On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Paul Kocialkowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> Le jeudi 28 août 2014 à 10:07 +0300, Simos Xenitellis a écrit : > > It is indeed bad blood. Let's see a few: > > What exactly is your point here? Who cares that GPL violations > personally annoy people in addition to being damaging to our community? > And when that is the case, how exactly is it not legitimate and a > problem? > > If we were discussing a strategy of how to get as much material as > possible in the shortest period of time from Allwinner, then maybe we > would consider not bringing up subjects that may be dead ends or would > potentially cause Allwinner to never talk to use again. > > But what they're talking about here, through that collaboration promise > as well as their joining Linaro, is proper collaboration. The first step > in collaboration with our community is agreeing and respecting its > fundamental core principles, which they are not doing by repeatedly > violating the GPL. > > Let's not reverse the situation here: Allwinner is attacking us by doing > this. We have every right to demand that Allwinner resolves the > situation and publicly state that they don't in the meantime. > > A first step in the process of solving this situation would be for > Allwinner to just join in on the discussion and see what they can do. > This is how communities work. > > It has been said already that there are two main options: 1. Start working at once with the AW engineers to send upstream any code that is missing (Linux kernel drivers, make upstream u-boot work with all AW SoCs, etc). As a resource, those two Linux kernel engineers from AW are available to help now. The access to the AW kernel engineers is the most important resource. Then, the GPL issues would be gradually resolved. 2. Get AW to spend resources to go through and vet tarballs of source code. I suppose it would take a lot of resources from AW, the result would be old versions of the source code and we would not have started yet to talk to the engineers. This option is a painful option, and should only be the last option. In both options, the end result would probably be the same, however Option 1 will get results faster and is the most beneficial for the future of the community. As a community, it makes sense to try Option 1 and see where it gets us in, let's say, three months. If we do not get any results, then many more may choose to go for Option 2. It worries me however that for Option 1, Luc will make this list a living hell. He will sabotage any effort in order not to be proved "wrong". In this sense, it would be silly for an AW engineer to join the list and attempt to discuss here. I can already predict endless questions about licensing towards the engineers (these are not for the engineers to discuss). We have the opportunity to draw a line and move forward. Which one is the smartest option? Simos -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "linux-sunxi" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
