Slashdot Mirror
Linksys Releases GPLed Code for WRT54G
petree writes "I stumbled across this on the Linksys website. Linksys has apparently caved to community pressure and released the GPLed source for linux running on their WRT54G. Cool Beans!"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
It's nice that you can see the GPL bits running on their box (Hey running a 2.4.5 kernel) - but it doesn't give you drivers, or scripts, etc. :(
No I don't think they need to provide the other bits, but it sure would be nice to get some 802.11 drivers, etc.
--
+1 Karma bonus due to GPL Love & Low User ID.
Can the OSS community now modify the firmware and make custom things for it?
Cats: All your base are belong to us.
Captain: Take off every sig !!
Now that all of this has been released, I wonder if we will be seeing alternative firmwares with support for new features (detailed external logging, radius server, wireless VLANs like the cisco APs, traffic shaping, oh, and MeshAP could be cool too.) A friend of mine already bought his WRT54G and likes it, but after I found this out (and submitted the story to slashdot) I ordered mine from Amazon($130 with free shipping) along with the NetGear WAG511($85 - 802.11a, 802.11g, 802.11b) as recommended by a Toms Hardware review. I'm so excited that I am going to have a dope 54mbps wireless network in my dorm room for only $215. A little excessive, maybe, but hey I will probably keep this for another 5+ yrs. Especially the 802.11a 802.11g cardbus card. Oh hey, if you are shopping, check out the SeattleWireless Hardware Comparison. They have all sorts of info there and it made it easier to decide what to buy.
Isnt the BEFW11S4 in the same boat as the WRT54G? Isnt it based on linux as well?
Hopefully this means that they'll release drivers for their 54-mbit cards already, then.
From what I read, they use the same Broadcom chipset as the access points, which means Linux drivers do exist, in spite of their not being released to anyone.
Now all I need is open source drivers for the 54g PCI and PCMCIA.
I use one of these access points; my first network nmap after installing it was disconcerting. I had thought that someone was war driving, when I found the 2.4.5 -O.
The last thing I expected to find was a Linux kernel.
At least they had the __________ to step up and honor the GPL.
Excessive perhaps, for just the room, but if their dorm is anything like mine was with a den down the hall or a study room in the basement or grassy areas out in front, a wireless connection like this would be pretty sweet.
Happiness is like peeing yourself. Everybody can see it but only you can feel its warmth.
This type of license strong-arming is the reason embeded market should choose BSD. We FreeBSD folk shun the idea of a not-so-free license like the GPL where you have free as in beer, not free as in freedom. Free, Net, and OpenBSD are free as in beer, and freedom. Linksys could have had equal if not better performance with a BSD based kernel, and there is certainly an established BSD embeded computing community. Certainly NetBSD is the most supperior embeded Open Source OS on Earth which runs on over 35 architectures.
Well, the GPL might be good if Linksys wanted to write code that was Open source, but didn't want a competitor to takeover. Sorta like how IBM did with their JFS filesystem. SUN could take JFS, put it on Solaris, but they would have to show IBM the code that glued it together. So in this way the GPL is great for companies who want to share code, but bad for companies who want to borrow code for their own products. It appears Linksys needs to ignore a bit of the linux hype and get more practical, or continue to "cave under pressure" as the slashdot post implies.
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
Vixie cron isn't a pure gpl license as you can read from their own source in the README file:
#/* Copyright 1988,1990,1993 by Paul Vixie
# * All rights reserved
# *
# * Distribute freely, except: don't remove my name from the source or
# * documentation (don't take credit for my work), mark your changes (don't
# * get me blamed for your possible bugs), don't alter or remove this
# * notice. May be sold if buildable source is provided to buyer. No
# * warrantee of any kind, express or implied, is included with this
# * software; use at your own risk, responsibility for damages (if any) to
# * anyone resulting from the use of this software rests entirely with the
# * user.
# *
# * Send bug reports, bug fixes, enhancements, requests, flames, etc., and
# * I'll try to keep a version up to date. I can be reached as follows:
# * Paul Vixie uunet!decwrl!vixie!paul
# */
And so it looks like until linksys gives credit properly in the documentation to Paul Vixie they are still in violation of licensing agreements.
(He's better known for BIND, MAPS, PAIX, MFNX, etc.)
--
There is no hatred more pure and true than that expressed by children.
Good first step, but that's far from the only Linksys device running Linux. Where are the sources for the other devices?
:-)
Of course you're correct about that. But what's wrong with being nice to them just now. Let's watch them be shocked when sales of the unit tick upward, then let's ask for more, ok?
Of course, the above depends on being able to reflash the thing successfully, and as far as I can see, that's going to be a whole lot easier than the XBox was, plus more useful, including being useful to Linksys. Unlike Microsoft, they make money every time they sell one.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
I have this actual piece of equipment, the WRT54G. Now that I've got this code, what do I do now? I am still unable (as far as i know) to edit this code, and safely reflash my router so i can run snmp off of it, or run snort/acid/etc.
Great, GPL the code. But now make it useful for me.
On a different topic, even if Linksys hasn't provided the 'correct' source code, as suggested by some, their acknowledgement of the GPL should at least mean open slather on reverse engineering any binary which has a hint of GPL to it.
This has nothing to do with drivers. The question is, "is the source code released by linksys actually what they use on the router product?"
Forget the drivers. Just look through the application source. Where are the linksys mods?? Are you telling me that they took the stock version of those OSS projects and just shipped them? Bullshit! There are always local mods, even trivial ones, so where are they? Take a look at what transmeta does to their open sources. They have local mods all over the place. And you're telling me that linksys shipped the sources without a single change?
