Resolving Chitech CT-PC89E GPL Copyright Violation

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

dear kimberley,

please allow me to summarise the situation so far, for the benefit of
legal at lists.gpl-violations.org

* 20 samples of CT-PC89E Linux ARM netbooks were purchased in
february, 15 of which have gone to debian free software developers.

* analysis of the machine shows it to contain an absolutely excellent
and completely revolutionary embedded OS (http://mid-linux.org) for
which no GPL and LGPL source code is provided: only an SDK (containing
cross-compiler and tools).  the OS appears to be maemo-based, and uses
dpkg and aptitude.

* analysis also shows that there are some minor spelling mistakes in
MOS, some (anticipated) limitations in the flash player, but nothing
that can't be easily fixed.

* also, analysis and reverse-engineering of the binary 2.6.24.2 kernel
shows some quite major linux kernel related flaws (segfaults) and at
least one serious hardware-related problem (no watchdog timer, or if
there is one it's not being used)

* a request for the linux source code, u-boot source code and
MID-Linux MOS GPL and LGPL components (of which there are 350), was
made, and was declined.

* the reasons stated for declining to comply with the GPL were that
the factory has invested significant time and money, and wants its
investment back, without a competitor "taking the code and duplicating
the software and hardware", thus losing the money invested.  an
illegal condition was added, in direct violation of the GPL, that if a
deposit was given and an order placed for units, the GPL source code
would be provided.

* it was made absolutely clear, in a lengthy, detailed and clear
message, with help from neil brown in composing it, with points
repeated several times for emphasis, that this was in direct
contravention of the GPL, and that further promotion of the CT-PC89E
would cease immediately until this is resolved, and all GPL source
code provided.

* the message went to some lengths to explain the business case for
compliance with the GPL, including pointing out that whilst the GPL is
troublesome to enforce in china, it most certainly is NOT troublesome
to enforce in the countries in which the CT-PC89E is to be sold, thus
jeapordising any potential sales.

* the message also went to some lengths to explain the benefits of
having access to Free Software Developer resources, from which
Chitech's software engineers have been cut off due to the desire to
"gain competitive advantage" by working "in secret".

* the message also made clear that significant free software help and
resources would be given in resolving the current difficulties with
the OS and the Linux kernel [note: this in anticipation of success of
the distribution of the CT-PC89E world-wide: the mid-linux site, which
is referenced in /etc/apt/sources.list on the factory-supplied
machines, as it stands is woefully inadequate and unprepared].

* a reply was received which indicated a willingness to work with us,
but made it clear that the seriousness of the GPL violation and the
consequences of GPL violation had not been understood.

* the reply re-stated the wish to add conditions to the provision of
the GPL source code, indicating the willingness of Chitech to remain
in direct violation of the GPL license.

* given that the reply repeated the desire to add illegal conditions,
i am left with no alternative but to escalate this matter to
legal at lists.gpl-violations.org.

* the next step will be to escalate it to the gpl-violations.org lawyers.

* i have made it clear to chitech that we hold their product and their
efforts in the absolute highest regard, because they have been willing
to take the risk of creating the low-cost CT-PC89E ARM netbook _well_
ahead of any competition, and i have made it clear that the success of
the product is CRITICALLY dependent on them respecting the GPL
license, and releasing *ALL* of the GPL source code before it is too
late, and their competitors catch up and create alternative similar
products.

other than also making recommendations to begin upgrading the SO-DIMM
processor board to a low-cost 833mhz S5PC100, and other than chitech
disagreeing with the idea of using an S5PC100 but considering the
possibility of a 1ghz S5PV200 instead to be a better option, that's
the summary of things as they stand.

i am... not happy, but i have hope.

l.