Xiaomi as recent as a week ago. AA has an entire post about their business malpractices. Pretty sure AA doesn't take a day to make videos, edit them and publish them on the same day including doing all the necessary research.
Pravin Patil yes they are the worst GPL violators ever they often release kernels after the products life cycle when nobody is interested to make ROMs or mods for the device.
The problem today is that all these giant tech companies are all US based. In my region in Asia, among lots of companies, there's no emphasis on western based licenses and regulations. You have a software coming in from the West, great. Now it's in Asia, so it stays in Asia. West is West, Asia is Asia. Their regulations VS our regulations. Business mentality here is such - the west is the big superpower, but here, we're the inferior region, what we do doesn't make any difference, so we just mind our own business, we're not within their scope of interest. Etc. It's just how cut off the market is over on this side of the globe. Not every country has courts that enforce US laws and regulations since we are not US. Many companies don't see a global market over here, instead, we only focus on regional - where there's hardly any reach or interest from western countries/industries. Every country has their own rules, and these rules are heavily seeded into different cultures, and they don't see the need to oblige with regulations that they don't feel a part of.
Problem starts when this regional company goes worldwide. Immediately it starts as untrustworthy or thieves and it's very difficult to get rig of that label.
Two additions (I am sure they are somewhere in one of your large back catalog I am yet to watch, but here they are, anyway): One, users of GPL licensed software are free to _sell_ it, as long as they respect the license. Why would anyone pay for GPL'ed SW? A frequent reason is that they get support bundled with it. Often, free "community editions" of open source software differ from commercial version only in support. Second, Free Software Foundation recognized that people who _sell_ their software would often like to use _some_ open source components, without making all of their software open source. And thus LPGP (Lesser (or Library) General Public License) was born. It typically covers libraries or other well defined components. Usual GPL rules apply to that component by itself - if you modify it for your use, you must release modifications under the same license. However, you are free to _link_ it with your other, closed source code to make closed source executables. Similarly, you are generally free to keep your source code closed even it you user open source tools (e.g. compilers) to make it.
GPL is better at saving you money than at making you money. This is what most big companies understand and what the majority of normal people don't. Sometimes this is worth it way more than actually selling and profiting off of a product. GPL projects are community driven and not strictly company driven. Of course usually the biggest players in these communities that develop the GPL project are actual, real, massive, extremely wealthy companies that found out they can save/make money through this particular GPL product. In return they submit changes/contribute to this project making it even bigger, stronger and better. This is why currently open source projects are advancing faster and gaining more ground than proprietary projects. Of course there are certain types of programs that are not really worth making open source but they are specific cases. For the biggest and most widely used projects open source proved to be a more efficient, faster, stable and secure way to develop.
Video by Gary Sims, Clicks instantly I would like to ask something sir, If you could make a series on UA-cam where you explain how CPUs works in details, GPUs, Wireless devices, Monitors, Cameras, How can computers use logic gates to do this wonderful job and things like that to teach people about everything so it's no longer "Magic", It'll be really really helpful for new people and even me, I know alot of things but not enough Thank you for your amazing work, And hopefully you'll read this :)
StarkTMA theres a great course in coursera called nand to tetris that teaches just that. It goes from logic gates to cpu to assemblers and finally to an OS. Lectures are pretty easy, especially if you don't do the exercises and just get a feel for it.
These informative videos are the best thing on this channel, and this video in particular is probably the most important. More people need to pay attention to free and open source development.
I agree with Mr Gary Sims. These companies ought to have at least a little bit of social conscience and abide by the contract which they have agreed. It is incumbent upon them to acknowledge the people whose shoulders they are standing upon, as Mr Sims so rightly puts it!!! Most excellent video, Sir!!!
If you are using an open source firmware GPL on an embedded board but you have a custom android code that communicates with it are you obligated to release your android code?
One clarification I'm seeking about GPL, especially as a weak-copyleft is whether we need to acknowledge or make the source code available if we are using the existing source code as it is without any modifications. For example, I download and use the Linux kernel source for a commercial embedded product. However, I do not make any changes to the kernel but just add some of my proprietary applications to it. What am I supposed to do in this scenario?
Confusing. Why does an Android app have to modify the Linux kernel? Can a developer write and sell an android app, release the source but stipulate that users of the app have to pay a license fee?
Hi Gary, thank you for sharing this great content. I have a question as something is not clear to me. We are building a professional site builder with extensions based on Drupal (GPL v2) with other 3rd party modules (also GPL v2). This is going to be an online product, subscription based. We are not changing the core of Drupal but we might modify some 3rd party modules. What we should do in order to be fully fair maintaining the license. Do we just add more text to copyrights disclaimer on the page of the product or do we need to do something more? Thank you :)
Thanks a lot great explanation! I have a question about GPL tho. What about a say a composer or a node package under GPL? Can it be installed in a project without forcing them to give me their entire project source? I would like to receive any changes/fixes made to MY source code, but I don't expect to get everything they do just because some small part of it depends on my library. Eg. Say a Shoe company builds a web app to create custom shoes in a 3d interface and paint them etc and they are using my API Router I build. I dont expect them to share their 3d engine and product management system etc. But if they create a FORK of my library so they can fix/improve something for their purposes then Id like to receive that. Is there any licence that asks for contributions without the creep? Guess there is no way to enforce any of this anyway. I mean if its closed source how can you know if they are using your code at all in the first place.
“Social contract” It is not, it’s a legally binding license. In the United States, if you are violating a software license, you are committing software infringement and can be sued as sucu
I guess it is both. As to suing, the contract is between the copyright holders and the user. It is up to the copyright holder(s) to sue. Or not. Even preparing for a court case in USA runs into +$100k / month (!!) in and that is an easy 6 month before you get to court. So you easily run a bill of half a million before you even get to court and there is no guarantee how the case ends and who pays the bill.
How such violations are detected? Let's say I build an application on top some GPL licensed repo and make it closed source. How can the author of repo find out that I am using it?
With difficulty. In theory if you have plausible reason to suspect a violation you can get a court order that would allow you or some intermediary to examine their source code. In practice I expect this never happens.
In South Asia market most of the product of Xiaomi are not with kernel source code. This is a great violation.. I would request you guys (tech website and channels) to criticize them for this kind of behavior.
Does GPL ONLY means that the changes need to be published? What about the rest of the code that relied on it? Like you said. If the Linux Kernel is GPL, doesn't that mean that ALL of Android should be GPL too? Or just the changes that Google made to the kernel? Why is this so confusing?
So if you don't modify the linux kernel you can use it to create a proprietary software? And if a company violates GPL what happens? They get sued? Who sues them?
If you haven't changed anything then you would be just using an API which interfaces with your proprietary program and that's perfectly fine. And yes they get sued after the violation of the license, and the copyright holder of the project sues them.
@@googleuser9422 GPL explicitly allows internal use as long as you aren't sharing with anyone because it's a distributive license not end user license. You can make as many as changes you want and use them, you can do it but can't release it. Also the receiver of the GPL program have to ask first for the source files, and you are given a timeframe to comply with the request (there isn't a timeframe for GPL v2 so it becomes a violation the moment someone doesn't have a source, legally, but for GPL v3 it's exactly 30 days) if you don't then only it's a violation.
Gary you're amazing at explain how the hardware of a smartphone works and also how the software works in a way that is didactic and and entertaining way combining both simple and technical ways YOU DO AN AMAZING WORK, SO PLEASE KEEP ON DO IT AND THANK YOU FOR GARY EXPLAINS VIDEOS THAT YOU DID, YOU'RE DOING AND OF COURSE WILL DO P.S. : I watched another video here in UA-cam to see how they explained things but I am sorry for them they're can not even neither compete nor can do it better than you if you can I love to replay to this comment
Sorry, but these strong copyleft licenses are not much better than any proprietary license, and the belief that they enforce software freedom has largely gone alongside Richard Stallman's recent exit from the OSS and Free Software scene. A restriction is a restriction, and to prevent proprietary software companies from making derivative works under their own terms is by no means a way of freeing your software. People contribute to the OSS scene for the good of everyone, out of either a passion for technology, or because they're developing a software subsystem of a proprietary product that they don't mind open sourcing (and in fact doing so likely helps improve that subsystem). I strongly urge lovers of software freedom to use either the MIT or Apache 2.0 license.
Thanak you Gary you are very kind to publish this video. Now where I need to publish the modified code that I too freely? Let´s say I took it from GitHub?
Gary , can I ask you something ? I know you've wrote apps before for android when you've been running custom benchmarking tests so my question is have you ever made an app and released it in the playstore and if not why not, because if I had the skills to write code and make apps that's all I'd be doing all day ...
There is also the Lesser GPL that allows for use of proprietary add-ons on an OS.Plus it's not like you cant sell GPL licensed software for money. www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
Unfortunately, GPL non-compliance is par for the course in the world of Android. Budget SoC company MediaTek once tried charging users for access to GPL'd code. Motorola under Lenovo has been regularly accused of violating the GPL and releasing incomplete sources or sources that differ from the kernel shipping on devices. Unsurprisingly, the majority of these alleged GPL violators are from China, which often plays fast and loose with IP law. so i guess gary mean a lot of the companies from china, maybe some from taiwan.
@@Zephyrus0, if you distribute any derivative work, you have to use a compatible license. This can be considered a limitation of the freedom to "modify and share".
@@flobbie87 it doesn't stop you from modifying or sharing stuff, you can still add, remove or change the code you want and share it in a source or binary format.
I don't understand why the iphone7810's animations is so smooth unlike android... will someone start to fix that? Even I have my Qualcomm Snap821 it fast but in app is still quite not good compared with Apple phone..
Wow Gary is super passionate I mean he always is but you can tell he is pissed at companies that take advantage. Well done sir!
Gary taking a shot at Xiaomi. Right on!
Saad Syed I figured that was the case. Well done
More like MediaTek.
Xiaomi as recent as a week ago. AA has an entire post about their business malpractices. Pretty sure AA doesn't take a day to make videos, edit them and publish them on the same day including doing all the necessary research.
Xiaomi, are you listening?
Pravin Patil yes they are the worst GPL violators ever they often release kernels after the products life cycle when nobody is interested to make ROMs or mods for the device.
At least they deliver their changes, compared to the competition in China like Huawei
@@divadsn *cough*
Revoking UBL Service
I won't even be mad if Gary gave me homework..
LOL
Piyush x64 yeah
Facts
Companies like these don't even deserve our money. That's sad
Geez you won't like Gary when he gets angry. Gary started spitting fire at the end about gpl violators. Great video as always
"Then there is something wrong with you"
Emmanuel Azadze *"SERIOUSLY"*
You right
is he talking about xiaomi???
The problem today is that all these giant tech companies are all US based. In my region in Asia, among lots of companies, there's no emphasis on western based licenses and regulations. You have a software coming in from the West, great. Now it's in Asia, so it stays in Asia. West is West, Asia is Asia. Their regulations VS our regulations. Business mentality here is such - the west is the big superpower, but here, we're the inferior region, what we do doesn't make any difference, so we just mind our own business, we're not within their scope of interest. Etc.
It's just how cut off the market is over on this side of the globe. Not every country has courts that enforce US laws and regulations since we are not US. Many companies don't see a global market over here, instead, we only focus on regional - where there's hardly any reach or interest from western countries/industries. Every country has their own rules, and these rules are heavily seeded into different cultures, and they don't see the need to oblige with regulations that they don't feel a part of.
Problem starts when this regional company goes worldwide. Immediately it starts as untrustworthy or thieves and it's very difficult to get rig of that label.
Gary is the best thing to come out of Android authority
Two additions (I am sure they are somewhere in one of your large back catalog I am yet to watch, but here they are, anyway):
One, users of GPL licensed software are free to _sell_ it, as long as they respect the license. Why would anyone pay for GPL'ed SW? A frequent reason is that they get support bundled with it. Often, free "community editions" of open source software differ from commercial version only in support.
Second, Free Software Foundation recognized that people who _sell_ their software would often like to use _some_ open source components, without making all of their software open source. And thus LPGP (Lesser (or Library) General Public License) was born. It typically covers libraries or other well defined components. Usual GPL rules apply to that component by itself - if you modify it for your use, you must release modifications under the same license. However, you are free to _link_ it with your other, closed source code to make closed source executables.
Similarly, you are generally free to keep your source code closed even it you user open source tools (e.g. compilers) to make it.
GPL is better at saving you money than at making you money. This is what most big companies understand and what the majority of normal people don't. Sometimes this is worth it way more than actually selling and profiting off of a product. GPL projects are community driven and not strictly company driven. Of course usually the biggest players in these communities that develop the GPL project are actual, real, massive, extremely wealthy companies that found out they can save/make money through this particular GPL product. In return they submit changes/contribute to this project making it even bigger, stronger and better. This is why currently open source projects are advancing faster and gaining more ground than proprietary projects. Of course there are certain types of programs that are not really worth making open source but they are specific cases. For the biggest and most widely used projects open source proved to be a more efficient, faster, stable and secure way to develop.
This is a great and passionate explanation of why the GPL is so important. Good work!
There are also thousands of examples people violate closed source and patents. In the end the company with the biggest wallet wins
Video by Gary Sims, Clicks instantly
I would like to ask something sir, If you could make a series on UA-cam where you explain how CPUs works in details, GPUs, Wireless devices, Monitors, Cameras, How can computers use logic gates to do this wonderful job and things like that to teach people about everything so it's no longer "Magic", It'll be really really helpful for new people and even me, I know alot of things but not enough
Thank you for your amazing work, And hopefully you'll read this :)
StarkTMA theres a great course in coursera called nand to tetris that teaches just that. It goes from logic gates to cpu to assemblers and finally to an OS. Lectures are pretty easy, especially if you don't do the exercises and just get a feel for it.
There is also a channel named Ben Eater .
These informative videos are the best thing on this channel, and this video in particular is probably the most important. More people need to pay attention to free and open source development.
I agree with Mr Gary Sims. These companies ought to have at least a little bit of social conscience and abide by the contract which they have agreed. It is incumbent upon them to acknowledge the people whose shoulders they are standing upon, as Mr Sims so rightly puts it!!!
Most excellent video, Sir!!!
Professor Gary comes through again, and I feel really bad for whoever set him off. Gary's gonna tear you a new one!!
Right on Gary! Let them have it!
Best line, 8:38 .
So they don’t have to publish the changes of android, but have to publish the changes in Linux kernel , am I understanding correctly？
Woah, Gary went kind of salty here, didn't he
hah
Okuyasu Nijimemeura And it was AWESOME.
If you are using an open source firmware GPL on an embedded board but you have a custom android code that communicates with it are you obligated to release your android code?
Good job, sir Gary!
So all the android phones are publish under the GPL license? and every one can copy the software?
Very passionate video. Great as always
So do I do MIT or GPL3 for my dinky snake game?
I just love this guy!👌
Best Video on Software Licensing that I watched so far!
*cough* Xiaomi *cough*
One clarification I'm seeking about GPL, especially as a weak-copyleft is whether we need to acknowledge or make the source code available if we are using the existing source code as it is without any modifications. For example, I download and use the Linux kernel source for a commercial embedded product. However, I do not make any changes to the kernel but just add some of my proprietary applications to it. What am I supposed to do in this scenario?
That's modification, adding, removing, changing comes under modification.
@AndroidAuthority I wanted to know how will a person know if GPL code is used if only the exe is published by the company. thanks.
Confusing. Why does an Android app have to modify the Linux kernel? Can a developer write and sell an android app, release the source but stipulate that users of the app have to pay a license fee?
Hi Gary, thank you for sharing this great content. I have a question as something is not clear to me. We are building a professional site builder with extensions based on Drupal (GPL v2) with other 3rd party modules (also GPL v2). This is going to be an online product, subscription based. We are not changing the core of Drupal but we might modify some 3rd party modules. What we should do in order to be fully fair maintaining the license. Do we just add more text to copyrights disclaimer on the page of the product or do we need to do something more? Thank you :)
Thanks a lot great explanation!
I have a question about GPL tho. What about a say a composer or a node package under GPL? Can it be installed in a project without forcing them to give me their entire project source?
I would like to receive any changes/fixes made to MY source code, but I don't expect to get everything they do just because some small part of it depends on my library. Eg. Say a Shoe company builds a web app to create custom shoes in a 3d interface and paint them etc and they are using my API Router I build. I dont expect them to share their 3d engine and product management system etc. But if they create a FORK of my library so they can fix/improve something for their purposes then Id like to receive that.
