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

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
<luke.leighton at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
> <luke.leighton at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Perhaps worthwhile pointing out that any exports to places that care may be
>>> in jeopardy.
>>
>>  eeeexcellent point.  i'd completely missed that one.  thank you.
>>
>>  this is perhaps the most important point of all: the knock-on effect
>> of customers suing their immediate supplier.
>
>  ah, i just remembered: they offered to give the source code IF we
> placed an order for 20,000 netbooks, and put down a large enough
> deposit.  cart before horse, especially because the people who want
> the 20,000 netbooks don't want xxxxing MID-Linux, they want ubuntu
> netbook: only way to do _that_ is to have xxxxing linux kernel source
> code, u-boot source code and the recipe they created for flashing the
> firmware.

For a marketing person you are dealing with, I believe that it would
make sense if you give a few examples of violations with the eventual
compliance.
For example, the DLink case which led to compliance
(http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html).
Or, show the evidence that LG is cooperating in providing source code
for their TV sets.

Simos

>  which, btw, undoubtedly uses busybox, thus violating _that_ GPL
> software component's license, as well.
>
>  if we can work out how to unpack a u-boot multifile (there's a u-boot
> multifile creator but no "de-"creator) then i'll be able to separate
> the linux kernel from the initrd, mount it as a cramfs and inspect it.
>
>  oh wait - they're already in violation of busybox's GPL license,
> because that's one of the 360 packages installed on the machine.
>

-- 
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q. Why is top posting bad?