I don't know about you, but I don't really have too many 1 gig files I need to transfer through thin air in under a minute. That kind of bandwidth is still suitable for streaming video, and just try and tell me you don't think it'd be cool to ssh from your 802.11g enabled pda into the box next to your tv to stream a movie from the box in your basement. Fine, not too many people actually have this setup, but as I'm completing my media PC and have a couple p2's dying for a job, it seems like a good idea to me....besides you insensitive clod, broadband isn't even available in my area, you're so ungrateful to scoff at 1.3MB/s transfer speeds...I shall shit on your grave!
The code to whatever custom build of GCC was used to compile the things in the first place...
Harvards wireless network usage notes includes the following:
All devices associated with a wireless access point are in contention for part of the 11 Mbps (802.11b IETF Standard) shared bandwidth. It is for this reason that certain bandwidth intensive applications may be more appropriate for the wired network.
It's good advice. I run mixed wireless / wireful in my house for this reason.
YLFI
One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
If you don't like their product then don't do it. If you do like their product more than alternatives because it is GPL'd (parts of it at least) then it makes sense to let the marketting bods know you like it this way so that they continue to do so. In fact, say that you bought their product specifically becuase it had GPL'd code and in the future you will prefer to buy GPL'd alternatives if they exist.
On the other hand, if you want to use closed source prodcuts and don't care about the GPL buy somthing else.
You choose.
It's not about "thanking them", you did that when you boaught the product, it's about letting the manufacturer know what YOU want as a product.
I'm in the market for a new wireless router, this product is definitly ahead of non-GPL'd alternatives in my purchasing decision tree.
they weren't required to do anything else
.config file for their kernel. I'm not sure if
that is a requirement from the statement above.
From the GPL: For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
Now what I miss is the
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
I call bullshit on this one. Most users will go about their merry day not caring about what their AP runs, because they don't need to. TiVOs run Linux, have a vocal hacking community, and do you see the average TiVO user thinking about distros? No. This allows those people that want to play with their hardware a bit larger of an opportunity to do so. Giving their kernel patches back to the community just makes sense.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
IMHO, Linksys just honors the license of the software they used. Maybe they just strayed a bit, but it's not like they are actively trying to violate it. Why don't we put a better positive word to the situation? It will make the "community" sound like a more pleasant entity to interact with when we don't go pressuring people for what we want.
--- (The signature is intentionally left blank)
Broadcom distributes/sells the GPL'd code including a modified GCC compiler ("GCC: (GNU) 3.0 20010422 (prerelease) with bcm4710a0 modifications."), allowing the OEMs to modify the sources and recompile. They didn't release the sources of the GCC compiler, which is required IMHO. The code released by LinkSys cannot be modified without this compiler because the Broadcom CPU has extra instructions in addition to the MIPS3000 instruction set.
Using GPL'd software to make a profit and not releasing (available) drivers to support their hardware on the same GPL'd software does also not feel right to me. At least morally.
This is how you can get away with releasing only the ORIGINAL code, and not the Linksys mods.
Quote:
The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language.
Think about it. They distributed the source for the "Program" as outlined above. "A work based on the Program" can refer to either the Program (the original) or the "work based on the program" - that is, the derivative. So, if you take it to always mean "The Program" or the ORIGINAL program - then you only must distribute the ORIGINAL PROGRAM and not the mods! Perfectly within the GPL.
I'll get modded down on this, but HONESTLY the GPL says this. It does not say that "The Program" means BOTH, but EITHER.
The GPL doesn't say you have to release your mods, but only a list of the changes and what dates. Have you actually read the GPL?
The other problem with the GPL is that there is conjecture and opinion throughout, not fact, as there must be in an Agreement. IANAL but I worked in the world of Contracting (as in Construction) and you must specify everything, not give opinion.
"If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms."
This is an OPINION that "the best way to achieve this." Sometimes making it of the greatest possible use to the public is to never use it. For instance, the software that drives nuclear missles. This is a deterrent. The best way to use this technology MIGHT be not to use it, not make it software which everyone can redistribute.
The first time the GPL gets tried in court it will get thrown out because it's full of opinion, and holes like I just pointed out. And remember, I'm FOR Open Source. I just think that Richard Stallman tried to force his opinions on everyone else's work. "Free" my butt. (And I know the difference between free as in beer, etc.) Here's a quote from the FSF website:
"The $5000 Deluxe Distribution includes all GNU software compiled for your choice of computing platform (micro-chip and operating system). Please contact the FSF Office if you are interested."
"Free" my butt. $5000 US is a LOT of money for a program, period, ESPECIALLY for one user.
Go Linksys. MAKE money. PROVIDE a valuable service!
I don't agree with much of what is said at the beginning of this thread. It is in fact very easy to implement locks in hardware.... the truth of the matter is that Broadcom wanted to create a chip that they would be able to sell into a wide variety of markets including the military. Designing an fab'ing 1 piece of silicon is much cheaper, leaving them to limit the chips capabilities later on in software.
What I cannot believe is how slow the community has been in reverse engineering the linux wireless drivers contained within the firmware of many of these devices. I purchsed a pair of Belkin 54G AP's at the weekend and within 30 mintues was able to extrace the kernel and root file system which contained amongst other things wl.o the actual driver we all want..... running objdump over this shows us all of the functions and the MIPS3000 assembler code itself, which helps expose how to communicate with the device...... It is not impossible for us to at least attempt to create an open source alternative.....
Go and download a firmware file yourself (you don't actually need one of the devices) and have a look...
who's with me?