Is there any licence that asks for contributions without the creep? Guess there is no way to enforce any of this anyway. I mean if its closed source how can you know if they are using your code at all in the first place.
GPL or barbarism!
I much prefer permissive licenses (BSD stye) to copyleft licenses (GPL style).
This is similar to WordPress plugins, right? Or they should not publish the changes?
“Social contract”
It is not, it’s a legally binding license. In the United States, if you are violating a software license, you are committing software infringement and can be sued as sucu
I guess it is both. As to suing, the contract is between the copyright holders and the user. It is up to the copyright holder(s) to sue. Or not. Even preparing for a court case in USA runs into +$100k / month (!!) in and that is an easy 6 month before you get to court. So you easily run a bill of half a million before you even get to court and there is no guarantee how the case ends and who pays the bill.
I have one question....what happened to people who disobey GNU? Is there any legal action taken agent them?
Anirudha Donge There has been legal action taken in the past, try gpl-violations.org
How such violations are detected? Let's say I build an application on top some GPL licensed repo and make it closed source. How can the author of repo find out that I am using it?
With difficulty. In theory if you have plausible reason to suspect a violation you can get a court order that would allow you or some intermediary to examine their source code. In practice I expect this never happens.
In South Asia market most of the product of Xiaomi are not with kernel source code. This is a great violation.. I would request you guys (tech website and channels) to criticize them for this kind of behavior.
Gary could you please explain GPL 2 vs 3 and what exactly Linus meant when he ragged on v3? I don't understand
Amazing video. You have the best videos on UA-cam. Thanks for all the effort you put in for making the videos.
Does GPL ONLY means that the changes need to be published? What about the rest of the code that relied on it? Like you said. If the Linux Kernel is GPL, doesn't that mean that ALL of Android should be GPL too? Or just the changes that Google made to the kernel? Why is this so confusing?
So if you don't modify the linux kernel you can use it to create a proprietary software? And if a company violates GPL what happens? They get sued? Who sues them?
If you haven't changed anything then you would be just using an API which interfaces with your proprietary program and that's perfectly fine.
And yes they get sued after the violation of the license, and the copyright holder of the project sues them.
@@Zephyrus0 oh thanks. And if the code isn't open source, how would people outside of the company know they are violating the license?
@@googleuser9422 GPL explicitly allows internal use as long as you aren't sharing with anyone because it's a distributive license not end user license.
You can make as many as changes you want and use them, you can do it but can't release it.
Also the receiver of the GPL program have to ask first for the source files, and you are given a timeframe to comply with the request (there isn't a timeframe for GPL v2 so it becomes a violation the moment someone doesn't have a source, legally, but for GPL v3 it's exactly 30 days) if you don't then only it's a violation.
@@Zephyrus0 thanks now I understand better
Excellent video and you have explained the significance of GPL very well and easy to understand. Thanks !
Some tech giants actually employ engineers to contribute to the open source community. Just saying.
So emotional speech! TY for your videos)
As much as I agree, money doesn't care about injustice.
Very nice explanation ! Idid not know about Social Contract. This information MUST be passed around. Thanks !
Gary you're amazing at explain how the hardware of a smartphone works and also how the software works in a way that is didactic and and entertaining way combining both simple and technical ways
YOU DO AN AMAZING WORK, SO PLEASE KEEP ON DO IT AND THANK YOU FOR GARY EXPLAINS VIDEOS THAT YOU DID, YOU'RE DOING AND OF COURSE WILL DO
P.S. : I watched another video here in UA-cam to see how they explained things but I am sorry for them they're can not even neither compete nor can do it better than you
if you can I love to replay to this comment
Sorry, but these strong copyleft licenses are not much better than any proprietary license, and the belief that they enforce software freedom has largely gone alongside Richard Stallman's recent exit from the OSS and Free Software scene. A restriction is a restriction, and to prevent proprietary software companies from making derivative works under their own terms is by no means a way of freeing your software. People contribute to the OSS scene for the good of everyone, out of either a passion for technology, or because they're developing a software subsystem of a proprietary product that they don't mind open sourcing (and in fact doing so likely helps improve that subsystem). I strongly urge lovers of software freedom to use either the MIT or Apache 2.0 license.
How is Microsoft able to provide the WSL? Is it that WSL is an optional install?
