Popular Android ROM Accused of GPL Violation 197
An anonymous reader writes "A petition has recently been started to get the developer of the popular Android 'MIUI' ROM, Chinese based Xiaomi, to comply with the GPL. While Android itself is licensed under the Apache 2.0 License, and therefore does not actually require derivative works to be FOSS, the Linux kernel itself is GPL-licensed and needs to remain open. Unless Xiaomi intends to develop a replacement for the Linux kernel, they need to make their modifications public."
they need to make the entire kernel available (Score:5, Insightful)
not just their modifications, but all the gpl sources. they only need to make this available to their own customers.
Re:they need to make the entire kernel available (Score:4, Informative)
It depends on how they distribute the sources. If they accompany the binaries with the source code, then you're right. However, if they offer the sources for download or by any method not accompanying the binaries, they have to offer the source to any third party regardless of whether they're a customer or not. That's because the Linux kernel is under the GPL v2 [gnu.org] with no option to use a later version, and section 3b of the GPL v2 specifically says the offer has to be good for any third party. 3a covers distribution only when the source accompanies the binaries, and 3c isn't available because it's only allowed for non-commercial distribution which this isn't.
Curious ... (Score:3)
I'm curious as to how many of you are using the XiaoMi phones
As far as I know the XiaoMi only sells their phones in PRC - and even inside PRC their phones are in short supply
Not saying that they shouldn't release their MIUI code .... but if one does not have XiaoMi phones, MIUI won't do any good at all
Re: (Score:2)
If you use a different phone with same/similar components, you can reuse the code to write the device drivers.
Thats part of the point of the GPL - you don't have to re-invent the same code over and over.
They do indeed, and the blurb is simply wrong. (Score:3)
No. It doesnt matter what they intend. They still have to make their modifications public regardless.
Re: (Score:2)
No. It doesnt matter what they intend. They still have to make their modifications public regardless.
Not if they write a new kernel and don't use any source from the previous one. Of course, they would still have to release source for the kernels they have already distributed.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesnt matter what they intend. They have shipped modified kernels and they must release those, period.
Exactly what I was saying. The ones they have shipped, the ones they are now shipping, and the ones they will ship in the future. If they 'intend' to do something different later, that changes nothing and matters not at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually, when a company (or a person) violates the GPL they are asked to either release the source code or remove all GPL code from their product. So for instance if they decided to drop their proprietary implementation tomorrow in favor of something else nobody would follow up on the GPL violation.
Granted, it's not to the letter what is in the GPL, but that's how these things usually pan out.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that it not generally the case.
The key thing to remember is that the GPL is a license to copy a copyrighted work. If a copier fails to comply with the GPL they have no valid license to copy and have therefore committed copyright infringement. They are liable for damages for that infringement and they can be served with an injunction to stop the infringing copying (and in theory I beleive criminal penalties could also apply in some jurisdictions) but afaict they cannot be forced to releas
Re: (Score:2)
Then the simple question becomes; did they make modifications to the kernel?
Re: (Score:2)
they only need to make this available to their own customers
But they also can't stop their customers making the GPL covered code available elsewhere once they have access to it, so releasing to their customers is effectively releasing to the world.
Popular? (Score:4, Funny)
More popular than Cyanogenmod? As popular? Less popular? I've never heard of this thing. Must be popular in China.
Re: (Score:1)
It is a fork of Cynogenmod, with better skins and themes. I dont think they have any kernel modifications to share.
Re:Popular? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Popular? (Score:5, Interesting)
Xiaomi was launched last year to great applause in China. It was lauded as an original Chinese innovation in smartphones, the company was great, CEO smart, etc. I almost bought one myself, but decided I couldn't live without a physical keyboard (HTC Desire Z). They're coming out with a new phone soon [engadget.com].
It's not that they are being selfish by refusing to share. It simply has never occurred to anyone at the company that there might be rules to follow and a community to participate in. To Chinese, IP is just something that may be freely copied by anyone, slightly modified, and released as your own (when it is no longer OK to copy it, naturally). Ten feet from where I am sitting right now, a man is watching videos of packaging machines in operation and drawing the mechanisms on a CAD program. He is in the R&D department.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not if the device uses something which is patented. That holds, even if the "new" one is developed completely independently.
Re:Popular? (Score:4, Insightful)
Strange, patenting software is only legally allowed in what, three countries in the world? China is most certainly not one of them. Why should they care about it any more then a US woman cares about getting stoned for adultery?
Re: (Score:3)
The GPL isn't enforced via patents, it's enforced via copyright.
