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?
They're too lazy to code proper, secure solutions for their products, so they send it to the OSS community to do.
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.
I was vary suprised that there wasn't a huge uproar when this was coverd on /. earlier.
If they had not released the source would buy their products again, to be honest I certainly would because they are the cheapest.
If you would not, does their decision to release the source change your mind?
There is no god
Are you going to go build your own router?
Are you going to comb through the code only to find that it's not that much different from the other code you never look at?
Face it, if it some source is vital to your company staying competitive, it isn't going to be GPL'd.
I have been pwned because my
I'm so excited that I am going to have a dope 54mbps wireless network in my dorm room for only $215. No offense, but I think your money is better spent elsewhere :)
How big can your dorm room possibly be to the point where 54mbs wireless would be necessary?
Does this give out any cool new code, or is it just simple modifications of the kernel? I'm guessing it's just a few minor changes to enable it to run on the router.
Hopefully all of this commotion has not dissuaded Linksys from using the Linux kernel (in an appropriate fashion) in their future products.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
It's really great to see a company that saw it had made a mistake, corrected it and moved on. My only wish is that more companies would take that attitude.
What is this, 1988?
Is it also "rad" that the code was released?
My apologies, I'm on a tear today. Hella has to go the way of "cool beans", but it looks like these things never die. *sighs*
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.
Good question. There's quite a few of these out there and this would benefit quite a few /.ers.
This guy is way out there
Linksys only released the GPL pieces of what's running on that router. The way it looks, they haven't really put out anything that would help much to create a customized ROM for that device (web frontend specs, scripts, etc.). This isn't that much of a move for them, as it appears they've only released info of what they used, as well as a centralized location for exactly what GPL software is on their router.
"You tried your best and failed miserably. The lesson is...never try. Heh!" -Homer
I bet you like playing raquetball in the closet, too, don'tcha?
Maybe he's decided to take a different course of action in the killing of superfluous sperm.
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.
What about the duct tape to hold it to the walls? Did you think about that when you came up with that outrageous $5.00 figure??
With drivers for the 802.11g adapter, more people would look at providing alternative firmwares. I've recently started working on such a project for the Dell TrueMobile 1184 because Dell actually provided source code when asked, and all the hardware support is there with open source drivers.
Well first off, with WEP on, in real world conditions, you are only going to have a total of 20-25mbits or so of real bandwidth available. Don't forget, that's shared amongst all wireless users. So if I want to send a file to another wireless user (like my friend standing next to me with his powerbook) I only will get like 10mbits or so of throughput. 1.3 to 1.6MB/sec. All of a sudden it doesn't seem like that much bandwidth to me.
Dear Link$y$:
I am aghast and appalled at your continuing flagrant violation of the GNU Public License. Your paws are dirty with the hard work of many hundreds of thousands of kernel developers who you ripped off by $elling the kernel code back to them without supplying the full source code for your product. Through this illegal action you have raised my and The Community's ire and we will stand and fight until you fully comply with the GPL. All your source MUST be turned over to The Community at once.
Please be aware that I am not alone in this battle. I am dogged and relentless and using the power of the Internet I will bring you into compliance with the GPL.
Don't fuck with us, Link$y$.
Sincerely,
Anonymous Coward
Good first step, but that's far from the only Linksys device running Linux. Where are the sources for the other devices?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
The original post from:
http://lkml.org/archive/2003/6/7/164/index. html
is not up right now so here is the text.
Andrew Miklas
linux.kernel
Jun 7 2003
Hi,
Sorry for the very lengthly posting, but I want to be as precise as possible in describing this problem.
Awhile ago, I mentioned that the Linksys WRT54G wireless access point used several GPL projects in its firmware, but did not seem to have any of the source available, or acknowledge the use of the GPLed software. Four weeks ago, I spoke with an employee at Linksys who confirmed that the system did use Linux, and also mentioned that he would work with his management to ensure that the source was released. Unfortunately, my e-mails to this individual over the past three weeks have gone unanswered. Of course, I also tried contacting Linksys through their common public e-mail accounts (pr@linksys.com, mailroom@linksys.com) to no avail.
