiaomi has been in violation of GPL for years
github.com
github.com
My current phone is a Xiaomi, looks like my next one won't be (it may not have been anyway, due to a list of minor irritations & larger red flags like impossible to uninstall apps and a default clock app that demands full contacts access in order to be able to set an alarm, but this is definitely another point against).
I mean looking at the strings in Huawei's switch firmware revealed Cisco copyright notices. They were too lazy (or didn't understand) how to remove them! [0]
> My current phone is a Xiaomi, looks like my next one won't be (it may not have been anyway, due to a list of minor irritations & larger red flags like impossible to uninstall apps and a default clock app that demands full contacts access in order to be able to set an alarm, but this is definitely another point against).
Wait until you check you network logs!
[0] https://blogs.cisco.com/news/huawei-and-ciscos-source-code-c...
Xiaomi at least still allow bootloader unlocks for phones and other devices whereas others including western companies do not.
And some models do have sources available, just buy the ones that do.
At least it's not something economically important like an all American made tractor though!
Feel free to name and shame if you have actual examples.
No doubt it does happen everywhere at some scale, but it seems to happen everywhere at every scale with Chinese companies.
Broadcom are actually one of the most well known assholes for this, well before all these Chinese companies appeared.
Also in the Xiaomi case it's not strictly on purpose as they do release sources, they just don't want to or can't allocate resources to doing something that generates no revenue whereas broadcom for example have stated they are just refusing because they don't want to and nobody can make them (which thus far is true, they've won cases before under the guise of it disclosing IP) - now they can just claim the Chinese will steal their IP and disadvantage America so nobody will do a thing.
In theory, bit how many open source concerns can afford to go through that? As per the text you replied to: "Unless you are a huge company there is very little you can do."
> And if the won't comply they just get banned.
Banned from where? The country you sue in? Good luck finding the resources to make that stock more globally. A ban might be somewhat more effective if made at a federal level in the US but would they care about a state level ban or a ban from a smaller country like the UK? A single country/state ban is not going to be terribly effective even in that country/state: who is going to enforce it at the border unless there is some national security interest involved?
Based on this video by Naomi Wu (a.k.a RealSexyCyborg), it's certainly been possible to convince at least one Chinese company to fulfil its obligations under the GPL:
* "Getting GPLv2 Compliance From A Chinese Company- In Person!": <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj04MKykmnQ>
Content Advisory: If you are an employee of YouTube.com the above video may be considered NSFW.
(If your own cultural context means you feel compelled to comment on how Naomi chooses to present herself to the world, feel free to watch this explanatory video she has generously provided for your benefit: "Why Do I Look Like...This? The SexyCyborg Origin Story" <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9vW_MpXTfs>.)
It's hard to believe, but the "GPL release" they made were actually full clean rewrite of the hardware support made on top of SoC vendor's (say Qualcomm) kernel release. I have a very hard time understanding why they did, but there were definitely inconsistencies that are very hard to explain another way.
On a scale of 1 to China, what level of IP infringement, technology theft, and corporate espionage are Xiaomi operating at?
China.
https://www.gizchina.com/2022/01/09/xiaomi-when-will-you-sto...
When the USA was early on, before and during the War of Independence, we routinely ignored the set of IP laws from European countries.
https://eh.net/encyclopedia/an-economic-history-of-copyright...
And China DOES enforce IP laws in China. They just don't enforce USA copyright laws, cause it's not the USA. And The USA doesn't enforce Chinese IP laws.
Eventually, the IP laws will be mutually respected. It'll take time. But in the meantime, this is more a trade dispute. That means that larger vendors need to be legally forced to stop shipment and sale of said violating items, and CBP needs to do more in stopping shipments coming in-country.
Yes, oddly the the US does enforce the CCP's "Chinese companies automatically win" laws. How strange.
Defending a license takes money.
The ability to earn money is limited by open source licensing.
Open source licensing is largely self defeating --- as proven by the case in point.
So, "reality sucks, deal with it" (Linus Torvalds).
All you need to do is hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit.
The obvious problem being that open source developers may lack the revenue/income/funds to make this a practical reality.
In other cases, the GPL has been shown to be decently effective.
Yes.
You can ask your government to take action for this IP violation by taxing those brands more, or banning them until they stop violating licenses. I'm sure they'll start caring more after that.
