[Arm-netbook] evaluating rk3188

[luke.leighton]

On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Liviu Dudau <liviu at dudau.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 07:53:34PM +0100, luke.leighton wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Oliver Schinagl
>> <oliver+list at schinagl.nl> wrote:
>>
>> >> Other than a few orgs like yours that's too small to interest them
>> >> they have no incentive.
>> >
>> > But are they violating the GPL? :)
>>
>>  interesting question.  they've released kernel source (ok, it's out
>> there...) the thing is: will they force you to sign an NDA to get
>> kernel code.  the only thing is, they don't *have* to give you damn
>> squat.
>>
>>  about the only way to quotes trick quotes them into that situation is
>> to say... receive binaries (not under NDA) and *then* ask for the
>> source code.  if they don't supply you the binaries, they don't have
>> to give you jack s**t.
>>
>>  once you've signed the NDA you're screwed if they decide to violate
>> the GPL, but if they do that then so are they.
>
> Luke,
>
> That's a very misguided view of the way licensing works.

 i don't believe it is.  you sign an NDA, it doesn't matter if they're
GPL violators: if you raise the issue with them then they will just
not supply you with source code, which leaves you in a position of
having completely wasted your time pursuing that SoC.  we've been
through this already with the GPL-violating company AMLogic.

> What GPLv2 says is that once you have given the compiled code to any
> person (being that your own employee or a 3rd party) you are required to
> provide a way for that person to have access to the source code.

 that's right.  and there is a specific clause in it which states that
if that provision is incompatible with any other agreement (such as an
NDA), such that they cannot comply with providing that access, then
they LOSE their GPL license, and must cease and desist from
distribution.

 yes.  here you go.  section 6:

" You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."

if you impose ANY restrictions, you automatically lose the right to
distribute the source code under the GPL.

so they're screwed by forcing you into an NDA.

then there is how _you_ get screwed, by having signed the NDA in the
first place, which is covered by section 7:

 If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all.

so you get screwed because you also cannot comply with the GPL
(because of the NDA) and so you must cease and desist *entirely* from
distributing the program (in binary *and* in source form).

so, my statement is correct: GPL + NDA results in both parties getting
screwed.  one under section 6 and one under section 7.


> So, yes, they are in violation of GPL if they give you the binaries.
> The way they currently sidestep that issue is by giving the binaries
> to OEMs and make it their problem to distribute that to the public.

 yes.  that places the burden on the OEMs to be GPL-compliant, which
still does not help.  it exacerbates the problem as you now have to
trace a *chain* of GPL violations, not just the one.

 you may not be aware of the history, here, liviu - i've been involved
first-hand in these kinds of GPL violations for over 4 years now, some
very embarrassing situations resulted.  luckily through sheer
persistence we're through those now.

l.