However, it is hard for me to know if my contact in the company has just gone on a three week vacation (and not set an auto-responder), or has been asked to not answer anymore mail on this subject. Also, I should note that I don't own this product, so I can't determine if the source is shipped with it. However, I have gone through all the available information on the Linksys website, and can find no reference to the GPL, Linux (as it relates to this product), or the firmware source code. Also, the firmware binary (see below) is freely available from their website. There is no link from the download page to the source, or any mention of Linux or the GPL. Finally, it would be strange if the source was included in the physical package, as my contact at Linksys was initially unaware Linux was used in this product.
The following steps can be used to determine the exact nature of the possible GPL violation.
1. Go to the following URL:
http://www.linksys.com/download/firmware.asp?fwid= 178
2. Download the "firmware upgrade files":
ftp://ftp.linksys.com/pub/network/WRT54G_ 1.02.1_US _code.bin
(MD5SUM: b54475a81bc18462d3754f96c9c7cc0f)
3. While it is downloading, confirm that there is nothing on the webpage to indicate that this binary contains GPLed software.
4. Once the download is complete, copy the ontents of the file from offset 0xC0020 onward into a new file.
dd if=WRT54G_1.02.1_US_code.bin of=test.dump skip=24577c bs=32c
5. Notice that this file is an image of a CramFS filesystem. Mount it.
6. Explore the filesystem. You will notice that the system appears to be based on Linux 2.4.5.
Incidentally, there is at least one other GPLed project in the firmware:
the BusyBox userland component: (http://www.busybox.net/)
7. The Linux kernel (I think) is mixed up with a bunch of other stuff in: bin/boot.bin
You might want to know why I am interested in getting the code for the kernel used in this device.
There's been some discussion here about Linux's lack of wireless support for a few of the newer 802.11b and (nearly?) all 802.11g chips. Incidentally, Linux has excellent support for at least one manufacturer's wireless family. The following Broadcom chips all appear to be supported under Linux -- if you happen to be running Linux on a MIPS processor in a Linksys router:
Broadcom BCM4301 Wireless 802.11b Controller
Broadcom BCM4307 Wireless 802.11b Controller
Broadcom BCM4309 Wireless 802.11a Controller
Broadcom BCM4309 Wireless 802.11b Controller
Broadcom BCM4309 Wireless 802.11 Multiband Controller
Broadcom BCM4310 Wireless 802.11b Controller
Broadcom BCM4306 Wireless 802.11b/g Controller
Broadcom BCM4306 Wireless 802.11a Controller
Broadcom BCM4306 Wireless 802.11 Multiband Controller
This list was produced by running strings on:
lib/modules/2.4.5/kernel/drivers/net/wl/wl.o
I am trying to determine exactly how tightly coupled these drivers are to t
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
I thought that 802.11b kept each connection on completely separate frequencies.
In response to another article about 802.1* a couple weeks ago, a lot of people wrote helpful comments about which cards and APs were "best" for single-, dual-, and tri-standard (a,b,g) use, many by people who had experiences with several.
Unfortunately, I seem to have misplaced my bookmark for that article. It'd be great to get a pointer to that discussion or even spark a new discussion here, as I'm finally wanting to buy into the technology, now.
Get off my launchpad!
... it's not just for him, it's so his neighbors can connect to his network too. Whether he knows this or not, I don't know.
If you use there products, shoot them a quick email to say 'thanks'.
It really is the polite thing to do. Plus it always feels good to be appreciated, and that goes for people who run big companies.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You really shouldn't condem the age of 'cool beans' and still use the word 'Hella'.
really, I've been hating the term hella since the late 80's.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have some rad code to write that is really too hip to be square, dude.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Slashdot... where the GNU Public License became a verb ;)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
BSD: free as in 'Look someone else did our work for us, and we don't have to give anything back'
GPL: free as in 'we can use it but we have to share.'
"...NetBSD is the most supperior embeded Open Source OS on Earth which runs on over 35 architectures."
what does the number of architectures have to do with whether or not its good?
Impressive, but one doesn't mean the other.
I like BSD, but statements lke that are just irritating.
Now if you'll excuse be, I have a bike shed to paint.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
Do us a favor and please hold your breath until that happens.
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.
This type of license strong-arming is the reason embeded market should choose BSD.
Well, Linksys didn't. Linksys chose to use GPL code, and now they've complied with the licence, as is expected. I'm sure Linksys would expect other companies to work within the rules of any licence on Linksys code, so it shouldn't be any different for Linksys using* GPL code. It's not strong-arming, anyway; I'm sure BSD coders would get a little ruffled if it turned out Linksys was using BSD code without proper attribution.
