Let's dissect. On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Andrés Domínguez <[email protected]> wrote: > 2015-06-24 21:25 GMT+02:00 Simos Xenitellis <[email protected]>: >> >> If something needs to get fixed in those repositories >> (https://github.com/allwinner-zh/), >> point it out constructively. > > Sorry, I didn't make the infringement statement and I don't know about it, but > knowing about allwinner's past behavior and libv it's clear that it has some > credibility.
Here you say "it's clear" for a reference to _past behaviour_, while a more appropriate wording would be "I assume". You *assume* it has some credibility. You also use the term "past behavior", which is a term that probably means a different thing to each recipient of these emails. It is not constructive to use such terms; in those TV shows that depict family problems, you get to see family members picking on each other for things that happened in the past, remaining stuck perpetually for that other thing in the past. > What I criticized was your non constructive attitude with libv > just because you don't like their way to say things, instead of explaining why > do you think that you are right and others are wrong. My point has been that if there are things in the repository that should be fixed, then point them out and explain them. > And no, saying that > header files are easy to fix (it seems that you don't understand that changing > license text is not enough, but also fulfilling with the LGPL conditions, like > releasing source code) don't matter in this topic. About "Such cases occur > frequently with many companies" (I doubt it) is sad if true. > Let's see a recent case. It's about the MediaTek kernel for the bq E4.5 phone Ubuntu Edition, and the post was written by Carsten Munk, http://mer-project.blogspot.gr/2015/03/some-doubts-about-gpl-licensing-and-bq.html Phoronix covered it with style, https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=BQ-Ubuntu-Phone-Bad-Kernel It was about header files and here is the commit that fixed it, https://github.com/bq/aquaris-E4.5/commit/34cf494bca625acad06274c3cba10aca148813c0 The way I see the whole situation is this: It is true that Allwinner did not make effort over the years for mainline Linux kernel support. Whatever support is there for the A10, A13, A20, etc, is the result of the hard work of this community. Working on mainline support is initially expensive in terms of resources but builds an ecosystem and opens up markets. It makes business sense. As a community, we need to figure out what we need from Allwinner. Do we need specific SoC information so that we do the mainline effort on our own? And among all things that can be asked, we prioritize to those that are really needed at the moment. Do we need Allwinner to fund some developers so that they work full-time on this? We would need to start talking about goals and targets. Simos -- 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.
