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.

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:36 PM, David Lanzendörfer david.lanzendoerfer@o2s.ch wrote:

Hi

...

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.

This impression is correct. I was over there for my job interview and I'm waiting right now for my work permit in order to settle down over in Zhuhai at Allwinners headquarter in my office there.

ok, great. it would help to have that as context in advance, thank you for clarifying.

...

apologies this is also unclear.

Actually not.

i apologise for having to point this out, david, but if someone says "it's unclear", then, to them, it is unclear. this is not something that can be denied. again i apologise for having to point this out, but to respond "actually not" leaves the other person in a... diplomatically extremely awkward position.

i won't expand on that further, but as the list administrator who sets the rules for communication on this list, can i ask you not to do that again, please, but to take it at face value when someone says something, trust them at their word, and if you have inconvenienced them through your communication by putting them to extra trouble (for example by them having to ask you to clarify on a large number of points), apologise immediately for doing so, and work with them to correct any misunderstandings. much appreciated your cooperation on this.

I just explained that there are certain processes about other costumers (not the western ones) which prevent us internally from just jumping "yeah! let's just publish all our code! flower-power-olé!"

sorry, david, but despite a belief that you have been clear, i apologise once again but i have to reiterate that *to me* - with no context - what you have written is unclear. if it is not clear *to me*, then it is also equally unlikely to be clear to anyone else with as little information and context as i have.

to illustrate: who is "us" in this context? whom are you imagining to be making the declaration beginning with the word "yeah..."? i have no idea whom that might be.

also, i know you say "i just explained" but because there was no context, i could not understand anything of what you were explaining in your initial message. with no context for the *follow-up* message, i now have no idea of what part of your *first* message you are referring to above by "i just explained certain processes" in your *second* message.

. this is why i asked you if you could kindly rewrite everything that you wrote, making it clear and unambiguous and providing full context, so that there would be no misunderstandings by having to read the first message, then the second, then refer back to the first, then write another followup asking for more clarification, then read the third message when you write that, then re-read the first or the second depending on what remains unclear...

... you get the point? :)

...

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.

We are well aware of all the points you mentioned.

sorry, again, who is "we"? what is the context, what is the software being distributed, where is it being distributed from - none of this has been mentioned so it is very difficult to follow what you are saying.

We already removed VP6 from our binaries

sorry to have to point this out, but again: to whom is "we" and "our" referring, and, additionally, which binaries are being discussed?

i also assume that VP6 is sufficiently unique world-wide so as to be identifiable, but in the instance that it is not, perhaps it would help others reading this communication (now and in the future, in the archives) to provide them with a canonical reference?

and are replacing it

what is "it", here? "it" is singular but the previous sentence mentions "binaries" in the plural. is there a different binary being replaced from the ones that are referred to (but not explicitly named anywhere), in the previous sentence? or was there an error and did you mean to say "replacing them"?

with ffmpeg within our wrapper library...

to which wrapper are you referring? again, i apologise for having to point this out but there is no context here.

that's why we restructure the repository right now...

sorry, which repository are you referring to?

i'm really sorry david but in asking you to be clear, i assumed that you would understand that that means to provide unambiguous identification of organisations and individuals prior to referring to them in the immediate next sentence, and to provide canonical references to any technical keywords that others completely unfamiliar with what you are attempting to convey may not make a mistake over.

now, whilst the above may give the appearance of being pedantic, i *genuinely* cannot follow what you are trying to inform the list of, so have gone to the trouble of illustrating in each case where there is distinct ambiguity, in order to provide you with an opportunity to clarify, should you so choose.

we have, so far, established that you are planning to work for allwinner, pending a visa. other than that, it is still yet to be established who is creating wrappers (you, allwinner, or a separate group, and whether you are working with that separate group), what VP6 is, what software is being distributed (and by whom: you, allwinner, or a separate group, and whether you are working for that separate group), and much more.

additionally, although it has not been explicitly stated and made clear, through logical deduction and to a lesser extent assumption that you are knowledgeable about the GPL, i can only *infer* that you (personally) are not distributing GPL-violating software (but that you are knowingly going to work for a company that is), but other than that after two messages i am left with very little else that is concrete and clear to me, for which, again, i must apologise, and invite you to help correct.

l.

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 9:00 AM, David Lanzendörfer david.lanzendoerfer@o2s.ch wrote:

Hi

...

... you get the point? :)

Yes.

ok, great!

...

sorry, again, who is "we"? what is the context, what is the software being distributed, where is it being distributed from - none of this has been mentioned so it is very difficult to follow what you are saying.

We in this context mean 郑杰文, Ben, Kevin and I (and all the other engineers and managers from Allwinner)

ah ha! :)

• Since I work with Allwinner (allthough I can not live in Zhuhai yet)
• Since I was on a job interview there and I just wait for my work permit for China so that I can work over there for them.

So with "we" I actually mean pretty much everyone from Allwinner, so you can say "we" means in this context Allwinner or maybe you understand their Chinese name? -> 全志科技

not me, but others reading this may.

...

to which wrapper are you referring? again, i apologise for having to point this out but there is no context here.

We are writing an open c library (named wrapper) right now which will fix the LGPL violations in a formal way... Just until we can go on in our plan.

*thinks*.... ok. my advice here - i appreciate you're not specifically asking for my advice - but if you _were_ i would strongly suggest that you contact the Software Freedom Law Centre for advice, here, on whether this is an acceptable approach. eben is the right person to ask for initially, he's very approachable.

as it stands the early release of the binary (with the re-wrapped functions) looks remarkably similar to the illegal attempt made by some criminals in 1996 to pass off the entire samba source code as their own Copyright Work (sale price $USD 50,000).

so i feel that you *really* need someone whom you can trust to outline the *entire* plan - in confidence - who is also in a position to advise - properly - on the legal ramifications of what you're doing. the person at the top of the list whom i can think of who fits that criteria is eben moglen, although he may have people he knows who are in shenzen that he can recommend.

Since there are many internal decisions to make before we can publish any more code in our repository.

david, this is important: don't for goodness sake distribute *any* binaries - *at all* - until you have consulted proper legal advice. you don't want a situation where (even by trying LGPL wrapping) it turns out that Allwinner is *still* in violation of the GPL, forcing them to cease and desist from distributing the wrapper *as well*.

Some of the managers there were already enough pissed of what they actually were asked to do when I posted to them the Chinese version of the GPL and they finally understood the content of the license: https://github.com/allwinner-zh/media-codec/blob/master/LGPL_V2.1_Chinese

well i have to say what the hell?? where did they get the impression from that there's no license *at all* on software? if they didn't find one they should have gone *looking* for one! i'm kinda shocked that you're telling me that you were the *first person* to ever walk them through the GPL license!

Since many of them didn't have a clue what GPLing actually meant. Now we are in an internal process of resolving differences. Some of them are still at the Microsoft-state of "everything needs to be proprietary"

yes. tom cubie's former manager was one of them. i _have_ pointed out repeatedly to eva that allwinner sells hardware, not software, and that the process of selling that hardware should be made as easy as possible. if the lack of understanding of the *existence* of software licenses is as endemic as you say then it explains a lot.

...

we have, so far, established that you are planning to work for allwinner, pending a visa. other than that, it is still yet to be established who is creating wrappers (you, allwinner, or a separate group, and whether you are working with that separate group), what VP6 is, what software is being distributed (and by whom: you, allwinner, or a separate group, and whether you are working for that separate group), and much more.

