Slashdot Mirror
Is Linksys Violating The GPL?
jap writes "According to this post on LKML, Linksys is shipping firmware for (at least their) 802.11g access-points based on Linux - without any sourcecode available or mentioning of it on their site. This could be interesting: it might provide the possibility of building an ueber-cool accesspoint firmware with IPsec and native ipv6 support etc etc, using this information!"
I'm not sure whether this is just as damaging to Open Source as the SCO thing had the potential of being, or not. On one hand, it might deter use of linux at all, and on the other it'll just be a general 'bad business practice to use linux in our commericial products' type stigma.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
...think of the number of APs they'd sell based on this fact alone. They obviously should abide by the GPL, but they should also shout it from the hilltops that their AP is Linux based and therefore a hackers delight (and the FCC's nightmare).
ER
What's got the higer priority: getting companies to print the GPL in their manuals, or getting companies to release high qulaity *ware with linux (for free!)
It could be argued that GPL compliancy will make it better, but as far as I can see it's still much better than what it could potentially have been.
Why does everyone always assume that any embedded device running Linux must have, in some way, violated the GPL?
I worked eight years as a firmware engineer. In the last three, I dealt almost exclusively with Linux.
And I can assure you that we didn't need to change any GPL'd code to get what we wanted. Even on fairly custom hardware, we could find preexisting GPL'd code to do 99% of what we needed (and wrote user-space drivers where possible, and modules where not). No need to release anything if you don't change anything, to comply with the GPL.
Whether ethical or not, plenty of legal ways of circumventing the intent of the GPL exist. And, like it or not, eliminating those loopholes (which would basically require forcing any program that runs under linux to use the GPL) would kill Linux in the business world.
The GPL has no real valid legal meaning until it has been tested in a court of law. I think the fact that no GPL violation case has ever made it into a courtroom speaks volumes!
Yes it does. It means that until now noone has had the guts to risk a legal confrontation to free themselves from the requirements the GPL imposes.
And even if the GPL has no valid legal meaning, what remains? Standard copyright law. So without the GPL you don't even have the right to download the source, let alone modify and republish it!
If Linksys did things right, however, those drivers will be compiled as modules, which they don't have to release source for (well...unless they started from GPL'ed driver source, of course).
Aside from the drivers, everything else interesting should be implemented as applications, which can be closed source on Linux.
So, don't get too excited: becoming fully GPL-compliant might consist of them simply putting up source for a stock kernel, and putting something about the GPL in their documentation.
Is it not? My understanding is that under this license, one could link against kernel headers and be a binary only module. Obviously if I made modifications to the kernel base itself and/or distributed it I would be obliged to distribute the source for my kernel. But, I might have a device in my system that for legal reasons I could not distribute source for and therefore wish to supply binary only drivers for it.
The author of the post mentionned in this story makes the statement that binary-only modules are only allowed if they don't control critical elements of the kernel... this concept seems to lend itself to a lot of subjectiveness in my opinion.
Anyone wish to comment?
If they didn't make changes to GPL'd programs, and if they acknowledge that they use linux and specify what version etc, they don't have to release the code. Technically you could ask them to send you a copy of 2.4-20.tgz, and they could charge you reasonable costs for doing so.
This assumes they didn't alter GPL code.
But his assumption about how kernel modules work is completely wrong.. though the INTENT might be something like he describes, it's not what Linus said.
The Linux kernel license says you can code proprietary modules, as long as the interface is part of the stock kernel (in other words, GPL)
So you can make a proprietary network driver, as long you don't haev to modify the main kernel to get it to work; you are under no obligation to release that source at all. If you have some way of hacking an entire realtime OS to look like a network drive to the kernel, that would comply.
So, linksys should be redistributing the linux sources, however, if their custom work is confined to modules & userland code, they are under no obligation to release the source to those drives. And as linux already has a kernel interface for network & wireless network, there is no reason to expect them to release that code.
Yet, if Linksys had stolen Windows code and used it in their routers, Balmer would be calling the lawyers on them. You can use GPL'ed code all you want, but you can't abuse GPL'ed code, just like you can't abuse proprietory code. At least the FSF tends to be nicer about working with potential violaters than most commercial entities are.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
First, as someone else already said, just becuase it uses a linux kernel doesn't mean they modified anything, it could be a stock kernel. If they wrote userspace drivers and/or kernel modules using existing interfaces for their custom hardware, they are not obligated to release anything.
Even if they use a stock kernel. they still have to suply the source of the stock kernel if they distribute a binary. read the GPL.
If the code on the Lynksys needs to be released under the terms of the Linux license, then replacing that code with Cisco code in future releases would not change their obligation to release the code for a current product. Rather, it would be an admission that they did indeed have an obligation to release the current code, an would leave them with an inferior produvct while not removing that obligation to release the source for the good code.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
From what I know about Linksys products, there's no reason they shouldn't work fine with any web browser that supports Java and the usual W3C security protocols. (And in fact, there seems to be a fairly active Linksys/Mac user community.) But if they say, "We only support Windows and IE" they drastically narrow the skill set they have to hire/train their support people for. Costs them a little in non-Windows sales and maybe Mozilla diehards, but not enough to justify doubling or tripling their training budget!
The GCC modification would have been made by Broadcom who actually build the base of these boxes. This would then be distributed to Belkin, Linksys, Buffalo and the rest of their licencees.