So you can copy software concepts in most countries if you want - but if you copy someone else's actual source code, that's illegal by default. They have to make the code available under an open license before you are allowed to copy/distribute it.
Re: (Score:2)
DNS-and-BIND specified the mechanisms, which I assume means the internal workings. It might not even be illegal in the US to do that anyways (IANAL, I don't know, but seems like unless it is patented you can copy it), mind you, it just illustrates that some Chinese consider that "research".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ten feet from where I am sitting right now, a man is watching videos of packaging machines in operation and drawing the mechanisms on a CAD program. He is in the R&D department.
Using a fully licensed copy of AutoCAD, no doubt.
Re: (Score:2)
Ten feet from where I am sitting right now, a man is watching videos of packaging machines in operation and drawing the mechanisms on a CAD program. He is in the R&D department.
Research and development generally involves looking at what others have done before you. What comes out of it depends on how much you want to innovate or tweak for your own needs.
Re: (Score:2)
I would say pretty damn popular. It's not as popular as Cyanogenmod, but it works on a wide range of devices and is probably second place in terms of custom roms for android supporting many devices
Petitioning China? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
For that matter, it probably isn't even illegal in China (do they have a copyright agreement with the US? Seems unlikely), which looks to be the only place they make phones with it pre-loaded, so unless the FOSS people want to block people outside China from downloading it (which I, personally, would find deeply ironic), I don't think they even have any legal grounding whatsoever.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
do they have a copyright agreement with the US?
So we need permission from the US to enforce international copyright agreements now ?
Re: (Score:1)
RIAA says not only yes to that, but that sufficiently wealthy private parties have the RIGHT to demand that the US enforce their copyright for them.
Re:Petitioning China? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does China give a flying fuck about international copyright agreements? History has said no, thus far.
What possible "enforcement" can be levied against China for this?
Re:Petitioning China? (Score:4, Funny)
What possible "enforcement" can be levied against China for this?
"Respect our copyrights or we'll borrow less money!"
China 3 (Score:1)
Copyrights? Patents? License?
LOL
Re: (Score:1)
Why rattle the saber? Are they day dreaming? (Score:3)
Question: Who exactly is the Android Community? Is it Google? Is it the folks at XDA? This statement is just confusing and vague!
What can the authors of the above statement really do? Sue the Xiaomi folks? Impose sanctions on China if it fails to toe the line?
Good luck with that!
Re: (Score:2)
I think the righteous indignation and enhanced NEEERRRRRD RRRRAAAGE of dozens* of Android hackers will bring Xiaomi right around.
*"dozens" == more than 23. That's probably a safe guess.
Cyanogen fork (Score:5, Interesting)
If they haven't changed it... (Score:2)
It's also China and since when was copyright followed in China?
Re: (Score:2)
If they haven't made kernel modifications, in exactly what way isn't "their source" the "original source," and what is the distinction you're drawing?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Android mod world (Score:2)
Android mod world (modded roms, cyanogen forks, custom kernels, etc) has tons of examples like this. People who distributes compiled kernels and refuses to share their patches because that way they would "loose" their "exclusive l33t" kernel, since some other modder/coder may "steal" their job (which is basically some minor editing or patch merging on top of a real kernel...samsung kernel for example...plus 10 lines of code to make something happen).
Re:Android mod world (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes and they're complete idiots for ignoring how much of the original work they got for free because of that same license and how many thousands of people lost their 'leet' exclusivity themselves to get them this far.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe he means loose as in 'set loose'.
Bullshit summary (Score:4, Informative)
From the article:
The article is correct. Xioami only needs to make their kernel modifications public. The fact that there happens to be a GPL program in Android (the kernel) doesn't mean all of Android is tainted by it. Showing whatever else they've modified is nice, but not required.
MIUI is already open source on GitHub (Score:1)
This article is bullshit. They have all their modifications accessible on their GitHub account: https://github.com/MiCode . This is way better than most Chinese companies using GPL.
Re:they are just bits (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, yes. The GPL. The only copyright most readers here defend.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because the GPL is essentially the antithesis of copyright, hence that whole "copyleft" thing. It's essentially a way to fight copyright within the confines of copyright itself.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The GPL may be an unconventional usage but it requires copyright. If there was no copyright (i.e., all works were public domain), then companies would be able to take code, modify it, and obfuscate it with impunity. We would see the behavior evidenced in the article, in short. In short, RMS would have encountered that same software issue and been in the same boat that caused him to start the FSF (the key difference would have been that it was legal to disassemble the binary).
