2016-09-14 12:34 GMT+02:00 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <l...@lkcl.net>:
> crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Josh Branning
> <lovell.josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Getting rid of boot0 is not far away:
> > http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot/u-boot-sunxi.git;a=tree;f=board/sunxi;h=
Can't reply to josh directly.
There are two problems. 1st a legal one 2nd a technical. The technical one
is being resolved by the community. With little help from Allwinner. I say
a "little help" not "no help". When A64 is bootable by uboot then it might
by a possible EOMA68 target, from firmware perspective.
The early boot loader in AW SOC's is BROM: http://linux-sunxi.org/BROM. It
built in on production and cannot be modified, hence ROM: Read Only Memory.
The ROM can be read however. The BROM is the first software loaded in the
chain. Currently it can load the AW Boot0 or U-Boot SPL.
After Boot0 comes Boot1. After U-Boot SPL comes U-Boot.
boot1 is a AW modified U-Boot.
So if i'm correct there is a for stage boot sequence.
1. BROM (Find and start bootable software)
2. Boot0/U-Boot SPL (Init Hardware like memory, uart, clocks, regulators
then load the next stage)
3. Boot1/U-Boot (Init perhipials and load the final stage: Linux)
The SoC have a tiny bit embedded RAM (SRAM). Just large enough for boot0 os
U-Boot SPL which init's the external RAM (DRAM) and load the next boot
stage to is and starts it.
The legal problem is different. And the cannot, easily, be fixed
afterwards. AW has sold/is selling SoC's including binary, modified, copies
of GPL software. U-Boot (boot1), FFMpeg(cedar) and few other.
While in China this is not a big, legal, problem. In most other countries
this is plain illegal.
So if I were to buy hardware from AW along with the software they provided
and resell it I would be making three violations.
1. Selling illegal software
2. Buying illegal software
3. Helping another parties sell illegal software
And anyone reselling my products would face the same issues
And once done it cannot be undone, damage has been done. But as long as
nobody complains I can keep doing it. That's the way the world works. But
it still would put me at risk of prosecution, import blokkades, etc.
Every country weighs violations differently. In some countries I would be
part of criminal cartel, not very hard to imagine.
I can try to rectify and publish afterwards. But I can still be held
accountable for damage done.
I can try sending out replacement software "stripped" of the GPL violation
stuff. But I can still be held accountable for damage done.
I can try sending out replacement software masking the GPL violation stuff.
But I can still be held accountable for damage done and being done.
When I'm reselling I don't have any of the options above. I can only hope
AW wil help me. But as they already have my money I'm of little interest i
guess. I could spend a lot of time and money to rectify it myself, but as
you can see with the sunxi community that probably be too slow and
expensive. But for Allwinner it would be almost cost-less to do.
GPL software is free but comes with some, legally binding, restrictions.
When your not abiding those restrictions you are violating a legal
contract. Hence the illegal software. Contracts do not always require
signatures. Contracts are a formal agreement of terms.
Look at Oracle, Samsung, Google, SCO, etc. They have done all of the above.
And now they are 'actively' changing their ways. But they are big enough to
stall. SCO tried and died. It's never pretty.
Luke's EOMA68-A20 is something unheard of. Buying hardware without SDK and
probably support. And selling it with a totally free stack of software and
That and no co-processors which can work independently from your system to
The only exception is the BROM. But that can/should be considered hardware
as it cannot be changed and is build-in. Plus the bonus that it can be read
> i'm not sure why you're referencing this, josh - it
> > I'm sure, and there is some evidence that Olimex puts pressure as it is
> > Allwinner to release their code and stop ignoring GPL licensing
> you'll need to be more specific.
> > You say Olimex made a GPL-violation and then basically made the fool of
> > 'in-front of 20,000 people', but they seem otherwise. 
> you'll need to reference archive.org to find the conversation.
> tsvetan's disdain is very very clear. and he also, just as clearly,
> doesn't actually answer the question.
> > According to them, you were complaining that they hadn't released the
> > early enough, because they hadn't written a tutorial of how to build as
> > as they released the images.
> i don't believe it (but i could be wrong - i often am). allwinner
> hadn't actually released the source of the proprietary boot0
> bootloader back then, and things were a total mess. i've yet to reply
> but paul might actually be right about git.rhombus-tech.net because it
> might contain (for example) libnand. i *think* on review of the code
> i did go "i ain't frickin well putting *that* in the git repo" but
> i'll have to double-check. it was a long time ago.
> > Though I guess it is unclear as to what
> > actually happened back then. (lists.gpl-violations.org is down).
> it's permanently offline after the server was hacked. it won't be
> > Either way, it doesn't really matter much, I appreciate what you're
> > making another libre computer, and for that I am grateful. I'm also
> > you posted the schematics and pcb files as you said you would.
> various parts already were - have been for many years.
> arm-netbook mailing list email@example.com
> Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
arm-netbook mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk