Discussion:
Chinese company ZTE massive GPL violations
James Hilliard
2013-10-24 14:56:46 UTC
Permalink
The Chinese ZTE company appears to be ignoring GPL requirements in numerous
markets especially in Europe. They appear to manufacture numerous
routers/DSL modems that use the linux kernel and they do not distribute any
source code for anything as far as I can tell or provide any GPL written
offers. I have done an analysis of some of their DSL modems that all appear
to be using the Linux kernel and likely other GPL code. When contacted they
appear uncooperative in fixing this issue but admit that the routers use
Linux.
Nils Faerber
2013-10-25 09:35:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Hilliard
The Chinese ZTE company appears to be ignoring GPL requirements in
numerous markets especially in Europe. They appear to manufacture
numerous routers/DSL modems that use the linux kernel and they do not
distribute any source code for anything as far as I can tell or provide
any GPL written offers. I have done an analysis of some of their DSL
modems that all appear to be using the Linux kernel and likely other GPL
code. When contacted they appear uncooperative in fixing this issue but
admit that the routers use Linux.
Oh great, I mean the case of ZTE :(

But this is something that is pretty common for Chinese hardware makers
- look at all those cheap Android devices floating around. For most of
them you do not get anything and I am almost sure that most even run
without proper licensing of the multi media codecs too.

It is pretty hard to enforce this. Within China you have basically no
chance. Within a western country the best thing one could do is to
threaten the maker with an import embargo. This could be achieved when
the issue is taken to the local offcials dealing with "intellectual
property rights". But this has only seldomly been done, as far as I
know. And for all the small makers it would not help either - once you
achieved one embargo they will simply switch the brand/name/model and
off they go again - been there, seen that. For a large company like ZTE
that wants to get more ground in western countries now (which used to be
a China/Asia only brand) this could though be a little different case.

But yes, this really aggravates me too for some time, that Asian
manufacturers basically ignore most of it, making a business from it and
thus have an unfair competetive advantage compared to western makers
that (have to) respect it.

Cheers
nils
Arnt Karlsen
2013-10-25 13:05:44 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 11:35:57 +0200, Nils wrote in message
Post by Nils Faerber
Post by James Hilliard
The Chinese ZTE company appears to be ignoring GPL requirements in
numerous markets especially in Europe. They appear to manufacture
numerous routers/DSL modems that use the linux kernel and they do
not distribute any source code for anything as far as I can tell or
provide any GPL written offers. I have done an analysis of some of
their DSL modems that all appear to be using the Linux kernel and
likely other GPL code. When contacted they appear uncooperative in
fixing this issue but admit that the routers use Linux.
Oh great, I mean the case of ZTE :(
But this is something that is pretty common for Chinese hardware makers
- look at all those cheap Android devices floating around. For most of
them you do not get anything and I am almost sure that most even run
without proper licensing of the multi media codecs too.
It is pretty hard to enforce this.
..bull. The ZTE etc phones you see in malls etc shops, you buy
from "that shop", not from ZTE etc. So go after the shops.
Linux is found not just in ZTE cell phones, but also Samsung phones,
Linksys routers, TV sets, stoves, washing machines, vacuum cleaners,
etc. So, ask your shop for ZTE GPL source, and tell them about S/W
piracy law enforcement and recycling costs. ;o)
Post by Nils Faerber
Within China you have basically no
chance. Within a western country the best thing one could do is to
threaten the maker with an import embargo. This could be achieved when
the issue is taken to the local offcials dealing with "intellectual
property rights". But this has only seldomly been done, as far as I
know. And for all the small makers it would not help either - once you
achieved one embargo they will simply switch the brand/name/model and
off they go again - been there, seen that. For a large company like
ZTE that wants to get more ground in western countries now (which
used to be a China/Asia only brand) this could though be a little
different case.
But yes, this really aggravates me too for some time, that Asian
manufacturers basically ignore most of it, making a business from it
and thus have an unfair competetive advantage compared to western
makers that (have to) respect it.
Cheers
nils
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
Arnt Karlsen
2013-10-25 16:27:30 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:51:21 +0200, Tomasz wrote in message
Post by Arnt Karlsen
Post by Nils Faerber
It is pretty hard to enforce this.
..bull. The ZTE etc phones you see in malls etc shops, you buy
from "that shop", not from ZTE etc. So go after the shops.
AFAIK unless you are an author of at least a line in the Linux kernel,
you are not a litigation party, and have no legal ground to "go after"
distributors.
..you forget the software piracy part, is in the domain of
criminal law enforcement, not dinky toy contract law civil
litigation, where you do need to be an author with standing
to sue, _anyone_ can report a crime. ;o)
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
Neil Brown
2013-10-25 16:51:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arnt Karlsen
is in the domain of
criminal law enforcement
This does, however, bring with it the perhaps challenging hurdle of needing to find a prosector willing to take the case?

(And, personally, I am not convinced at all that pursuing copyright infringement as a matter of criminal law would be desirable, even if it might be something on the statute books.)


Best wishes,


Neil

__________

Neil Brown
***@neilzone.co.uk | http://neilzone.co.uk
Arnt Karlsen
2013-10-26 00:29:42 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:51:14 +0100, Neil wrote in message
Post by Neil Brown
Post by Arnt Karlsen
is in the domain of
criminal law enforcement
This does, however, bring with it the perhaps challenging hurdle of
needing to find a prosector willing to take the case?
..correct. ;o)
Post by Neil Brown
(And, personally, I am not convinced at all that pursuing copyright
infringement as a matter of criminal law would be desirable, even if
it might be something on the statute books.)
..this depends a fair bit on what kinda teeth you want the GPL to
have.
Much of the over-the-top unfair "Hollywood-n-Microsoft" copyright
litigation, has IMNTHO been _intentionally_ over-the-top unfair,
precisely to discredit criminal copyright law enforcement, and
by that the very teeth of the GPL.

..if we need these teeth, we want them pointy and sharp enough,
so they can be useful to us.
Post by Neil Brown
Best wishes,
Neil
__________
Neil Brown
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
Bruce Perens
2013-10-27 02:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Exactly what crime is this you wish to report? One that exists _outside of civil law_ in Norway? What item in the legal code is it? And do you have precedent of other such cases?

Thanks

Bruce
Post by Arnt Karlsen
..you forget the software piracy part, is in the domain of
criminal law enforcement, not dinky toy contract law civil
litigation, where you do need to be an author with standing
to sue, _anyone_ can report a crime. ;o)
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Arnt Karlsen
2013-10-30 02:59:46 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 19:39:53 -0700, Bruce wrote in message
Post by Bruce Perens
Exactly what crime is this you wish to report?
.."piratkopiering", perjury and fraud.
Post by Bruce Perens
One that exists _outside of civil law_ in Norway?
..yes ;o), copyright law (Åndsverksloven) has become far more
militant the last few decades, so wehave penal provisions
(straffebestemmelser) in "7. kapittel", and, the penal law
(straffeloven) mentions "dekodingsinnretning", as in "pirated
decoders" to watch etc "freebee TV", but the language in
strl §262 also fits ISPs using etc pirated GPL etc software. ;o)
http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19020522-010-028.html#262


..note that "avtalelisens" may be the common EULA style, while
GPL style licenses would be "tillatelse", "brukstillatelse" or
"kopieringstillatelse", an anti-GPL trap right there, AFAICT.

..politically. Stoltenberg and Faremo are old friends of Microsoft
and the new Blonde Regime pretends it's all blind and deaf on NSA,
but the legislation and climate warrants the "can do" spirit now,
amid caution. ;o)
Post by Bruce Perens
What item in the legal code is it?
..http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-19610512-002.html . primarily
http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-19610512-002.html#2
http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-19610512-002.html#12
(in Norw. legalese; "Kongen" = "the government")
http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-19610512-002.html#map050
and
http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19020522-010-028.html#262
Post by Bruce Perens
And do you have precedent of other such cases?
..on strl §262, plenty on "freebee TV", but the ISPs will
want it loud 'n noisy all the way up to Høyesterett. ;o)

..on copyright law, not too much, but some, e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Lech_Johansen
and some small timers, and:
http://www.hardware.no/artikler/max_manus-pirat_avslort/77682
The "Lysehub" people are now playing Kafka games. on me. ;o)


..and the .gov claims it's oh so ambitious ;o)
http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dokumentarkiv/stoltenberg-ii/nhd/Nyheter-og-pressemeldinger/pressemeldinger/2013/skjerper-kampen-mot-piratkopiering.html?id=722916#

..and waaay too permissive on tool bounty hunt tooling: ;o)
http://www.tu.no/it/2013/06/18/na-skal-norske-nettpirater-tas
Post by Bruce Perens
Thanks
Bruce
Post by Arnt Karlsen
..you forget the software piracy part, is in the domain of
criminal law enforcement, not dinky toy contract law civil
litigation, where you do need to be an author with standing
to sue, _anyone_ can report a crime. ;o)
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
Tomasz Sterna
2013-10-25 14:51:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arnt Karlsen
Post by Nils Faerber
It is pretty hard to enforce this.
..bull. The ZTE etc phones you see in malls etc shops, you buy
from "that shop", not from ZTE etc. So go after the shops.
AFAIK unless you are an author of at least a line in the Linux kernel,
you are not a litigation party, and have no legal ground to "go after"
distributors.
James Hilliard
2013-10-25 16:52:19 UTC
Permalink
I assume it wouldn't be all that hard to find an author of kernel code or
other GPL component who would be willing to let someone take legal action
for them?
Post by Arnt Karlsen
Post by Nils Faerber
It is pretty hard to enforce this.
..bull. The ZTE etc phones you see in malls etc shops, you buy
from "that shop", not from ZTE etc. So go after the shops.
AFAIK unless you are an author of at least a line in the Linux kernel,
you are not a litigation party, and have no legal ground to "go after"
distributors.
James Hilliard
2013-10-25 21:38:45 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Cole Johnson
Post by James Hilliard
I assume it wouldn't be all that hard to find an author of kernel code
or other GPL component who would be willing to let someone take legal
action for them?
Is libxml2 being used? Because I own a copyright on that, and if they are,
as you claim, using Linux (which I believe), then I bet libxml2 is being
used somewhere. You say there are no sources for any component anywhere,
and if they are using libxml2, it being LGPL, requires them to release the
code if modified, or provide a way to get the original.
----
I'm sure I can find out, may take me a few hours to do a more thorough
binary deconstruction. I only went so far as confirming it did run the
linux kernel previously.
Cole Johnson
Hexware, LLC
Post by James Hilliard
I assume it wouldn't be all that hard to find an author of kernel code or
other GPL component who would be willing to let someone take legal action
for them?
Post by Arnt Karlsen
Post by Nils Faerber
It is pretty hard to enforce this.
..bull. The ZTE etc phones you see in malls etc shops, you buy
from "that shop", not from ZTE etc. So go after the shops.
AFAIK unless you are an author of at least a line in the Linux kernel,
you are not a litigation party, and have no legal ground to "go after"
distributors.
Nils Faerber
2013-10-25 22:17:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Hilliard
I assume it wouldn't be all that hard to find an author of kernel code
or other GPL component who would be willing to let someone take legal
action for them?
Well, I am a kernel copyright holder.
And still I do not think that this would work out.

This is the realm of copyright and intellectual property right law. In
most cases this is not a matter of a prosecutor but a matter of what is
in Germany called a "civil court", i.e. *you* as an owner have to sue
the infringing party. The prosecutor will not help you in any way. You
will have to dig out all proof, you will have to make the case and you
will also have to pay for your attorney in law and the court cost - up
front.

So it is not that easy.

The biggest threat that one (we) can first generate is to claim getting
a sales or import stop of the infringing device. Just the device in
question, not more. And even this can be a cost and work intensive thing
- Harald, Till et al will be able to tell stories about that.

I do not know about other countries but here in Germany it is not easy.
It is also not impossible, don't get me wrong, but it is not as easy as
pointing a finger and some prosecutor will go after them for you. The
"someone" you mention needs to be someone with time, money and interest
for the common good since there is not anything to gain for him/her.

Cheers
nils
Post by James Hilliard
Post by Arnt Karlsen
Post by Nils Faerber
It is pretty hard to enforce this.
..bull. The ZTE etc phones you see in malls etc shops, you buy
from "that shop", not from ZTE etc. So go after the shops.
AFAIK unless you are an author of at least a line in the Linux kernel,
you are not a litigation party, and have no legal ground to "go after"
distributors.
Viele Grüße
nils
--
Nils Faerber
Buehlstr. 156
57080 Siegen
https://www.fpresso.de
James Hilliard
2013-10-26 05:06:24 UTC
Permalink
The linux kernel I can confirm is definitely present, libxml2 I'm not sure
about yet, It doesn't appear to be a module but it could be built in. These
devices are distributed my major ISP's so they would be the likely target
of any lawsuit(they even brand the devices). The one I have analyzed so far
is a router/modem combo unit distributed by Wind Hellas(greece) but it is
likely any ZTE router/modem uses linux.
Post by Nils Faerber
Post by James Hilliard
I assume it wouldn't be all that hard to find an author of kernel code
or other GPL component who would be willing to let someone take legal
action for them?
Well, I am a kernel copyright holder.
And still I do not think that this would work out.
This is the realm of copyright and intellectual property right law. In
most cases this is not a matter of a prosecutor but a matter of what is
in Germany called a "civil court", i.e. *you* as an owner have to sue
the infringing party. The prosecutor will not help you in any way. You
will have to dig out all proof, you will have to make the case and you
will also have to pay for your attorney in law and the court cost - up
front.
So it is not that easy.
The biggest threat that one (we) can first generate is to claim getting
a sales or import stop of the infringing device. Just the device in
question, not more. And even this can be a cost and work intensive thing
- Harald, Till et al will be able to tell stories about that.
I do not know about other countries but here in Germany it is not easy.
It is also not impossible, don't get me wrong, but it is not as easy as
pointing a finger and some prosecutor will go after them for you. The
"someone" you mention needs to be someone with time, money and interest
for the common good since there is not anything to gain for him/her.
Cheers
nils
Post by James Hilliard
Post by Arnt Karlsen
Post by Nils Faerber
It is pretty hard to enforce this.
..bull. The ZTE etc phones you see in malls etc shops, you buy
from "that shop", not from ZTE etc. So go after the shops.
AFAIK unless you are an author of at least a line in the Linux
kernel,
Post by James Hilliard
you are not a litigation party, and have no legal ground to "go
after"
Post by James Hilliard
distributors.
Viele GrÌße
nils
--
Nils Faerber
Buehlstr. 156
57080 Siegen
https://www.fpresso.de
Cole Johnson
2013-10-25 21:35:19 UTC
Permalink
 I assume it wouldn't be all that hard to find an author of kernel code or other GPL component who would be willing to let someone take legal action for them?
Is libxml2 being used? Because I own a copyright on that, and if they are, as you claim, using Linux (which I believe), then I bet libxml2 is being used somewhere. You say there are no sources for any component anywhere, and if they are using libxml2, it being LGPL, requires them to release the code if modified, or provide a way to get the original.

----

Cole Johnson
-- E-mail: ***@gmail.com
-- Twitter: @5urd

Hexware, LLC
I assume it wouldn't be all that hard to find an author of kernel code or
other GPL component who would be willing to let someone take legal action
for them?
Post by Arnt Karlsen
Post by Nils Faerber
It is pretty hard to enforce this.
..bull. The ZTE etc phones you see in malls etc shops, you buy
from "that shop", not from ZTE etc. So go after the shops.
AFAIK unless you are an author of at least a line in the Linux kernel,
you are not a litigation party, and have no legal ground to "go after"
distributors.
James Hilliard
2013-10-25 16:40:34 UTC
Permalink
In a lot of the cases for ZTE you could go after the ISP since the
routers/modems are branded with ISP logo's etc and exclusively distributed
to ISP customers.
Post by Arnt Karlsen
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 11:35:57 +0200, Nils wrote in message
Post by Nils Faerber
Post by James Hilliard
The Chinese ZTE company appears to be ignoring GPL requirements in
numerous markets especially in Europe. They appear to manufacture
numerous routers/DSL modems that use the linux kernel and they do
not distribute any source code for anything as far as I can tell or
provide any GPL written offers. I have done an analysis of some of
their DSL modems that all appear to be using the Linux kernel and
likely other GPL code. When contacted they appear uncooperative in
fixing this issue but admit that the routers use Linux.
Oh great, I mean the case of ZTE :(
But this is something that is pretty common for Chinese hardware makers
- look at all those cheap Android devices floating around. For most of
them you do not get anything and I am almost sure that most even run
without proper licensing of the multi media codecs too.
It is pretty hard to enforce this.
..bull. The ZTE etc phones you see in malls etc shops, you buy
from "that shop", not from ZTE etc. So go after the shops.
Linux is found not just in ZTE cell phones, but also Samsung phones,
Linksys routers, TV sets, stoves, washing machines, vacuum cleaners,
etc. So, ask your shop for ZTE GPL source, and tell them about S/W
piracy law enforcement and recycling costs. ;o)
Post by Nils Faerber
Within China you have basically no
chance. Within a western country the best thing one could do is to
threaten the maker with an import embargo. This could be achieved when
the issue is taken to the local offcials dealing with "intellectual
property rights". But this has only seldomly been done, as far as I
know. And for all the small makers it would not help either - once you
achieved one embargo they will simply switch the brand/name/model and
off they go again - been there, seen that. For a large company like
ZTE that wants to get more ground in western countries now (which
used to be a China/Asia only brand) this could though be a little
different case.
But yes, this really aggravates me too for some time, that Asian
manufacturers basically ignore most of it, making a business from it
and thus have an unfair competetive advantage compared to western
makers that (have to) respect it.
Cheers
nils
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
best case, worst case, and just in case.
Bruce Perens
2013-10-24 18:55:10 UTC
Permalink
Slow down.

I know how aggravating this is. I've watched it happen with my own software all too often.

But if some clueless person bursts into a shop to give them a lecture about software piracy and the GPL, the store is just going to ask them to leave and call the police if they don't. You also need to think about what purpose is served by going after a shop keeper who knows nothing of this and bought a box of product on Alibaba. There are valid ways to go after the manufacturer if they don't cooperate. Most useful is an import ban by the United States and the international trade commission. We can indeed get this on behalf of a copyright holder.

If you are not representing the copyright holder of infringed software, you don't have any legal standing to enforce anything. So, you need to get that piece in place first. You are also going to need an attorney. SFC has both of those things, but they have a list of companies to enforce upon that will never end. Maybe ZTE is not even the worst violator on that list, and thus isn't the next company they are going after.

Thanks

Bruce
Post by Arnt Karlsen
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 11:35:57 +0200, Nils wrote in message
Post by Nils Faerber
Post by James Hilliard
The Chinese ZTE company appears to be ignoring GPL requirements in
numerous markets especially in Europe. They appear to manufacture
numerous routers/DSL modems that use the linux kernel and they do
not distribute any source code for anything as far as I can tell or
provide any GPL written offers. I have done an analysis of some of
their DSL modems that all appear to be using the Linux kernel and
likely other GPL code. When contacted they appear uncooperative in
fixing this issue but admit that the routers use Linux.
Oh great, I mean the case of ZTE :(
But this is something that is pretty common for Chinese hardware makers
- look at all those cheap Android devices floating around. For most
of
Post by Nils Faerber
them you do not get anything and I am almost sure that most even run
without proper licensing of the multi media codecs too.
It is pretty hard to enforce this.
..bull. The ZTE etc phones you see in malls etc shops, you buy
from "that shop", not from ZTE etc. So go after the shops.
Linux is found not just in ZTE cell phones, but also Samsung phones,
Linksys routers, TV sets, stoves, washing machines, vacuum cleaners,
etc. So, ask your shop for ZTE GPL source, and tell them about S/W
piracy law enforcement and recycling costs. ;o)
Post by Nils Faerber
Within China you have basically no
chance. Within a western country the best thing one could do is to
threaten the maker with an import embargo. This could be achieved
when
Post by Nils Faerber
the issue is taken to the local offcials dealing with "intellectual
property rights". But this has only seldomly been done, as far as I
know. And for all the small makers it would not help either - once
you
Post by Nils Faerber
achieved one embargo they will simply switch the brand/name/model and
off they go again - been there, seen that. For a large company like
ZTE that wants to get more ground in western countries now (which
used to be a China/Asia only brand) this could though be a little
different case.
But yes, this really aggravates me too for some time, that Asian
manufacturers basically ignore most of it, making a business from it
and thus have an unfair competetive advantage compared to western
makers that (have to) respect it.
Cheers
nils
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
best case, worst case, and just in case.
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Arnt Karlsen
2013-10-25 23:31:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:55:10 -0700, Bruce wrote in message
Post by Bruce Perens
Slow down.
I know how aggravating this is. I've watched it happen with my own software all too often.
But if some clueless person bursts into a shop to give them a lecture
about software piracy and the GPL, the store is just going to ask
them to leave and call the police if they don't.
..true. If you bought anything with GPL binaries, you can ask for the
source. Maybe point to the GPL and ask politely one final time, to get
them on record that they knowingly does not comply to the license, then
leave and go to the police and report the crime, which is known by law
enforcement as "software piracy", and let them do their SWAT thing, if
that's what it takes to swat down software pirates. ;o)
Post by Bruce Perens
You also need to think about what purpose is served by going after a shop keeper who
knows nothing of this and bought a box of product on Alibaba.
..most people who sell cell phones even in dinky toy Norway,
are wanna-be Walmart retail chains, not mom-n-pop shops.
They can take it. ;o)
Post by Bruce Perens
There are valid ways to go after the manufacturer if they don't cooperate.
..very true. But the big chain retailer is where you buy things. ;o)
Post by Bruce Perens
Most useful is an import ban by the United States and the
international trade commission. We can indeed get this on behalf of a
copyright holder.
If you are not representing the copyright holder of infringed
software, you don't have any legal standing to enforce anything.
.._anyone_ can report what _they_think_may_ be a crime to the cops.
You don't even need to know. The government has the "standing" it
needs to enforce criminal law.