* Where "using" means "modifying and distributing," which is where the GPL takes effect.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Perhaps he has a laptop. Wireless and laptops are good, mutually supportive technologies.
I'm posting this from my laptop, which is only 20 feet from my AP, firewall, and DSL modem, but it's still nice not to have to run a cable across the room for someone to trip over...
If it contains OSS, it _must_ have been taken from SCO.... ;-) for the humor impaired
Anybody can work under ideal circumstances. -- Jeff K. (January 4, 2001)
--my other user id's Karma is capped
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.
But then again if you were a University of Wisconsin (at Madison/Madtown) student you would be silly to put up your own access point when most of campus (should be now) set up for wireless connections, and your access point can't provide you with more bandwidth then the housing provider gives (as a former DoIT employee I have my own opinions about them...).
Dude, license your code however you want to and let others do the same. That is freedom, not the preachy stuff you just wrote.
Not very hard, is it?
Freedom Is Universal
Linux-Universe
This type of license strong-arming is the reason embeded market should choose BSD.
Sure, Linksys would have used BSD if BSD worked as well for them as Linux does. But Linux is better, supports more hardware, and supplies more of the features they need. That's because more programmers work on Linux, and that in turn is because of the licence - we know that our contributions to the public are going to *stay* public.
And by the way, I like BSD. I think there's some stuff in BSD that's better than Linux. I'm no fanatic, I'm just explaining the phenomenon.
Anyway, what's the big deal for Linksys if they accidently ended up letting everybody reprogram their hardware? It just means they sell more of it and make more money. That's gotta hurt, huh?
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
All this shows is that linux is very useful...
Keeping IP in binary modules is fairly straght formward way to partition IP in kernel space and is fairly common in the embedded industry.
Now I know RMS and others frown on this, but it is not illegal.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Paul Vixie's license perhaps?
I don't think so:
- Safe on this account -- you are reading the license itself, as redistributed
- Source appears to be unmodified -- all diffs that I can see are known patches.
- There it is, no problem
- Again, here's the source, compliant again.
The license as stated applies to Vixie Cron, not necessarily to the aggregation of parts that is the entire product. IANAL so interpret this with council if it matters to you.But Linksys didn't have to release anything particularly proprietary, and didn't. They only had to release the code which was already public (or, rather, they had to acknowledge it), and any changes they made to that code. They wrote their own drivers and scripts, and didn't release those.
Of course, if they'd changed any of the GPL code, they'd have to release their changes. But Linux already makes a perfectly good router without any modifications, if you provide drivers for the hardware.
Having followed this since the original post to the LKML, I have a slightly different viewpoint.
Linksys got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They probably didn't think twice about using embedded Linux; in fact, they may not have even made the decision themselves.
When the problem was pointed out to them, they gave several weeks of no conclusive answers, and now they've put up a simple web page with some source tarballs, all or none of which may be what's actually running on the APs. You can't even FIND the page using their support search engine (a search on GPL shows no hits), and they're certainly not announcing it anywhere I've seen.
It's the least they could do. Approximately.
I think I've said this before, but if you license under the BSD license, you must like all licenses, as any license (including the GPL) can be applied to your project at any point, and any further development on that new version will be out of your hands, as far as relicensing goes.
How can you say you shun the GPL when, not so indirectly, you support it? It simply doesn't make any sense.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
I just wish they would opensource the firmware for their BEFVP41 I have two of em for a home to office vpn but the vpn tunnels drops after a few days of being up. This has been a known problem for a while but they haven't released any updates since Nov 21 2002. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5873922~roo t=equip,16~mode=flat
What I want, and what I know many other people want, is an 802.11g driver.
Many makers of 802.11g cards cannot lawfully provide such a driver under various radio frequency emission regulations. Because it's more expensive to build interlocks that prevent over-powered transmissions in hardware than in software, many cards implement the interlocks only in the driver. This makes it a bit harder to justify getting FCC approval for a driver for each platform.
Linksys has one. They choose not to release it?
Is it Linksys's choice, or is the Federal Communications Commission's choice to delay approval?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Who needs proof?
If the president of the united states of america doesnt need proof to invade and conquer a sovereign nation than why would someone need proof to show that linux is a tool of communists and other scary evil doers?
It's good to see that Linksys is complying with the GPL. It's unfortunate that they are not making their platform more compelling by releasing a complete source tree.
In the end, Linksys APs are just not very good. I have had two, and both of them have had serious bugs. They are now stuck in a closet. Furthermore, their functionality was pretty limited as well.
So, if you want something hackable or powerful, don't bother with the Linksys APs. You are better off with a Mini-ITX board running Linux or BSD and some dumb wireless hardware (USB, wireless bridge, etc.). It's a little more expensive up-front, but much higher quality and much more flexible and functional.
Why has no one brought up that they are now owned by Cisco? Cisco is normally regarded as a fair and tolerant company, overall. I mean... I know they just purchase anyone that might be competition, but... I've always held Cisco in pretty good light...
Sig.i>
That's GNU/Public to you!
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
I know that many more networking equipment manufacturers use GPL'd code in their products. Buffalo's wireless broadband routers use almost the same code as the WRT54G, and earlier Linksys routers used Linux as well.
Wireless RouTer operating at 54mbps using the 802.11g protocol
"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." Jeez get your facts straight before you try to insult the gnu or anything for that matter. direct quote from the gnu.org site: ``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer." Its people like you who dont know their facts and spew bullshit that hurt the BSD and Linux community's.
75% of all statistics are made up!
Well at least it wasn't k-rad, my hax0r friend.
Ok, I think your wrong, and here is why:
The GPL is free as in "hey look, its free code at no cost", and nothing more. Free Speech is part of it, but there isa restriction. Yoy have to provide any modifications to the authors, as I'm surw you know.
The BSD license has no restriction except the one about attributing the original copyright holder. It free as in "free stuff", and free as in "Freedom of use".
The GPL is not free as in freedom, it is restricted so that you are trapped by it if you modify code and use it in a project. That is not freedom, or free speech. There is nothign free about a license that forces somebody to do something, in this case release modifications to gpl code.
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
BSD: free as in 'Look someone else did our work for us, and we don't have to give anything back'
Umm. Look, this is EXACTLY what BSD developers expect. This why it's released BSD. Shall I break out the dictionary definition of free? I'll give you a hint, it means having no restrictions. The GPL is very much a restriction. It is a very different philosophy than BSD and public domain code. It is in no way free as in the definition of the word.
Rather, it caters to a specific ideology, namely that of the FSF. Granted, you may consider GPL to be free, and it is certainly freer than proprietary software, but it is not quite as free as BSD and public domain.
You can be selfish and require people to share with you if you like. But, statements like yours are really irritating to those of us who want to give our code away for free.
The guys comment was very informative given the news story. Linksys doesn't want to 'share' with you. They shouldn't have used GPL code then, but rather BSD code. Right?
And please don't go on about how they *should* share. They are under no obligation to do so, if they did the country they operate from would certainly not be considered a free country anymore.
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!
Sure it's great that they're doing this for a nice 54mbps wireless router, but what happened to the WMP11 v2.7 wireless card? I thought they were going to release a gpl gnu/linux driver for the broadcom chipset version. Here I am, stuck with this stupid card that won't work under my favorite o/s. What's a nerd to do?
Now SCO can sue Linksys too!
So Linksys is just now beginning to use GPL'd code? More likely, they have been using it for a while in their product line and haven't complied with their obligation to the (L)GPL. Does anyone have information as to when they began or what product first used GPL'd code? I'm interested as I have quite a bit of Linksys gear and would like to squeeze more life and utility out of it...
There's beta drivers from Atheros that supports 802.11g. Check it out. http://sourceforge.net/projects/madwifi/
It's really great to see a company that saw it had made a mistake, corrected it and moved on. My only wish is that more companies would take that attitude.
How cheerfully naive. Let me play devil's advocate, for you:
"It's not very nice that companies are violating the GPL freely, and only after intense pressure and negative PR does one of them actually follow the terms of the license. My only wish is that people would wake up to how many other companies are doing exactly what Linksys did, or even worse, simply cutting and pasting sections of code".
Sorry, but you'd have to live in a fucking cave to not know what the GPL is by now if you're in the computer industry, especially a programmer. These guys knowingly violated the license and figured no one would ever catch them.
Please help metamoderate.
Well, of all the superior operating systems that run on more than 35 architectures, and you can bet there are a lot of them, NetBSD is the most superior. This is handy to remember in case your review goals include "developing superior embedded systems." When you are in a team of 85 engineers working to develop superior products, you need something to make your work stand out. You need the most superior embedded Open Source OS (on Earth). Don't forget!
Yawn. I suggest you improve your reasoning skills so you don't have to resort to name calling in the future.
Please tell the unwashed masses, especially the morons like myself, why freedom to choose the license I wish to isn't freedom.
Freedom Is Universal
Linux-Universe
It is the European version of Wanksta, which basically means wannabe gangster.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
The code to whatever custom build of GCC was used to compile the things in the first place...
Freedom is created by having laws/rules. Without laws/rules there is no such thing as freedom because someone can trample another with no consequences.
If you want to enjoy the freedoms of a society then you are expected to contribute to that society by paying taxes, upholding the laws, etc. It is dishonest to expect to enjoy freedoms of speech, religion, etc. without being required to obey the laws that create that freedom.
The rule that creates the freedom of the GPL is that distributed binaries must be accompanied by the source.
If you want to have the freedom to use the source in your product then you have to play by the rules. Linksys is playing by the rules because they want the freedom to use the source in their product.
If you don't want to play by the rules then find another sandbox to play in - just don't expect the same freedom there.
They probably haven't and won't release it, even as binary-only, because they'd rather license it to Linksys for an additional fee.
Would it be possible for the public to pony up such a fee through PayPal? Is the domain 11g-ransom.org available?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Why should there be any relationship between the size of his dormroom and the throughput of his wireless net?
I often use my wireless connection sitting just a few yards from my access point. Sure beats dealing with a cable.
BSD: groovy, take it man, go ahead, make money from my work and close it up.
GPL: want it for Free? Then make yours Free too. Want to keep it closed and sell your derivative? Pay me money and I'll give you another license.
Free in the BSD sense is very noble and the BSDs have given so much. For me though, given the way everything today is becoming "intellectual property, DMCAed etc..", I just can't digest the idea of somebody making my work THEIR property (closed and commercial) and never seeing a penny of reward.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
I don't know if I'd consider that too selfish. Sometimes, code takes a lot of effort to design, write, test etc. And I think some return on that investment is not an unreasonable desire. Is it selfish to go to your employer at the end of the day and ask for a paycheck? A share of the value that both of you have produced together?
Some software I release under the BSD license. I do this when I don't ever want to hear from that particular piece of software again. Some software is released under the GPL. Still other stuff goes out as Public Domain. But please don't tell me I'm selfish because I sometimes want the user community to share back with me what I've shared with them in the first place.
I don't understand how people get into mildly flamey discussions like this. Nobody asked or forced Linksys to use Linux and other GPL'd software as the basis of their AP. They chose to do it, nodoubt for reasons of their own, and initially at least, decided not to stick to the letter with the terms of the license. They could have chosen BSD. They didn't. I'm sure they were aware of the licensing differences at the time.
Now, hypothetically, do you think if they'd used BSD, they would have been good little angels, dilligently having their binaries displaying your copyright notice as clause two mandates? I honestly don't think so. I think they would have just appropriated the source as 'freeware', which it certainly isn't, and then we might have had the same scenes we're seeing here, but a little more low key.
YLFI
P.S.: I like *BSD. I like the license too. But I feel that the attitude behind the license is largely influenced by its tumultuous history intertwined with AT&T up until 1988. I think the fact that the BSD folks got to bootstrap their way up from earlier Unix sources ( and the misappropriation by AT&T of same BSD sources ) has led to a somewhat fuzzier perception of where their work ends and the work of others begins, and a less territorial mentality than the second wave GPL developers.
These are just some thoughts. I apologise for any factual innacuracies in the above... I believe I was still playing cricket in the backyard and jumping off wharves when all this was going on.
One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
Hmm... That wasn't me that replied. I sort of agree though. I didn't make that code up. Download the code, look at packet.c. If that code is trolling then blame Linksys, not me.
--my other user id's Karma is capped
You are wrong. Linux explicitly allows closed-source programs to be run on it, and closed source "modules" to be added to it.
Just better is very broad statement. Better for what? For use as server or workstation or for use in notebooks? I found Linux have slight edge in commercial support (like RedHat X configurator, Oracle) and lags behind in many other areas.
On my hardware I have more support for FreeBSD for some reason.
we know that our contributions to the public are going to *stay* public.
