Chineese tablets and phones manufacturers violating Linux kernel license

Hello.

Is there anything we can do about the fact, that virtually every Chinese
manufacturer building devices running Android (Tablets and Phones)
violates Linux kernel GPL?

Synrgic, Eanovo, Sidonia, Highton, Lianxintai, Ruyi and on, and on...

Even American companies, like Dell, linger with releasing the source to
they  devices. But Chinese ones just plainly ignore the GPL terms.

This is very frustrating.
One approach is discussed at: http://www.elpauer.org/?p=1146
Is there anything we could do?

--

-- 
Tomasz Sterna
Open Source Developer  http://www.xiaoka.com/portfolio

Pandigital Recap - Android Device statuses

Including compiled library in GPL v3 code

Hi,

I have question regarding GPL v3 licence. Question is:-
Is it possible to use third party proprietary library (without
including its source code) in GPL v3 released software if license of
that library allows do to so?

Situation here is, I am developing an android app using another
android app which is released under GPL v3. For some sort of work, I
have to include and use third party jar library (source of which is
not available), in the original program. I modified original program
which call specific functions in that third party library. So, now can
I release whole software under GPL v3 which will include modified
source code of original program and compiled code (jar) of third party
library?
Please help!

--
Regards

Vikas Mahajan

(In plain text) GPL software as part of a commercial package (e.g. Atmel's AVRStudio v5)

(Sorry, the previous version of this email probably went out as an HTML email. This one should be plain text
for sure. There are no changes in the message proper. -Vesa)

Hello everyone,

Using GPL-licensed executable as part of a commercial software package is a use case where I would like to
get some clarification. Atmel's AVRStudio v5 uses GCC and friends as components in their compilation
suite. I have yet to find out whether their versions of GCC et al. have GPL v3 or GPL v2. However, that doesn't
seem to make a great deal of difference.

The GPL v3 says:

"A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature
extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a
volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting
copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the
individual works permit."

So, for a strict interpretation, using GPL-licensed program as part of a commercial program would make it
"by its nature an extension of the covered work" (covered work being the entire compilation suite).

The GPL v2 says approximately the same by the following phrases:

In section 2:
"But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the
distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees
extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."
and in section 3: "You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2)"
So, the extent of "work based on the program" seems crucial in GPL v2's case.

I think the wording in GPL v3 is stricter although I find it difficult to determine whether the difference is
legally decisive. However, the practise of incorporating GPL-covered executables into commercial
packages seems to be getting more common. 

So, does this  usage fall into the "gray area" where the license is violated but it is done so mildly that
no-one is going to sue?    
   GPL's unclarity about matters like this irritates me because it tends to skew competitional landscape so
that "good guys" who play by the rules don't get the benefit of free GPL-licensed software whereas "bad
guys" do because they know they won't get sued in if they violate in areas where the violation is mild or the
license it too unclear for lawsuit.  

Please comment.

Best Regards,
Vesa

GPL software as part of a commercial package (e.g. Atmel's AVRStudio v5)

Re: legal Digest, Vol 85, Issue 15 :Vodafion Station .... continue from August 2011

GPL-violations in scripting libraries

Hello world,
I am confused regarding the applicability of the GPL for scripting languages. For example, there is a
proprietary application that generates source code, which refers to the free library. Is a proprietary
application to derivative work of the library GPL? 
Thanks

Huawei E585 potential violation

Hi All,

Through the poor security on the Pocket Wifi 3G Router I've purchased
from Vodaphone Australia which appears to be a Huawei E585, I've
ascertained it's running Linux.
It also appears to have busybox, dbus and many other GPL'd programs
shipped with it.
I'm not sure how to pursue this, I've contacted Huawei at a number of
email addresses, but the only response of any use was a link to
http://www.huaweidevice.com/resource/mini/201104088392/Copyright%20notice/index.html
I have received no response from the email listed in that document as
the contact for source code for over 3 months.

Any advice on how to proceed from here would be much appreciated.

Kind Regards,
-Matthew

Re: Pandigital Planet, WPDN, still not in compliance - busybox not responding.

http://tinyurl.com/fosschat

Question about charge for source CD distribution.