..I certainly agree it helps having your facts etc straight and that
having copyright standing should help, but I am also getting the
impression that "Hollywood 'n Microsoft" has been trying to teach
courts and law enforcement "a lesson", by bringing over-the-top
unfair cases, to take the teeth out of criminal copyright law, and
thru that, the teeth out of the GPL.

..if we need teeth, we want them pointy and sharp enough.
Post by Bruce Perens
So, you need to get that piece in place first. You are also going to
need an attorney. SFC has both of those things, but they have a list
of companies to enforce upon that will never end. Maybe ZTE is not
even the worst violator on that list, and thus isn't the next company
they are going after.
..it's Chinese and possible to portray to .gov as "spytools", Joe
Sixpack just want a nice cheap phone, which gets cheap by getting
made and sold in bulk by the chains.

..going after retail chains, means they lose _all_ their business
on all things that run Linux, not just ZTE cell phones, washing
maschines, stoves, etc, once they lose their license to Linux.

..be polite, and maybe philosophical, "Does this too run Linux?",
and "Imagine if you lost all your business on things that run Linux
_just_ because of ZTE's non-compliance, what would happen, would
you be able to compete with the other chains buying software from
Microsoft or Apple?" ;o)

..one way these retail chains can avoid such peril, is hiring GPL
compliance staff to support their cell phone etc purchase teams,
I can imagine chains demanding source up front, from e.g. ZTE. ;o)
Post by Bruce Perens
Thanks
Bruce
Post by Arnt Karlsen
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 11:35:57 +0200, Nils wrote in message
Post by Nils Faerber
Post by James Hilliard
The Chinese ZTE company appears to be ignoring GPL requirements
in numerous markets especially in Europe. They appear to
manufacture numerous routers/DSL modems that use the linux
kernel and they do not distribute any source code for anything
as far as I can tell or provide any GPL written offers. I have
done an analysis of some of their DSL modems that all appear to
be using the Linux kernel and likely other GPL code. When
contacted they appear uncooperative in fixing this issue but
admit that the routers use Linux.
Oh great, I mean the case of ZTE :(
But this is something that is pretty common for Chinese hardware makers
- look at all those cheap Android devices floating around. For most
of
Post by Nils Faerber
them you do not get anything and I am almost sure that most even
run without proper licensing of the multi media codecs too.
It is pretty hard to enforce this.
..bull. The ZTE etc phones you see in malls etc shops, you buy
from "that shop", not from ZTE etc. So go after the shops.
Linux is found not just in ZTE cell phones, but also Samsung phones,
Linksys routers, TV sets, stoves, washing machines, vacuum cleaners,
etc. So, ask your shop for ZTE GPL source, and tell them about S/W
piracy law enforcement and recycling costs. ;o)
Post by Nils Faerber
Within China you have basically no
chance. Within a western country the best thing one could do is to
threaten the maker with an import embargo. This could be achieved
when
Post by Nils Faerber
the issue is taken to the local offcials dealing with "intellectual
property rights". But this has only seldomly been done, as far as I
know. And for all the small makers it would not help either - once
you
Post by Nils Faerber
achieved one embargo they will simply switch the brand/name/model
and off they go again - been there, seen that. For a large company
like ZTE that wants to get more ground in western countries now
(which used to be a China/Asia only brand) this could though be a
little different case.
But yes, this really aggravates me too for some time, that Asian
manufacturers basically ignore most of it, making a business from
it and thus have an unfair competetive advantage compared to
western makers that (have to) respect it.
Cheers
nils
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
best case, worst case, and just in case.
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
Bruce Perens
2013-10-27 03:02:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arnt Karlsen
..going after retail chains, means they lose _all_ their business
on all things that run Linux, not just ZTE cell phones, washing
maschines, stoves, etc, once they lose their license to Linux.
I work for large corporations that have already had problems with third-parties passing them Free Software in a product design without any advice on how to comply with the license or indeed the source code necessary to do so.

To deal with this problem, they put a boiler-plate legal statement in their standard vendor contract requiring that the vendor promise not to convey any Open Source software to them. I have had to sign that several times! Fortunately for my business, I am only giving those customers advice about how to deal with Open Source. But someone whose business is software engineering using Open Source would be screwed before they start.

So, maybe prosecuting the stores won't have the effect you desire, and will just get the ones who have not already banned use of Open Source in products to do so.

In working out a strategy to deal with a recalcitrant company, we have to think about these things. We may not choose some weapons because they are likely to backfire.