That's exactly the same for BSD-licensed software. Contributions to the public remains public. What is the problem? If somebody choose to write proprietary software based on BSD - no problem - someone's code remains proprietary, BSD code still public.
Please define your terms. For me, a piece of software that works on lots of different architectures is lilkey to have been tested in all sorts of interesting ways that hackers working on a single architecture won't have thought about. NetBSD runs on big and little endian machines. It runs on 32 and 64 bit machines. Just those two alone would affect a lot of poorly written code, and cause the O/S to be revised into robustness. It may be less efficient (if you can't take specific hardware features into account), but I'm happy to sacrifice a small amount of speed for the knowledge of running reliable software. ...now if only I -was- running NetBSD :-)
Have a look at the changelog for the firmware - it says "Linksys, A division of Cisco Systems, Inc."
At the end of the world, There will be no more dolphins
I rated it as flamebait or offtopic or whatever since the changelog states: Force broadcast to broken clients that request unicast (ie, MSFT 98)
So yeah, there's another problem with networking in Windows '98. I think the person who started the thread was taking it out of context intentionally and making it look worse than it really is to help himself in taking a cheap shot at Microsoft.
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.
Can the OSS community now modify the firmware and make custom things for it?
Perhaps we can find a security crack and get Linux to run on it.
Uh... cancel that.
A physicist is an atom's way of thinking about atoms
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!
So anyone know how this works? the router is operating at 2.4 GHz, and the most common frequency for heating your food is 2.45 GHz. The router is obviously much lower power, so how come it can operate with fcc compliance?
Glad to see the GPL is now being honoured, although this issue would have made an interesting test case.
I'm a shade confused though, I can't see any good reason why Linksys rebranded from ez-ipupdate to ipupdate.
Anyway, as far as ez-ipupdate itself goes, the version in the firmware appears to be the same as source that has been released although it is nowhere near the latest version. It doesn't appear LinkSys have made any changes.
Tim Brown
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?
Apparently he hasn't discovered beer yet.
But it seems like the truth is, linksys did because they wanted to be good citizens. The GPL has never been tested in court. It is easy to comply with the terms of the GPL.
What was that case with MySQL AB now again? I thought it was a matter of taking a GPL violator (NuSphere) to court. Although they did settle, it was firmly on MySQL ABs terms, since NuSphere was going to lose.
That said, they may have had the option not to release it. The GPL has small teeth: the only real penalty is forced compliance. Though it could be considered copyright infringe.
Nope. If you break the GPL you lose the right to distribute the piece of GPLed software. So Linksys could be forced to inhibit sales of hardware flashed with Linux, and develop (or licence) replacement software. Does that make good business sense?
So the question that i see: If linksys did not release the source code, or in anyway comply, what would have happened? Would the coders who wrote the code utilized take legal action? I will not assume the chances of that are.
Why not? They could have had help from the FSF, like MySQL AB had.
But for the point, let's say they did. they sued for (x) million dollars.
Or they could be sued to stop distributing the GPLed softeware.
snip
If they are sued Linux will take a hit in terms of market penetration. If they are left alone, the GPL will take the hit.
Because of the flaws in you reasoning above, I don't think this holds.
Yes, I am a biological organism. All rumors to the contrary are just that, rumors.
They didn't distribute the compiler, so they don't have to distribute the source.
is there any non wireless router running linux? I do not want to pay for HW I will not use ;)
is there any non wireless router running linux? I do not want to pay for HW I will not use ;)
So, this other guy comes along and says, "I'm not afraid of you! I'm e to the x."
"Well that's just too bad, I'm d/dy!"
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Well the symbols anyway
http://195.18.94.223/symbols.html
Yup, you're right on. Go to their GPL downloads page, and type "busybox.tgz" into the "Search" box at the bottom of the page (about 15 lines below the entry marked 'busybox.tgz'.) The search WON'T find anything. (Why the hell not? Surely the search engine gets tipped off about things it is supposed to index -- or to NOT index?)
It would be rather hard for Linksys to do less than this; it seems they've gone to some pains to be minimal in their GPL compliance...
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
I hate it when people make links on Slashdot to Amazon, and have their affiliate ID embedded in the URL, without bothering to mention it
Perhaps the slashcode could change the affiliate ID to that of Cowboy Neal?