Yes! Just so much yes here. Keep up the great work!
So why don't we shame and boycott these violators??
Gary explains we all listen
Excellent Gary
Why did everyone mention Xiaomi here? Something they've done?? I'm out of the loop here so an explanation would be helpful..
Wow! That came straight from the heart!!
Thanak you Gary you are very kind to publish this video. Now where I need to publish the modified code that I too freely? Let´s say I took it from GitHub?
Pure passion in 1s and 0s.
Gary , can I ask you something ? I know you've wrote apps before for android when you've been running custom benchmarking tests so my question is have you ever made an app and released it in the playstore and if not why not, because if I had the skills to write code and make apps that's all I'd be doing all day ...
HD Android Gameplay.tv Coding is the easy part, having a good idea is the hard bit!
Hi Gary! Great Video! Could you also explain the difference between GPL2 und GPL3?
Best Post ever Gary.
FRANK ROBY Seconded.
Gary Sims ! Sir, I have a lot of respect for you. Your videos are great, great job !
There is also the Lesser GPL that allows for use of proprietary add-ons on an OS.Plus it's not like you cant sell GPL licensed software for money. www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
Unfortunately, GPL non-compliance is par for the course in the world of Android. Budget SoC company MediaTek once tried charging users for access to GPL'd code. Motorola under Lenovo has been regularly accused of violating the GPL and releasing incomplete sources or sources that differ from the kernel shipping on devices. Unsurprisingly, the majority of these alleged GPL violators are from China, which often plays fast and loose with IP law.
so i guess gary mean a lot of the companies from china, maybe some from taiwan.
THANK YOU FOR THIS VIDEO ❤️👍👍👍
True they need to get paid so they can contribute to the creator to help him budget there new creations
At the end, I thought he was going to say "take a long walk off a short pier" LOL, would have been funny
Is this in respect to xiaomi not releaseing their source code? I think after the backlash, they finally did.
Hmmm what companies is he calling out here?
Mainly Xiaomi I would assume.
Companies like xiaomi and mediatek.I like xiaomi but this behavior of them frustrates me.
You sir, are the real MVP
Wonderfully explained! Thank you!!
Damnit Gary, I wish I had even just a smidgen of your knowledge with tech...
7:05 that chairman and shareholders are worse than leeches and other parasites🤮
Ya Gary U Showed Them!!!
3:22 it's unfortunate that he used any terms... ever
Is he the founder of channel?
Vedang Upadhye No I am not, just one part of a fantastic group of writers and videographers.
GPL2, Best one to use in my eyes, ensures you get any improvements back.
Not exactly
Can these companies be sued and their license taken away?
I fricken love these man! Thanks so much Gary! I hope you continue to make many more :}
*GARY!!!* *GOOD EVENING PROFESSOR!!!*
Sorry I'm late, but I'm working weird hours again.
Mark Keller MARK!!!
Indeed you are the BEST, thanks
Very Well Explained!
Gary for president! Soon
Gary The Legend, awesome video as always.
But what if I just use the libs whitout modifying them ?
Thanks so much This actually helped me understand a lot
utmost respect for you gary!
You don't need our permission
Yeah, but can it still be considered free with that limitation? I think not.
What limitation?
@@Zephyrus0, if you distribute any derivative work, you have to use a compatible license. This can be considered a limitation of the freedom to "modify and share".
@@flobbie87 it doesn't stop you from modifying or sharing stuff, you can still add, remove or change the code you want and share it in a source or binary format.
@@Zephyrus0, no, it forces me to also release my additions with a compatible license.
@@flobbie87 but it didn't stopped you from modifying or sharing.
I don't understand why the iphone7810's animations is so smooth unlike android... will someone start to fix that? Even I have my Qualcomm Snap821 it fast but in app is still quite not good compared with Apple phone..
This reminds me of my dad's "don't be a dick" lesson
I hate #Xiaomi for delaying the kernel sources for the #MIA1
Very good
Debt sacrifice racial quantity benefit smart close knowledge similar eventually.
Apple's MacOS after keeping their linux code private for 25 years: 👀
They use BSD as base not Linux
YOU BETTER PREACH THAT OPEN SOURCE DOCTRINE!!
As aways, a great video!