On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 08:27:31PM -0400, [email protected] wrote: > > I don't think b) is a GPL violation by Allwinner. Since Allwinner does > not possess the source code to these binaries they are unable to > determine if they are a derived work or not. This is NVidia's defense > in shipping binaries. NVidia claims the binaries are not derived works > of the kernel (that they are developed on Windows and then ported with > a wrapper layer). Reshipping a non-derived binary is not a GPL > violation. > > That doesn't imply that we have to like this. And I also don't believe > that the touchscreen driver is a non-derived work. But that is not > Allwinner's problem, it is the developer of the touchscreen driver's > problem. > > Allwinner should exercise its rights under the GPL and request source > from the vendor of the touchscreen driver and see what they claim. If > they refuse to deliver source maybe Allwinner might want to file a > court action to compel its release. But the GPL does not require you > to take action. Allwinner should also consider not doing business in > the future with vendors that won't supply source.
Allwinner shipped the code. > This is parallel to the Mali problem. Mali is clearly in violation of > the GPL and there is nothing Allwinner can do except make a GPL > request that source code be delivered. The violator is ARM, Inc. Mali is not in violation of the GPL. Kernel source is provided openly by ARM. Luc Verhaegen. -- 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.