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
Name calling is the first line of defense for the mentally inferior. Of course, we have all of your other posts to verify this fact.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
i disagree. specific rule (license attached to specific files on their website) overrides the general rule (usage terms for their website as a whole) in this case
In your narrow view of the world, I'm sure your make perfect sense, but not here. BTW - I wouldn`t devolve this thread to be *about you*, as you suggest. You can solve for yourself any issues you have in choosing a license. This never was about you choosing a license, so bug off. In regards to my reasoning skills, I still think your a moron. =)
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
Great news that they released GPL'd source for the wireless router, but now what about the real need, code/drivers for their wireless cards like the WPC54G? I searched /. for info on it and found an old Ask Slashdot thread, but nothing has improved yet. I wnat drivers for the wireless card dang it!
-- DuckWing
Yes, you have all my prior threads, and journals to read, have fun!
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
Lets just hope all companies do what linksys did.
And what is that? Steal from people, then admit you're wrong months after you were proven to be infringing on someone else's IP. Yeah, let's hope all capitalists act appropriately. Its so typical of greedy white trash.
This is why I will never buy another linksys or Microsoft or SCO product again. I've drawn a line, anyone else want to cross it?
it's a Broadcom BCM4702, integrated MIP3000 processor PCI 2.2....
i d= PR020910
Here's the rub.... it probably can do 802.11a also
http://www.broadcom.com/products/4702.html
here is the evaluation board
http://www.broadcom.com/cgi-bin/pr/prps.cgi?pr_
I have one of these units.. it performs much better with an antenna upgrade! Someone at Linksys seems to be doing some good engineering, because their gear is cheap, functional and has hackable connectors. The downside is some firmware features which i would love to have for handling MAC filtering/redirecting dynamically. The bios upgrades they offer seem hardware version specific.. the BEFW11s4 has 5 versions that i'm aware of. (1, 2, 3, 3.2, 4)
If you use there products, shoot them a quick email to say 'thanks'.
I've thanked them in the most meaningful way to possibly thank a corporation: I've purchased their products when their products are worthy. They are required to comply with the GPL. Thanking parties for not breaking licensing terms they've agreed to or contracts they've signed seems like unnecessary praise.
I've looked at the GPL/sourceforge driver for the Atheros chipset and its device support list is extremely short at this time. It lists only 2 802.11g devices (cardbus), the rest are 802.11a devices. Of these 802.11g clients (Netgear and some other gizmo) neither had an external antenna capability. Are there any 802.11g cards with an adaptor for an external antenna?
If the sourceforge driver will work, great, but I would like a card that has an external antenna attachment rather than have to hack the card and add one on, potentially wrecking it in the process.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Hi, i've just ripped this out of the broadcom/linksys/belkin kernel
are these on GPL'd modifications a violation?
"Linux version 2.4.5 (hyin@cactus.localdomain) (gcc version 3.0 20010422 (prerelease) with bcm4710a0 modifications) #3 Wed Jun 4 17:12:54 PDT 2003"
with the Barricade I've got from SMC (it's got Linksys firmware).
The firmware .bin is an arj'ed file, but the only thing of interest in the unpacked file is this string:
Hey Moe, it dont woik. NYUK NYUK NYUK NYUK *bop* Owww!
In the WRT54G, one of the first strings is:
piggy
Hm
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
Well, this is why RMS always says, "Think 'free' as in speech, not 'free' as in beer." It's not a perfect analogy, but it's along the right lines. When we speak of "freedom", as in "this is a free country", we definitely don't mean "no restrictions"; because that wouldn't be a free society, it would be anarchy. If you are free to live, that means I'm not free to kill you. Gangsters are not free to intimidate people, corporations are not free to lie in their annual reports.
The restrictions in the GPL are exactly the kind of restrictions we have in a free society, and for exactly the same reasons. It's to promote the availability of source code for anyone to use, and to encourage people to write code without worrying about their work being 'stolen' by corporations.
Now, obviously people who use the BSD license don't care about someone making money off their work without giving anything back. I don't really understand where they're coming from, but that's their choice.
But don't diss me because I expect someone I've helped to help me back. I like to write code, I love to have other people use it and make improvements on it; but I don't want my hard work used to make money where I'm not benefitted. If there were no such thing as the GPL, I'd be less inclined to publish my code, and I'm sure many other people would be as well, and the world would be worse off.
