On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Simon Kenyon simon@koala.ie wrote:
On 03/19/15 21:38, David Lanzendörfer wrote:
Hi
There's bit of a stink over Allwinner using LGPL'd code in their binary-only media lib, and then a few days later they try to conceal it by changing function names. Luke, what is your take on that?
I can explain the whole process in a whole detail, because I was directly involved in the process of this decision and I can tell where this is going right now: The rename was done to fix the LGPL violations by adding a wrapper for the GPLed libraries which will be LGPLed and published.
i've said it before and i'll say it again
you cannot unbreak the GPL
if allwinner release binaries with GPL'd code in them, then it is too late to do this binary blob, LGPL, GPL shuffle. i have three devices with these infringing binaries on them. i would like the source for the code that was used to create those binaries. not some new source but the source that was used originally. that is what the licence says.
... so is that clear, david? the GPL and LGPL are very specific. you have two options:
option (a) - release a binary, you must release the exact source and tools - without fail and without exception - that were used to create that exact binary.
option (b) - cease and desist distribution of the binary.
it goes further to then permit continuation of distribution only on the condition that (a) has been met within a reasonable amount of time. if that *hasn't* happened then the license is truly violated, you are back to "default copyright permissions" which entails contacting *every single one* of the copyright holders for permission to reinstate the license.
bottom line: no matter that you are trying to "fix" this with an LGPL wrapper, this action *does not* remove the obligation under the terms and conditions of the license under which specific binaries were released.
this is why i advised you to contact eben (and/or fsfe) because you *need* advice like this, otherwise you potentially "lose face" with allwinner by mis-advising them, potentially worst-case jeapordising your employment there, and losing the opportunity the opportunity that you've made for yourself.
this is *serious*, david. in the eyes of the law (at least in the USA and EU member states), you're actually working for a criminal organisation at the moment, not a company!
l.