On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:38 PM, David Lanzendörfer david.lanzendoerfer@o2s.ch 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:
sorry, david, but what you wrote is very unclear. for example: none of us know whom you're working for: your message gives the [probably quite wrong!] impression that you are working for allwinner.
But until the FOSS libraries have all the functionality from the shipped SDK we can not just stop supporting our customers in China.
apologies this is also unclear.
so... are *you* using (and shipping) illegal license-violating binaries to "customers in China" [with some LGPL wrapper]? or is that a position statement of Allwinner, is it a position statement from the SDK developers in allwinner? sorry i have to ask because you didn't say, it's very very unclear.
... i have to warn you: if *you* are using (and shipping) illegal license-violating binaries - even with an LGPL wrapper - then you are *still* also in violation of the GPL license. and, to protect yourself (from knowingly and criminally infringing Copyright) you should cease and desist from shipping those binaries immediately, *regardless* of the consequences for your customers.
perhaps you might like to clarify matters, i apologise but i really did not understand who was represented by each of the statements that you made. it might be a good idea to re-post the entire message, clarifying the context of whom "we" is, what "the decision" is, and so on.
l.