That is, free (as in libre) s
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly would he be able to get the source code? How does loss of copyright make source code magically appear?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but that is still not access to the source code. If decompliing or reverse engineering is the equivalent to having the source code, then why does the GPL require distribution of the source? Instead, the license could just prevent you from disallowing reverse engineering or decompiling. In this case, you could just decompile the whole Linux kernel, and you have the source. Surely that is good enough?
Eliminating copyright would not eliminate the need for the GPL. Source would not magically appear if
Re: (Score:2)
If decompliing or reverse engineering is the equivalent to having the source code, then why does the GPL require distribution of the source?
Absolutely. Stallman and the FSF demand [gnu.org] source code:
"In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the freedom to publish the changed versions) to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software. Obfuscated "source code" is not real source code and does not count as source code."
Eliminating copyright would make the GPL impossible, no matter how people try to spin it.
Stallman said so [gnu.org] himself:
"So what would be the effect of terminating this program's copyright after 5 years?
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, yes. The GPL. The only copyright most readers here defend.
It may become as a surprise to you but most people are only interested in what they see as "their Social Group", if you feel like your life is/was a struggle then you will mostly be interested in people who struggle. If you are a billionaire you will most likely only be interested in billionaire's problems.
On the other side of the coin are people who don't believe the GPL is even a valid license.
Everyone will voluntarily defend their believes.
Welcome to slashdot!
Re: (Score:1)
There are a few ultra ritch people, even less of those who don't believe in GPL.(some people don't believe in evolution) It doesn't make them right. GPL is fair license. It's worth defending it, so if many people here say it's good - they define meaning of word good, since they are the majority. And no, copyright breach is not theft, cause we said so.
Re: (Score:2)
people are only interested in what they see as "their Social Group"
People are part only part of social groups that they see as interesting.
Chicken and egg.
Re:they are just bits (Score:4, Informative)
>It is not copyright. It is a license.
Yeah, see that is why /. is so confused. Let me explain, so you understand why the stronger copyright is, the stronger the GPL is. The right that the license is granting is the copyright. Without the copyright, you don't need the license and can use it for whatever you want.
Source code is protected partially by copyright. The copyright holder has the right to prevent others from using/copying/distributing/performing/etc their work under copyright law. Thus, without copyright, if your source code leaks, there is nothing you can do to prevent others from abusing it to death, because you have no rights against them to stop it. Copyright is your ownership as an author of the source code. Thus, when you distribute it as open source, you usually grant a license that allows others to use your copyright material without fully surrendering your right. Those holdbacks are the conditions of the license. Again, if there is no copyright law of any strength, then I don't need a license to rip off your source code, I can just do it and there is nothing you can do to stop me.
Conversely, if copyrights are all-powerful, then I can't rip off your source code unless I comply exactly with the granted license that gives me limited rights to your copyright.
I sincerely hope that offers some clarity to you, and the others who don't understand copyrights. You can't argue that on one hand, copyright isn't theft when it is downloading an mp3 and listening to it, but then on the other hand, copyright is theft when you "steal" an open source library without following the GPL. They are the same law and rights.
Re:they are just bits (Score:5, Insightful)
Copying something that is copyrighted without permission *does* deprive the copyright holder of some of the value behind their copyright.
Copyright literally is a "right to copy"... although it's a legally granted and not a natural right... but the value inherent in it comes from its exclusivity. The copyright holder has an exclusive right to control copies of their work, and everybody else is supposed to obtain permission first. "Exclusive", by definition, means that nobody else is doing it, so when somebody does copy it work without permission, that exclusivity is compromised, and the value of it lessened.
And after all... if the mere right to copy wasn't really of any value to creators, then why would people who bother to make freely distributable works bother to copyright it at all? Why not just put the work into public domain?
The point, therefore, is that copyright *DOES* have value... it's difficult to quantify, but when somebody does infringe on copyright, some measure of that value is actually lost to the copyright holder.
Just because what is lost to the copyright holder is of no value to the person who takes it, doesn't mean that it isn't stolen.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Since the original author makes no money from the distribution of their code, they suffer no losses. Damages awarded: $0.00
Re: (Score:1)
That actually isn't necessarily the case. A GPL violation by another company on code I wrote may put my product at a disadvantage functionality wise. Even though I have given away my code and allow people to use it in other products it is not without benefits to me. Those benefits may be what sell my service/hardware/etc. The value isn't in selling exclusivity as it is in profiting from the benefits of software freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
All that is required for infrigment purposes is the ACT of copying or distributing. And since you can not calculate the 'value' of the harm in any meaningful way (because all of the value is based on either unknown future or personal/human value), the consequences of performing that act have been assigned by statute.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, the GPL doesn't prevent you from making money from the distribution of code, not even by selling it.
