Chitech CT-PC89E - 8.9in ARM netbook with linux kernel, u-boot and new linux distro "MOS"

[Neil Brown]

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

>  they _are_ however the copyright holders of _modifications_ to the
> GPL software, and it's these modifications that they are viewing as
> giving them a commercial advantage, _and_ they want paying for it.

Thanks.

<snipping the rest to the most relevant part>

>  so it's not just about "being nice", it's _real_ serious problems due
> to their software engineers they've paid not knowing what the hell
> they are doing.

And, without the source code, you cannot offer them any patches, to
demonstrate the real-world value to them in making their source code
available. Nor port Ubuntu to their hardware, to help them ship more of
their hardware. (Although, an Ubuntu port might cause them problems with
their software store, if that was how they were planning on making
additional revenue.)

>  not exactly: there are three main goals:
>
>  1) fulfil the order for 20,000 netbooks by providing them with an
> "ubuntu netbook" image (and source code) for them to flash directly
> onto the units for sale

I am amazed that this is not incentive enough.

>  i didn't explain it, not through adam, in those kinds of terms, given
> that we're talking through a sales person who is one of the few people
> in the company that speak english.

I appreciate that, from other posts, you've reached rather an impasse in
communication, but, it might be worth spelling out, very clearly, why
its failure to comply with the licensing requirements is meaning you
cannot proceed with your intended business, and that it will result in
the loss of an initial order of 20,000 units.

>  we come across as someone wanting to make money just like they do!
> they asked us for our opinion of the samples, and we gave it to them
> straight: the OS is great, could use a few touches, but the linux
> kernel is unstable and unreliable, and is going to cause massive
> problems, please can we help sort them out, we assume you know what
> "GPL" is.  turns out they _didn't_ know what GPL is.

Hmm... okay. So it would appear to have problems with:

a.) It would be hard for a reseller to purchase netbooks from it,
because of the compliance issue - it is unlikely a reseller would want
to take the risk onboard, particularly a reseller with European or US
arms, where litigation for copyright infringement might be easier to bring.

b.) It would be hard for either a reseller or them to sell the product,
since it does not work properly, and it appears to lack the expertise to
fix it. The community could offer to do this.

c.) If any other company takes the code and fixes the problems, chances
are that that company would be obliged to release the changes, including
the source, and so Chitech could benefit form the R&D expenditure of
other companies.

d.) It does not seem, from what you say, as if there is much margin in
the netbooks themselves, and thus perhaps more from the services which
Chitech intends to provide - as such, whilst it might be obliged to
provide certain source code, this does not mean that it loses the
marketable value of its services.

e.) If releasing the source code means that someone can facilitate the
usage of a larger number of operating systems, then perhaps the product
will have a wider audience, since not everyone will want to go with a
niche / new Linux distribution. Failing to release the source code could
be damaging uptake by limiting its audience

f.) If the fixes which Citech made are largely hardware-specific then,
unless the other manufacturers are going to take Chitech's hardware
design and software design, the fixes are of little value to non-Chitech
hardware. If, however, the others are planning on doing that, then,
Chitech retains the first-to-market advantage, the more detailed
knowledge and understanding of how to modifying and fix the source tree,
may have built up a community presence, and also has the differentiating
services platform.

In other words, not releasing the code, in addition to potential direct
legal problems, is likely to stifle uptake of the product on licensing
and technical grounds, both with resellers and end users, as well as
creating a bad community feeling, and thus likely a degree of negative
PR, which is generally undesirable when launching a product. Many of
these problems could be solved, or at least lessened in terms of
possible impact, by releasing the code, and encouraging contributions
and fixes. Not releasing the code is likely to render them overtaken by
the next entrant in the marketplace, thus undermining everything they
have done so far.


Just my thoughts, anyway.

-- 




Neil

neil at neilzone.co.uk | http://neilzone.co.uk