Thanks

Bruce
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
James Hilliard
2013-10-28 00:09:39 UTC
Permalink
These devices are generally issued my major ISP's
Post by Bruce Perens
Post by Arnt Karlsen
..going after retail chains, means they lose _all_ their business
on all things that run Linux, not just ZTE cell phones, washing
maschines, stoves, etc, once they lose their license to Linux.
I work for large corporations that have already had problems with
third-parties passing them Free Software in a product design without any
advice on how to comply with the license or indeed the source code
necessary to do so.
To deal with this problem, they put a boiler-plate legal statement in
their standard vendor contract requiring that the vendor promise not to
convey any Open Source software to them. I have had to sign that several
times! Fortunately for my business, I am only giving those customers advice
about how to deal with Open Source. But someone whose business is software
engineering using Open Source would be screwed before they start.
So, maybe prosecuting the stores won't have the effect you desire, and
will just get the ones who have not already banned use of Open Source in
products to do so.
In working out a strategy to deal with a recalcitrant company, we have to
think about these things. We may not choose some weapons because they are
likely to backfire.
Thanks
Bruce
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
These devices are generally issued my major ISP's which also distribute
the firmware bins, they would have a lot to lose if they weren't allowed to
use these devices anymore.
Arnt Karlsen
2013-10-30 03:05:24 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 20:02:06 -0700, Bruce wrote in message
Post by Bruce Perens
Post by Arnt Karlsen
..going after retail chains, means they lose _all_ their business
on all things that run Linux, not just ZTE cell phones, washing
maschines, stoves, etc, once they lose their license to Linux.
I work for large corporations that have already had problems with
third-parties passing them Free Software in a product design without
any advice on how to comply with the license or indeed the source
code necessary to do so.
To deal with this problem, they put a boiler-plate legal statement in
their standard vendor contract requiring that the vendor promise not
to convey any Open Source software to them. I have had to sign that
several times! Fortunately for my business, I am only giving those
customers advice about how to deal with Open Source. But someone
whose business is software engineering using Open Source would be
screwed before they start.
..the solution is get them to put their source in their boiler plate
templates. And, I see we'll wind up agreeing on the how etc. ;o)
Post by Bruce Perens
So, maybe prosecuting the stores won't have the effect you desire,
and will just get the ones who have not already banned use of Open
Source in products to do so.
..I think we are past that hurdle now, I don't see how Norwegian
mall chains can stay competitive on Nokian Wintendo or Apple etc
and no Linux nor Android, we have tasted too much sweet candy to
accept 3'rd class junk. ;o) Just do one chain at the time. ;o)
Post by Bruce Perens
In working out a strategy to deal with a recalcitrant company, we
have to think about these things. We may not choose some weapons
because they are likely to backfire.
..or use the backfire to set off the next stage in the chain. ;o)
Post by Bruce Perens
Thanks
Bruce
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
SonWon
2013-10-25 12:29:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nils Faerber
Post by James Hilliard
The Chinese ZTE company appears to be ignoring GPL requirements in
numerous markets especially in Europe. They appear to manufacture
numerous routers/DSL modems that use the linux kernel and they do not
distribute any source code for anything as far as I can tell or provide
any GPL written offers. I have done an analysis of some of their DSL
modems that all appear to be using the Linux kernel and likely other GPL
code. When contacted they appear uncooperative in fixing this issue but
admit that the routers use Linux.
Oh great, I mean the case of ZTE :(
But this is something that is pretty common for Chinese hardware makers
- look at all those cheap Android devices floating around. For most of
them you do not get anything and I am almost sure that most even run
without proper licensing of the multi media codecs too.
It is pretty hard to enforce this. Within China you have basically no
chance. Within a western country the best thing one could do is to
threaten the maker with an import embargo. This could be achieved when
the issue is taken to the local offcials dealing with "intellectual
property rights". But this has only seldomly been done, as far as I
know. And for all the small makers it would not help either - once you
achieved one embargo they will simply switch the brand/name/model and
off they go again - been there, seen that. For a large company like ZTE
that wants to get more ground in western countries now (which used to be
a China/Asia only brand) this could though be a little different case.
But yes, this really aggravates me too for some time, that Asian
manufacturers basically ignore most of it, making a business from it and
thus have an unfair competetive advantage compared to western makers
that (have to) respect it.
Cheers
nils
Instead of banning the product they just need to ban the company / plant
where the product is made. This is what they should do if they really want
to fix the problems with Chinese goods in compliance or quality.
Neil Brown
2013-10-25 21:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Instead of banning the product they just need to ban the company / plant where the product is made.
I'm not sure I really follow your thinking here, I'm afraid:

Who is "they", in this instance? And on what legal basis could "they" "ban" "the plant"?

When you say "the plant", do you mean Foxconn, or whoever the actually building is outsourced to? Or "just" ZTE — and, even then, "ban" them from what? Existing? Using GPL'd code?

Neil

__________

Neil Brown
***@neilzone.co.uk | http://neilzone.co.uk
SonWon
2013-10-25 11:46:33 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:56 AM, James Hilliard
Post by James Hilliard
The Chinese ZTE company appears to be ignoring GPL requirements in
numerous markets especially in Europe. They appear to manufacture numerous
routers/DSL modems that use the linux kernel and they do not distribute any
source code for anything as far as I can tell or provide any GPL written
offers. I have done an analysis of some of their DSL modems that all appear
to be using the Linux kernel and likely other GPL code. When contacted they
appear uncooperative in fixing this issue but admit that the routers use
Linux.
If they don't comply then there should be a way to have their products
banned from the world market.
Arnt Karlsen
2013-10-25 16:29:02 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 07:46:33 -0400, SonWon wrote in message
Post by SonWon
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:56 AM, James Hilliard
Post by James Hilliard
The Chinese ZTE company appears to be ignoring GPL requirements in
numerous markets especially in Europe. They appear to manufacture
numerous routers/DSL modems that use the linux kernel and they do
not distribute any source code for anything as far as I can tell or
provide any GPL written offers. I have done an analysis of some of
their DSL modems that all appear to be using the Linux kernel and
likely other GPL code. When contacted they appear uncooperative in
fixing this issue but admit that the routers use Linux.
If they don't comply then there should be a way to have their products
banned from the world market.
..there is, report it the the cops as software piracy. ;o)
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
Loading...