I'm referring to this article: http://www.cnx-software.com/2015/02/26/allwinners-new-media-codec-library-ce... At Allwinner (allthough I do not have a visa I'm working for them already)

ok great!

we decided that a wrapper which separates the GPLed libraries from ours would be the only chance to clean up the license mess.

you really really need to check that that's _actually_ the case. if you're not able to get through to eben or his team (by phone or email) there are likely to be people at fsfe who likely would help in some capacity to give you some indication of whether the approach is legitimate or not.

for "ultimate safety" however, it's Allwinner (the company) that has to engage the services of some legal counsel, whom they must consult for a "Legal Opinion". two things about that: (a) regardless of what they say you HAVE to follow that "Legal Opinion" and then (b) the company is, *if* it follows that advice, indemnified by the Lawyer's insurance. i.e. if the Lawyers get it wrong, Allwinner would be able to sue them.

pursuing that path would however result in huge delays: you'd be effectively paralysed from taking any action until the legal opinion came through, so my advice would be to work with the SFLC or FSFE *first*, get things "mostly resolved", nice and tidy... and *then* ask. otherwise the legal advice might be "bury your head in the sand, just like us!" that's, euphamistically, a good summary of the legal counsel that VMware is engaging right now :)

Also our engineers at Allwinner have removed the Google-VP6 and switched over to ffmpeg now.

aaaawesome. well done!

In the first place I just wanna be an engineer and wanna get the chance to find creative solutions and build a piece of art with every design I make. Allwinner gives me this chance. That's why I wanna work for them.

cool! sounds great!

The will is here by many (but not all) of Allwinners members to fully clean up the GPL violations. We have internally (Skype and E-Mail) made up a plan to accomplish the task of GPL-cleanup. But this process takes time and also involves difficult social tasks...

well, have you considered working with the managers who support these efforts, to work together to draft a proposal to the Directors of the Company? (i'd suggest asking for eva's help in presenting it ok?) i'm assuming that Chinese Company Law is the same as in the UK, here, but if it is (or is similar) then the Directors will be the ones who are legally and personally liable for any Criminal activity (such as copyright infringement) of the company that they are directing, so it would be in their *personal* best interests to help you!

i appreciate that that is quite a huge step, but if you read the gpl-violations resolution FAQ, notifying the Directors in a responsible fashion - without fuss and without threats - is right there at the top of the list of things to do.

I hope this is something more clear now

yes it is - fantastic, and i wish you all success, and will help where i can.

l.

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 02:22:42PM +0000, Phil Hands wrote:

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net writes: ...

...

as it stands the early release of the binary (with the re-wrapped functions) looks remarkably similar to the illegal attempt made by some criminals in 1996 to pass off the entire samba source code as their own Copyright Work (sale price $USD 50,000).

The wrapper approach sounds like it might not be that different from VMware's attempt to insulate themselves from the GPL, for which they're currently going to court in Hamburg:

http://sfconservancy.org/news/2015/mar/05/vmware-lawsuit/

Does that mean that we can add http://www.vmware.com/ to the list of web sites that are to be blocked by the major ISPs as part of the UK push to deal with copyright issues ? Is there any reason that this cannot be done now, ie before the trial since, as far as I am aware, many of the sites being blocked have not been taken to court and 'proof' is on the assertions on the copyright holders.

This is not an entirely frivolous point. Many companies get away with GPL infringement because the FLOSS authors do not have the legal muscle to take them to court. Having their web sites 'banned' by assertion would be very interesting.

I was given a drone on a recent birthday (made by DJI - Hong Kong based). I have seen hints that it & associated s/ware has a GPL base or is ripped off from it. I need to dig a bit deeper before asking for code (which is not offered).

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 03:56:00PM +0000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

...

Is there any reason that this cannot be done now, ie before the trial since, as far as I am aware, many of the sites being blocked have not been taken to court and 'proof' is on the assertions on the copyright holders.

This is not an entirely frivolous point. Many companies get away with GPL infringement because the FLOSS authors do not have the legal muscle to take them to court. Having their web sites 'banned' by assertion would be very interesting.

oo now that's *very* interesting. esp. if presented by the SFLC or FSFE on behalf of clients, it's a standard "copyright theft" issue so should be just as easy a case to make as any "music or video" theft.

I was wrong ... a court order is needed. Shame, it still favours large corporates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_blocking_in_the_United_Kingdom#Copyright

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_the_United_Kingdom#...

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.