So, me and many others are very angry about this and this is our first and last time getting a Xiaomi device
i.e. only the telegram update channels have 25k-65k subscribers per a single xiaomi device, let alone the whole XDA community
Her comment[0] at the time directed at other Tech YouTubers was:
> YouTubers- you CAN make a difference by making GPL compliance
> a condition of your product reviews. I'm happy to mediate in
> Chinese if there is any miscommunication. GPL compliance means better,
> more functional, more innovative phones for everyone.
[0] https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/143734308046669414...
And this wasn't the first time she was involved in the resolution of such situations:
* "Creality GPL Update - Naomi Wu Released CR-10S Marlin Source Code" Joel Telling (a.k.a 3D Printing Nerd) <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pODH6FR4nU8>
Content Advisory: Joel chooses not to wear a suit & tie to present his videos.
China has a ton of copyright infringing knockoffs of anything remotely popular outside its borders. For a long time, companies like Microsoft took it as granted that the vast majority of their software running in SE Asia was likely pirated.
Copyright/patent law only "works" if everyone is compelled to adhere to it. Otherwise, you're just willingly putting yourself at a technological disadvantage.
But they know this and are not interested in a partnership. So they took the other, more totalitarian route: make it illegal for their citizens to do that. They're not stupid though, they know that for a totalitarian govt to work they have to keep their citizens happy. So if their citizens are unhappy that they can't purchase a US product, they'll just spawn a Chinese company out of thin air to produce the same thing under a Chinese brand. If they can get away with it, they'll sell it outside China too. All of this is only possible because the west has already been manufacturing all its products over there for decades.
The west made itself incredibly vulnerable by moving all manufacturing to China, and now China is taking advantage of that in every way it can.
IMO the only way out of this mess is moving the vast majority of our manufacturing back out of China, but it would have to be heavily subsidized because people won't be able to afford it at first.
Which means, you have to lawyer up and spend vast sums of money to go after people violating your license (GPL here).
Which is why you routinely hear about people violating the GPL - the interested parties have no means to enforce their license, and the counter party likely has deep pockets; deep enough to out last, out spend, and bury the licenser.
There are no provisions of any contract or agreement that matter if you are not prepared to enforce them, no matter the cost.
So, while you can insert a clause like you have described above, but you are still in the same position - drain your bank account paying lawyers to maybe recover some damages after probably many months or years of posturing and litigation.
The calculus on that effort often means it's not financially sound, or worth trying to enforce the contract. Just to see the inside of a court room, you will already be in the hole for at least six figures. If the other side manages to drag things out for years, the costs increase dramatically. So it becomes - pay $xxx,xxx to litigate and take a chance that maybe if you win, you might recover some of that money... maybe.
This is why, again, so many GPL violations exist today. The FOSS projects lack the means to enforce the license.
This is also why organizations like the FSF exist - to help FOSS projects (and others) negotiate and litigate these costly-and-usually-not-profitable conflicts.
- Yes:
- Xiaomi sells products outside of China, both through their own website and through Amazon and Walmart. Sue retailers who carry Xiaomi products and sell them in the US and Europe.
- In theory, this is what the US International Trade Commission can do - block imports of products that violate US laws. EU probably has similar
- You can't do anything about Xiaomi with China's kangaroo courts within China's borders, but Xiaomi wants US dollars and Euros too so eventually they'll play ball if you're willing to take this far enough
- No:
- There is exactly nothing you can do so you should learn to take it and like it.And the Free Software Foundation (FSF) - https://www.fsf.org/
I doubt it's going to happen, but if the author(s) of stolen open source code file a lawsuit, they may force the matter through the courts.
A copyright holder publishing code under the GPLv3 has the ability to revoke permissions to violators. If, say Linus Torvalds or another (big) author of Linux kernel code forces the issue, Xiaomi would perform IP violations every time they try to sell a device running Linux.
If this happen, Xiaomi be given a chance to correct the situation at the very least, before revoking becomes possible. If they still don't comply, kernel contributors may use such court cases to get governments to take action. IP theft has led to phones being barred from sale before, and that was because of vague things like "rounded corners".
It'll take years of legal fees, but it's possible to hit them where it hurts: denying them access to the lucrative western markets.
This is absolutely a solvable problem and a winnable war without the "money to take on a behemoth in court". And in fact the war was won, long ago[2]. In the west.
The difference is the idea of "rule of law", certainly not a cynical take on resourcing.
[1] In fact it's more common to see companies irrationally afraid of the consequences of a license violation than ones trying to evade enforcement.