Re: (Score:2)
If you didn't give me the source code when I bought your software you must provide it for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution
Value != Money... (Score:5, Informative)
I can tell you are not a laywer, but even you should know that "value" doesn't mean "money". For instance, everything that is valuable that is not money, such as the things one trades money for, are themselves valuable.
So too are intangables valuable. For instance, you pay for the right (within limits) to determin who is allowed to access the contents of your house, apartment, and/or other real property. This is the same as how one might buy a mambership to a club so that one receives the right to enter the premises of owned by that club.
So a copyright is "valuable" as it allows the owner of that right to say how many of that thing may be brought into existence and under what circumstances.
When someone brings more of those things into existence than the owner wishes to allow, or does so in a way the owner doesn't wish to allow, they owners valuable right is diminished by misuse.
Much the way I might diminsih the value of any of your properties by misuse (like by ruining your carpet or driving your car into a ravine).
These are not difficult concepts, and many times as you grew to this age, you experienced a diminishment of yoru intangibles. Every time you ever said "That's Not Fair" and no cash was involved, you experienced circumstantial devaluation enough to prompt outcry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Very nice explanation. Another analogy might be violation of privacy.
Let's say you are retired. Someone takes a pic of you taking a poop and displays it publicly in your town. You lost no money in the process. Have you lost nothing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad you can tell I am not a lawyer. I forgot to mention it. /doh
Renumeration is not the be-all nor end-all of value.
I discuss the concept of value outside of monetary value. Again you miss the part where Value != Money, even though you leave it as the actual subject line.
Re: (Score:2)
So are you saying that your child's life has no value to you, or that your child can be replaced with money? Both of those statements are (hopefully) equally stupid.
Money is sometimes used as a (poor) substitute to make up for lost value, but saying that money is value is just stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so you answered half of my question - your child is valuable to you, which is as it should be. But now for the second half of the question - can your child be replaced with money?
When someone's house is destroyed, what do you most often hear them say? They aren't bemoaning the loss of wood and bricks, or even a place to live. Insurance can fix those things with money. What they are most sad about is the loss of stuff that had great value to them, and which can not be replaced with money. Photograph
Re: (Score:2)
If you measure the value of their values by the money I would be ready to pay to preserve their lives it would probably be all the money I have and everything I could get my hands on by legal or illegal means, including any money the lives of your children co
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why you thought that, since this entire thread contains no reference to enforceability in court. It does, on the other hand, contain discussion on whether all value can be expressed as money or not, and whether or not things that have no monetary value can still be valuable.
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of GPL, there is an implicit payment in the form of work. I give you many hours of my work in exchange for the hours of work you put in to improve it.
To me, GPL is an alternative to closed source rather than a true open source license. I use GPL when the quality and continued maintenance of a product is of greater strategic value to me than the monetary value I could get from it when sold. When GPL is violated, the monetary value of that violaton would be the monetary value I could have sold my
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, that is true of many crimes. If you take an apple from a store without paying, is it only theft if it can be proved that the apple would otherwise have been sold? No, of course not. If you tap into your neighbors cable, is it only theft of service if the cable company is now unable to supply another customer? No. If you kill someone, does the punishment vary based on proof of how long the person would otherwise have lived? No.
This is why laws specify specific prohibited actions, not altered p
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Copyright violations are violations of a specific law, with penalties for that violation set down in the law. No damages need to be proven, only that a certain prohibited act was committed. Just like with theft. The only thing you have right is that it would be handled in civil court, thus shifting the burden of prosecuting the case to the infringed party instead of the state.
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't need to get that convoluted. All you need to show is if the copyright violation had happened without a violation of the copyright, that the copyright owner would have gained something of value.
Suppose I went into my garage and a bicycle fairy had packed it full of bicycles. I decide to rent them out at $80 a pop for as long as you wanted to use them and didn't care about the condition they were returned in or if they were ever returned- you could rent a bike for the rest of your life and pass t
Re: (Score:2)
Fallacy.
If that were true, there would be no merit to copyrighting source code that a person decides to make freely available, whether under the GPL or BSD licenses.
If the only value from copyright came from monetary inducement, then for material that is supposed to be free, there is no advantage to it over public domain. Yet the majority of freely released works
Re: (Score:2)
If value is reduced, then it stands to reason that it is *THAT* amount of value that has been stolen.... not all of it, obviously.
The disconnect comes from the fact that the "value" that is stolen is not actually of any value to anybody except the copyright holder.
Again... just because that is the case, does not mean it cannot be stolen.
