[Arm-netbook] CT-PC89E - help needed to avert GPL violation.

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

folks, hi,

ok relaying some conversations with adam, chitech are beginning to
distrust us, believing that we will steal "their" source code, give it
to a competitor who will then reverse-engineer the hardware around the
linux kernel and MOS operating system, and thus put them out of
business.  basically, therefore, this is a classic misunderstanding of
the implications of the GPL license.

in some ways i wish i hadn't found this netbook, at this early stage,
and i wish that they had sold lots and lots of them already, and then
we could catch them "after the fact", and there would be plenty of
these machines out there, for people to belatedly regain control of.

however, that's not the case, and, also, i believe that they are
running into difficulties because of their paranoia, being cut off
from the free software community they're spending large sums of money
on inexperienced software engineers and getting themselves into a
mess, which will jeopardise the project.

so i'm helping adam compile _one_ more message to them before passing
them on to gpl-violations.  and, in that, i need help from all of you.
 what i'd like people to do is this: write a letter (as a reply to
this message, to the list), as if addressed to chitech, explaining
your opinions of the CT-PC89E both impressions as a user and from a
technical perspective; also explaining why it is important that they
comply with the GPL, and (only if you will actually do so!) explain
how you will help them *IF* and *ONLY IF* they comply with the terms
and conditions of the GPL license.

remember that there are three components: kernel, u-boot and an
entirely new unheard-of linux distribution called "MOS", from mid-fun,
so there is actually a hell of a lot riding on this.

we know that chitech's owner has invested quite a lot of money in the
project, and he'll want that investment back.  so, it's my ...
how-to-say... feeling that even after they get threatened with a GPL
violation and they are forced to comply, they'll work with us but
_only_ if we can show them that their compliance is beneficial (after
the fact).

i _was_ hoping to not have to make any kinds of threats at all, but
they're not "getting" it, and are entrenching themselves further into
"commercial paranoia".  this cannot do them any good, because instead
of moving forward they're instead constantly looking over their
shoulder, and their competition will eat them alive.  right now, they
have an absolutely fantastic product, at a truly incredible price,
being let down by lack of experience and expertise over the free
software components, that's well ahead of the game.

i'd very much appreciate everyone's help to make sure that they _stay_
ahead, so please, write the letter and we'll either attach them to
what adam's sending them, or refer chitech to this list.

thanks.

l.