Embedded Linux Overview: Free Beer, Free Speech

An anonymous reader writes "Never one to have his thirst for 'free beer' quenched, LinuxDevices.com contributing editor Kevin Dankwardt sets off on a quest to determine just how much freely downloadable embedded Linux software flows from the taps of commercial embedded Linux vendors' websites -- and discovers that there's a lot more available than you might realize. Read Dankwardt's guide to 'free beer' (well, uhm, free embedded Linux, that is)."

Comments

This is worth noting re. GPL

[renehollan]

From the article (and perhaps I am stretching fair use doctrine a bit by copying two whole paragraphs, but I wanted to get context clear):

Without going into a dissertation on GPL, it should be noted the GPL expects companies developing or selling products based on (or containing) embedded Linux make source code to the GPL components used in their products available to their end customers who request it. Therefore, as a consequence of GPL, if you need kernel sources for some specific processor, you ought to be able to buy a device known to be based on that processor, that uses embedded Linux, and then request and obtain source to that processor's kernel from the maker (or supplier) of that device.

Indeed, some device and system manufacturers do make sources to the embedded Linux kernel and other open source software used in their products freely available (by some other means) to their end customers. Unfortunately, however, we have found that many device and system vendors appear to consider themselves "above the law" when it comes to the GPL's source code obligations. For example, the author recently purchased an embedded Linux powered device and, when he asked the vendor's support person how to obtain a copy of the Linux they used, was politely informed that their product uses "a proprietary version of Linux." Additionally, some developers of kernel loadable module code, such as for device drivers, believe that by packaging their code as a loadable module it need not be released under the GPL. Thus, you might not be able to obtain source to some of the Linux code in your system even if you are one of their customers.

Am I the only one who sees this as a serious breach of the GPL and an affront and insult to the free software community?

Re:This is worth noting re. GPL

[phyxeld]

I don't understand why he would make such a serious allegation...

For example, the author recently purchased an embedded Linux powered device and, when he asked the vendor's support person how to obtain a copy of the Linux they used, was politely informed that their product uses "a proprietary version of Linux."

...and yet not tell the community which vendor he's speaking of! If what he says is true, and they're shipping a modified kernel and witholding the source, they are definitely in violation. So who is it?

Re:This is worth noting re. GPL

[Samrobb]

Hmm... interesting. Is this type of behavior allowable under the GPL? It seems to be an additional restriction on how the software can be used. At first glance, I would think there's no difference between saying "You may not use this kernel module with non-GPL code" and "You may not use this kernel module unless you are a customer of company X".

Nevermind that, if a kernel module is under the GPL, there's nothing preventing me from modifying it to run without these restrictions, and then distributing the new binaries and code in accordance with the GPL. If this is primarily a method of making a statement, then it's a weak one at best.