Do not conflate the issues of value and financial worth. They are not the same thing. If they were, nobody would bother GPL'ing their software or putting under a BS
Re: (Score:2)
If there's a reduction in value, then that value is lost to the person who once had it, and in the case of copyright infringement, that reduction is not merely caused by the infringement, but the actual act of infringing itself, since the act of infringing on copyright directly compromises exclusivity, which is the thing which is of value to the copyright holder.
Again... the disconnect happens because what is
Re: (Score:2)
You may as well be suggesting that if I were to somehow siphon some money from a person's bank account and redirect it elsewhere, because I have merely "lowered" their financial worth, I haven't stolen anything.
Of course it's BS... I stole whatever I took. Nothing less and nothing more.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether the taker gains an equal value to what the person being taken from lost does not change whether or not it was still taken without permission. A child can steal money from their parents' purse because they like playing with paper. Completely different value systems are involved, yet there's no disputing that it was still stolen.
Of course, things like money in somebody's purse are tangible... and if you're going to argue that intangibl
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Fundamental Misunderstanding of GPL (Score:5, Interesting)
Not correct, at least not for the version of the GPL in question. Read the GPL v2 [gnu.org] and look at section 3 which covers distribution. Your options:
You'd be correct for GPL v3, but the Linux kernel license lacks the "or any later version" language so v3's off the table as far as the kernel as a whole is concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
Then point out even a single source file that has that "or any later version" in it from the kernel. Also, the overarching COPYING file for the kernel does not have the phrase in it which would be invalid if any single source file did include it due to the "You may not impose any further
209 restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein" clause.
Re: (Score:2)
Individual bits may, but to make use of that you have to separate those bits out from the kernel and distribute them as independent parts. When combined with the kernel, you have to distribute on terms that fit all of the kernel. So if the kernel as a whole is "GPLv2 only" and one driver is "GPLv2 or any later version", you can distribute just the driver under GPLv3 but when you distribute the whole kernel you have to follow GPLv2 because if you used GPLv3 you'd be violating the license to the rest of the k
Re:Fundamental Misunderstanding of GPL (Score:5, Informative)
GPL does NOT, I repeat, does NOT require PUBLIC release of derivative works. It only requires disclosure to the actual users of the software.
It is perfectly legal to create a derivative work of a GPL work and release the source code to the product users under NDA, forbidding public disclosure.
Let's look at the FAQ for the GPL...
Does The GPL Allow NDA? [gnu.org]
Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies under a nondisclosure agreement?
No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the right to redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis. If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered software copyrighted by the FSF, please inform us immediately by writing to license-violation@fsf.org. If the violation involves GPL-covered code that has some other copyright holder, please inform that copyright holder, just as you would for any other kind of violation of the GPL.
Re: (Score:1)
What about if I distribute the source code but tell them off the record that if they pass it on I will 'send the lads round to have a chat with them'.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you can be both sued for breach of contract and charged with a felony.
Re: (Score:1)
The lads are only coming round for a chat though, i.e. using their rights to free speech and free assembly. The lads are very protective on their human rights, and don't like them being curtailed.
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct up to the NDA part. The GPL however requires that I give all the same rights I had to the software to the person I distribute it to. You can't remove rights you received via the GPL.
So I give my binaries to one person, I owe that one person the source, nobody else, but that person can then do whatever they want with both just like I could.
Re: (Score:2)
That is complete nonsense. If you (not being the author) violate the GPL (by requiring an NDA for instance), then you have no authorization to distribute AT ALL. Copyright law makes that so, and law trumps contracts.
Of course, if you are the author of the code you can put whatever requirements you want on it, including an NDA. But then you aren't releasing it as GPL code, so there is no point in mentioning it here.
Your statement would imply that if Joe writes a song, and Bobby gives that song to Jane und
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much (Score:3)
I believe only one or two cases have actually made it to court - the vast majority of GPL violators voluntarily release their modified code once somebody complains to them and their legal department takes a look at the license. So yeah, so long as there's a strong legal framework to work in they can be "forced" - the penalties for bald-faced copyright violation are simply too high for a company to bear - especially if they want to continue distributing their product. Think of the outrageous threats made b
Re: (Score:1)
only if they play nice (Score:2)
Agreed. *IF* the Chinese companies respect the GPL. If they decide to take the codebase proprietary... well probably still good for Linux in that it has a larger deployed codebase to tempt developers and hardware support and undermines the Microsoft hegemony, but beyond that it would be just another proprietary *nix.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Crutchy, the brave apk-baiter...
Re: (Score:2)