Distributing to a small number of large companies is still distributing, yes?
Yes, but internally, Cisco is playing with Linux more and more on equipment.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Hypothetical case: Let us assume that I am an author of a conventional dead-trees and ink book. To keep this simple, I will write, print, and distribute the thing myself. If I sell a copy, the person who receives it has all the information necessary to duplicate that book. The content is all right there. Nevertheless, they are not permitted to photocopy all of the pages, rebind them, and resell them.
In fact, they are not allowed to do this even if they don't charge for the pages, or if I gave them the original copy for free. Copyright continues to hold. Even if I stood on a downtown street corner giving away thousands of copies for free--for that matter, even if I gave away all the copies, and made no money from the enterprise whatsoever--I would still hold the copyright, and duplication of the books beyond the accepted bounds of fair use would be forbidden.
Similarly, making code available for download is not the same as actively waiving copyright, any more than giving away a copy of my book gives the receiver the right to duplicate it.
Releasing code under the GPL, which does not merely permit but actually REQUIRES people to make copies of your work, results in the waiving of your copyright.
Well, no. Releasing the code under the GPL does not require people to copy and redistribute your work--though this is a common misconception. People who download GPL'd software are welcome to keep it to themselves, use it for their own purposes, and never let it see the light of day again.
Back to my 'book' analogy. People can do just about anything with my book short of redistributing it. However, if someone wants to reprint my book (perhaps do a run in softcover) or a part thereof (lift a chapter and put it into some sort of collection) they need to approach me for my permission. I must grant them permission to use my copyrighted material in derivative works. Similarly, if someone wishes to use GPL'd code in a derivative work, the GPL provides the terms by which permission to redistribute is granted.
In other words, the notion that the GPL actively waives one's copyrights is misleading in the extreme. If I release material under the GPL, copyright still rests with me. I may choose to release another version of the program under a new and more restrictive license. The original version is still out there, and there is nothing I can do to recall it--any more than the Encyclopedia Britannica people can insist that libraries buy a new edition every year.
Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer--but I don't think that you are either.
~Idarubicin
It's the part about obligating SOMEBODY ELSE to make COPIES of your own WORK that nullifies your copyright. Under ordinary circumstances, that activity is prohibited. The GPL does not allow it, under limited conditions. Instead, it makes it MANDATORY under ALL circumstances. If you distribute the objects (allowed) you HAVE to distribute the source (normally prohibited by copyright).
Well, here's the kernel of the problem. You're distinguishing between the source code and the binaries produced from them. To be blunt, there is no distinction between the two under copyright law. I'm afraid that you've been getting bad legal advice. It is perfectly legal and enforceable to distribute both source and binaries and still retain copyright. Suppose I want to sell electronic voting machines to Florida. Wisely, the state government demands full access to the source code, to ensure that I have not inserted any backdoors. I may provide source and binaries under an appropriate contract without waiving my copyright.
Further, the GPL does not require indiscriminate redstribution of copyrighted works. I may download GPL'd code, modify it, and sell it for one million dollars to someone. When I do so, I must provide both the binaries and the source code, and supply them under the terms of the GPL. The GPL does not mean that I must make the software available at zero cost, nor does it mean that I must make it available to everyone. It merely specifies the terms under which I may use someone else's copyrighted code. Indeed, it would be perfectly legal for me to enter into an exclusive contract with a buyer that expressly forbids any further sale of my newly minted and properly-GPL'd software.
In order for the GPL to be a license, it would have to be enforceable. If it's not enforceable, it's not a license. Same with a contract. If it's null and void, then it's not a contract.
Okay--I see a couple of tautologies about contracts, and an assertion that the GPL is unenforceable? Why is it unenforceable? You insist that a person who publishes under the GPL has waived their copyright--I assert that this is an incorrect interpretation. I suppose that is where the story ends. If we can't get past this point, there's no point to further discussion. I don't imagine you have consulted a copyright lawyer about the enforceability of the GPL. Note also that the FSF has done so.
~Idarubicin
IMO, the whole purpose of the GPL is so you can make changes to the code and reincorporate them into use. If you can't even make an executable because the original author used a proprietary compiler, and their code forces the use of said compiler, it defeats the main purpose of having the source be under the GPL. You could distribute it under another license (a modified GPL, BSD, or public domain, none of which mention anything about compilers).
The whole argument comes back to freedom -- if I can't use the source code to make a change in an executable, what good is having the source in the first place? Look, but don't touch. Finding security exploits in the code is about it.
Think of this as a check on honesty of GPL adherents. If you don't make the offer or even admit that there is GPLed code in your product, you are probably doing it for a reason (i.e. you are hiding something). If they really aren't hiding anything, and it was a simple oversight, then why don't they reply to emails about it and just point out that no modifications were made, and stick a source mirror up on their FTP site? The cost is practically nil to them to adhere to the license, assuming they are playing by the rules, so what's the big deal?
If they are violating the GPL then they are breaking the law!
Just because a minority of GNU/Linux users who are turned on by 'World domination' want to see GNU/Linux everywhere is no excuse for letting a company get away with breaking the law.
If my Free Software code was in there, I would be furious.
They only need to release any modifications they have made to the Free Software used! If they made none, they just have to list the Free Software used and (perhaps) provide links to the developers pages.
There may be more implications but I'm not an expert on the GPL and the law. I am a user of it.