[2] Edit, because two replies have wanted to pick on the fact that violations still occur occasionally to try to invalidate the point. Open source software licenses in the modern US and Europe are overwhelmingly honored in commercial software. Period. Yes, companies mess up. But claiming somehow that everywhere-is-as-bad-as-china-and-this-cannot-work is ridiculous. Please stop, that kind of argument is hurting the discourse.
More details: <https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html>
Edit #1:
* Also, John Deere: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/mar/16/john-deere-gpl-vi...
Er, how? Like... Apple, let's say. They ship GPLv2 software in their OS, they ship code on their website. How are they violating it?
It appears that people have different definitions of what "won" means...
> [2] ... violations still occur occasionally ... Yes, companies mess up.
...and also, apparently, "occasionally".
When a company with a market cap of ~$USD115 billion shows the "inability to provide complete corresponding source to us for all requested products more than 2 years after our first request"[iii] then (a) by my standard that cannot be considered merely a "mess up"; and, (b) given general corporate aversion to legal risk that implies, for me, many smaller companies with even less visibility also think & act the same way.
You may disagree with that assessment.
"Voice AI" is another recent example: https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/08/voiceai_open_source/
I don't see either reply to your previous comment mention China at all.
But when there are multiple unresolved issues with Western companies that in theory are directly subject to Western "IP" laws, one could ask where it would be most productive to expend one's efforts.
[iii] https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/mar/16/john-deere-gpl-vi...
Two questions, I guess:
* Who enforces them in the US/Europe?
* Is there data on open source compliance in commercial software?
I'm not being obtuse but when people in the comments provided counter examples, you game argumentative (edit 2). I'm not sure you've proven that anything has been enforced or honored.
Linux exists and is pervasively shipped in license-conforming form by hundreds and hundreds of vendors. Do I win now? Sorry, but my "argumentative" attitude is just exasperation. Open source is the rule, not the exception in the software world. And the license regimes that permit that work exceedingly well.
[1] Or chromium, or glibc, or clang, or git, or... It's literally a whole ecosystem of people working on these projects and shipping them in the expectation that they'll be used legitimately according to the license. And you... don't think that happens? Are we all just hallucinating?
FSF lost interest in GPL enforcement years ago.
Conservancy is the only org doing GPL enforcement in the public interest, and they only have enough funding to do about one lawsuit at a time.
- 1. Moot, and therefore language models are fine
- 2. Enforceable, and language models will be neutered
It is not just 'cheating', it is also a matter of significantly different values.
Arguably IP laws in the west have gone too far.
India was pushing for opening up IP on covid vaccines - the taxpayer paid for their development and deployment, but the profits and IP is private. US has voted against.
I'm no fan of the IP insanity, but in this situation, I can only see hypocrisy.
That's definitely true, but it's not really in a "let's take it more a lenient way" kind, because otherwise Xiaomi would have published those kernel sources
Oh, I assure you Chinese companies very much believe in IP, at least their own - use some of theirs without permission and watch how their “don't believe” attitude sticks around. There are IP violation cases between Chinese companies, it just isn't practical for most non-Chinese concerns to try enforce anything from the outside.
What we see in China these days is very similar to the US back in Dickens' time, when copying literature like his works was rampant in the US and there was very little people from outside the US could do about it. The US only started to care about international IP regulation once they had enough to defend for it to be worth playing ball. Currently, China's companies and government have more to gain from not caring than they do from playing nice.
I'd phrase this as "In most cultures, you have no real, legal way of getting back at others taking your intellectual property". They absolutely do recognize, value, and try to protect their own intellectual property. Not believing in it would mean that things are public domain mostly, which is absolutely not the case.
Meanwhile yes, western IP laws have a lot of bullshit going on.
In many cases it is true, Software patents don't exist in EU
That could use some elaboration on what you mean by "believe".
There are over 180 countries that are members of the Berne Convention and nearly as many in TRIPS, which suggests some level of belief in Western style IP in a majority of the world.
it's a hard-nosed bargain, not an earnest belief.
But I hate Unihertz for other reason. You can pretty much buy their hardware exclusively on their website which is a horrible e-merchant: Their delivery failed (maybe they never sent it, maybe they sent it with the cheapest post service possible, i don't know), and well pretty much they stole money from me. That was a "kickstarter" [1], so I couldn't ask my credit card for a refund.
And that's after I was already a sold customer since I already ordered one before, AND I gave them visibility by having custom ROM support for their devices.
[1] the quotes are here because the device was Google-certified months before, so clearly the product didn't need a "kickstart", they hide behind it to steal from users