<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/28/25 03:26, Martin Guy via
cfarm-users wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:bbfa2c90-4e97-49e6-8d0f-3a65622d4e1e@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 28/04/25 04:25, Jacob Bachmeyer
via cfarm-users wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e4f0edb6-f269-424c-a7e8-1f5a4d2235a8@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
So then we run down the details according to <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc1738"
href="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html"
moz-do-not-send="true"><URL:https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html></a>:
<ul>
<li>the precise name of the product</li>
<li>the name of the person or organization distributing it</li>
<li>email addresses, postal addresses and phone numbers for
how to contact the distributor(s)</li>
<li>the exact name of the package whose license is violated</li>
<li>how the license was violated</li>
</ul>
<p>You have the first two of those; I believe Martin Guy found
at least some email addresses; our discussion seems to
indicate that we are looking at GPL violations on both GCC and
GNU binutils; and of course, the sources are completely
missing.</p>
<p>The FSF collects reports at: <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:license-violation@gnu.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">license-violation@gnu.org</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Not even a COPYING file, just binary blobs of GCC and LLVM</p>
<p>It could do bitcoin mining for all we know</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Fun... not only is the source completely missing but there is
also no copy of the license in the distribution. So that makes
two violations off the checklist.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:bbfa2c90-4e97-49e6-8d0f-3a65622d4e1e@gmail.com">
<p>business@ and hr@ are given at the bottom of spacemit.com</p>
<p>and there is phone number too. I didn't find an address but</p>
<p>as they are a (big!) registered company it must be findable.</p>
<p>In their Privacy Policy it says; "If you have any questions,</p>
<p>comments, suggestions or complaints about our policies</p>
<p>and the handling of your personal information,</p>
<p>please send an email to [<strong><a
href="mailto:business@spacemit.com" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
moz-do-not-send="true">business@spacemit.com</a></strong>]
[...]</p>
<p>and we will reply within 14 days" so I guess that's the one.<br>
</p>
<br>
<p>Who wants to be the first to make an enemy of spacemit, or</p>
<p>shall we send a circularly-signed letter from the compile farm
users?<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I suggest handing the matter off to the FSF; they promise to
start with a nice letter and escalate from there if needed.</p>
<p>I would have quietly sent it to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:license-violation@gnu.org">license-violation@gnu.org</a> but I
did not want the FSF to get a big stack of reports if others had
the same idea to quietly send it and it looks like the
point-of-contact if FSF needs more information may need to be
someone who can read Chinese.</p>
<p>Or should the report to the FSF be a circularly-signed letter
from the compile farm users? (i.e. Reply-To: cfarm-users)<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:bbfa2c90-4e97-49e6-8d0f-3a65622d4e1e@gmail.com">
<p></p>
<p>Golly, love and do what you want, but don't ever upset the
cfarm-users!<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>😂</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>-- Jacob<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>