Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GPL Violation, Microtest's DiskZerver

Posted by Cliff on from the handling-and-rectifying-licensing-snafus dept.

Early this week, brtb submitted an eye-opening write up which may end up as the classic example of a large-scale GPL violation. Microtest's DiskZerver, a NAS device designed to handle CDs, would seem to be a sharp product, except it's based on software licenced under the GPL and potentially other free-software licenses as well. Of course, you would never know this, because Microtest never mentioned it, however that didn't stop Microtest from manufacturing and then marketing the device before it sold it off to another company. DiskZerver's new company xStore, which was unaware of the licensing issues, was notified about them, and this impending article. They have yet to comment. In situations like this, what should a company do to bring such a glaring GPL violation back into compliance?

Slashdot reader brtb reports:

About a year ago my employer, a local high school, purchased a couple MicroTest "DiskZervers," network-attached-storage boxes designed to cache CD images for LAN usage. We were mainly Netware-and-Win95 at that time, and the Zervers performed flawlessly in that configuration. But problems began when the district IT department made the decision to switch us over to an NT-domain setup. The Zervers, even with their advertised "Domain Integration" support, didn't seem to like this too well, so I dug a little deeper... imagine my surprise when I found out the boxes are actually embedded 486's with Linux and a whole slew of other GPL'ed software, mentioned nowhere in the manuals or on the accompanying software CD.

Apparently, Microtest (NAS division since sold to XStore) put together a mess of GPL software - a modified Linux kernel 2.0.27, Samba 1.9.x-ALPHA (!!!), the MARS_NWE netware emulator, and GNU C libraries (libc5), among others, stuffed them on a flash chip in a drive-bay-size embedded 486-based computer, and sold it as their "DiscZerver" product line. They also used some non-GPL packages, including Apache and Netatalk (macintosh server). Nothing wrong with their methods, but there's plenty wrong in their implementation.

The web interface and proprietary Windows front-end, the only given methods of configuring the device, refer to the various services generically, like "Web server," "SMB server," "NCP server," etc. - there's no mention anywhere, even in the manual, of the actual programs being used. Of course along with this is no accompanying source code or even the offer to provide any, as the GPL requires.

I can't even get any useful tech support from this company, much less someone to ask about getting the source code for the software and whatever modifications they made, which includes a flash file-system driver ("yaffs" - I think MicroTest wrote it, as I can't find any info on it) for the kernel. I did manage to hack out the hidden-from-customers root password; with that I found a shell prompt (Stand-alone Shell v1.0 - GPL? dunno) which only increased my determination as I could see exactly what programs they managed to steal, strip out identifying info, and use without credit.

I did contact the FSF with the limited information I had before I got shell access, and they did confirm the existence of a GPL violation, but were unable to do anything specific as they do not hold copyright on any of the programs I knew of at the time (and actually suggested I post to Slashdot to get some answers). xStore itself has not returned my emails or phone call. I have another e-mail in to the FSF, now that I know the machine includes glibc1.

So, right now I have a nice little piece of hardware, some mis-compiled (I think) software, and no idea what to do next. At the very least, I learned that my usual policy of disassembling and analyzing any new hardware we get is the right one; of course that doesn't help all the LAN users that need access to these CDs. I'd be happy if I could just get the code so I can fix SMBd/NMBd to work properly. I've thought about trying to make my own really-small distro to load on, but it's not really worth my time - I could just load the cached CD images (thankfully just standard .ISO's) off the Zerver's CD-storage hard drive into my other Linux server, compile and install Samba correctly (works great if you do it right) , and get on with life... but I really shouldn't have to do either. Any ideas?

5 of 393 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The blood of thousands is calling out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    fucking moron, stop aiding israel and binladen has accomplished one of his main goals. increase israelli support and even send troops to aide in the extermination of palestinian extremests and that would be a lesson for binladen. retard.

  2. SHOVE IT jew bag by dieragheads · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Fuck you Jew. Don't get me wrong, I am not supporting the Palestinian extremists, but there is no way I would support the Zionist Jews. The only fucking reason we are supporting the fucking Jews is because there are so many Jews in the government. They take over everything. But now that this situation has come, the incompetent Jews are forced to make way for the white gentile men in congress. These white, gentile men are now doing what they should have done a long time ago; let those Israeli fucks fend for themselves. Fucking Jews, man I love Hitler. He did the world a HUGE favor, weather you can accept it or not.

  3. Re:Nothing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    STFU, LordNumbnut.

  4. A lawyer writes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait


    I *am* a fucking lawyer.

    The paranoid delusions of jeffy124 are worrying, but can probably be best adressed by a psychiatrist.

    OK, In simple language that even a bunch of twelve-year-old socially inept twerps can understand:

    YOU CAN REVERSE ENGINEER ANYTHING YOU WANT.

    (Was that clear enough?)

    There are limits. Reverse engineering somebody else's car while it's moving may leave you open to criminal charges.

    Reverse engineering something *with the intent* of stealing the idea will cause problems. Big ones, if the jury chooses.

    If it's yours, and it doesn't work, and you reverse engineer it, and you can *prove* a fault, then you can ream a new orifice in the supplier. In the courts. No fucking 'license agreement' ever signed can prevent that.

    CONTRACTS EXIST TO DETERMINE WHEN TO SUE. They have no other purpose.

  5. Re:Criminal Proceedings by mimbleton · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Shut the fuck up you stupid hypocrite.
    You make us look like bunch of idiots.