[Arm-netbook] Allwinner git / GPL stalemate situation

[Philip Hands]

Vladimir Pantelic <vladoman at gmail.com> writes:

> cnxsoft wrote:
>> On 01/06/2012 18:03, Tsvetan Usunov, OLIMEX LTD wrote:
>>> Olimex will be granted to access to Allwinner development git repositories
>>> if we sign NDA which do not allow us to share the sources with 3rd parties.
>>>
>>> Now we are in stalemate situation if we want to develop the Linux support
>>> for A10-A13-OLinuXino we have to use the information on these repositories
>>> as the other documentation is incomplete, we spoted lot of errors on it (but
>>> we have been warned that there are errors anyway) and only these sources
>>> guarantee that we will not lose time while development, in other hand
>>> signing this NDA will make us GPL violator as we will not be able to release
>>> the BSP sources.
>>>
>>> Any ideas? We are so smallish customer that we can't influence
>>> Allwinner/Wits on GPL at all. If we do not sign, they just do not allow us
>>> access and we are free to go somewhere else :-)
>>>
>>> Tsvetan
>> Interesting. So if i understand correctly, they ask you to sign a
>> legally binding document asking you to do something against the law.
>
> it is not against the law. if you sign that NDA, you cannot release the
> code under the GPL, thus you cannot release a product. Being able to release
> a product is not mandated by any law...

Imposing extra conditions on the distribution of a GPLed work (which I
think a tweaked Linux kernel is very likely to be) is a violation of the
terms of the GPL.

If they're doing that, then they should lose their right to distribute
Linux, and since GPLv2 doesn't actually have defined procedure for
recovering that right, many argue that that loss of rights would be
effectively permanent.

The only trouble is that someone needs to sue them over it.

Perhaps the right thing to do is get hold of a copy of the kernel
complied from these sources, and then demand a copy of the code.

When they tell you where to go, point out that you'll be reporting them
to the Free Software Conservancy, who just welcomed several Linux
developers to their fold, and so who probably have all they need for an
enforcement action in this case:

  http://sfconservancy.org/news/2012/may/29/compliance/

The problem with NDAs is that if you don't sign, and so don't get the
code, then no violation occurred.  If you do sign, and get the code, a
GPL violation just happened, but a court is likely to take your
signature on the DNA much more seriously than the terms of some license
that may or may not apply to the code in question, so going ahead and
publishing it is not a very good idea.

So, I'd say you need to get hold of the binaries without signing the
DNA.

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]    http://www.hands.com/
|-|  HANDS.COM Ltd.                    http://www.uk.debian.org/
|(|  10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London  E18 1NE  ENGLAND
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/pipermail/arm-netbook/attachments/20120601/2805a4d3/attachment-0001.bin