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
Just sent this:
Hi,
you have recently open sourced the kernel supplied by broadcom for the
WRT54G. Unfortunately after examination you have not included all of the
source. In fact functions such as bcm_atoi, bcm_ctype, bcm_ether_atoe,
bcm_ether_ntoa, bcm_mdelay, bcm_parse_tlvs and bcm_strtoul seem to be
missing. In addition the specific BCM4710 memory management code, which is
in the binary kernel, is not there. There are numerous other examples.
More concerning is the version of gcc used to compile the kernel, this
identifies itself as "gcc version 3.0 20010422 (prerelease) with bcm4710a0
modifications" but no such modification have been submitted to GNU as far as
I am aware. Could you please clarify this and, if I am right, correct it.
The delivery reciept gave up these names:
> Your message
To: opensource@linksys.com
Subject: Open source kernel for WRT54G
Sent: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:07:50 -0700
was delivered to the following recipient(s):
Ben Sakai on Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:09:23 -0700
MSEXCH:MSExchangeMTA:US:MAIL
Vito Sansevero on Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:09:23 -0700
MSEXCH:MSExchangeMTA:US:MAIL
Chris Chapman on Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:09:23 -0700
MSEXCH:MSExchangeMTA:US:MAIL
worth giving them a call?
Did you really expect them to release proprietary intellectual property?
I sure do, because I read the GPL as requiring it.
GPL:
This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. 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....
In TiVo's case, people seem to go along with TiVo's claim that "the work" is the modified kernel which TiVo does provide source for.
I think "the work" is the whole box. What good does a modified kernel do without the apps on that box. Are the apps "merely aggregated" (GPL's exception for derivative works) with the kernel? Not in such a closed box (no "ls" to see those parts and these parts).
What's Linksys's "work?" Once again, I claim it's the whole access point/router. They don't sell the kernel binary by itself and firmware updates are distributed with GPL and proprietary code in one lump (maybe not statically linked, but I don't think that's a reasonable exception).
credit where it's due
What you miss is that you are only obligated to follow the GPL if you redistribute code outside of your organization. Period. If you don't redistribute code outside of your organization, you don't have to pay ANY attention to the GPL at all.
With other software licenses, you have to accept them to _use_ the software. With the GPL, you can use it without accepting the license agreement. The GPL _broadens_ your rights, it doesn't restrict them.
This is what proprietary companies don't want you to know, because then it shows that _proprietary_ software is what you need legal departments for, while open-source only requires one for redistribution outside of your organization.
Engineering and the Ultimate
http://195.18.94.223/ls.str
Yes, it is easy to comply with the GPL. That's kind of the point.
And as a matter of fact, the author of BusyBox, which is used in the LinkSys WAP, was taking actions to sue LinkSys for this violation. I'm not sure if he's proceeding with that now that they've released the code. The GPL really doesn't say that you can comply after the fact and get away with it. It says that you must comply in order to distribute the program.
As far as worried about being sued for using GPLed code, I fail to see how it's any different than being sued for using proprietary code. Try taking some of Microsoft's code without following their contracts and see how far you get. I don't see how Microsoft would lose market penetration if they were to sue somebody for using their code without permission.
The only paradox I see in suing for violations of the GPL, is the fact that there's very little direct damages caused by distributing it. You probably can't expect to get much more than statutory damages. To do that, you'd have to register your copyright with the Library of Congress, and you'd only get $100,000 at the most.
BTW, technically there is no such thing as a violation of the GPL. Either you implicitly agree to it by following it, or you implicitly disagree with it by not following it. If you disagree with it, it does not apply. Instead, default copyright law applies. So if you do not agree to the GPL, you are violating copyright law, not the GPL. (It's hard to violate a contract you never agreed to.)
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
I understand the reasons behind the GPL, but the analogy with a free country is completely wrong. This is my main gripe with the FSF dogma. Unlike in a country where anarchy is in conflict with the freedoms garunteed, public domain code is not in conflict with any freedoms. For instance, people who write software are free to keep it closed, open, or put it under a license somewhere in between.
Public domain code can be considered free code since all of the above freedoms are preserved when the code is extended. The author of the extensions is free to do whatever they please with the code.
The GPL on the other hand takes away my freedom of choosing a license. It is therefore not free as in a free country. It is freer than proprietary software and freeware, but it is not as free as BSD, which is not as free as public domain.
I don't really believe that GPL code has the rights to use the "Free Software" dogma. I'd have no problem if it was advertised as "Share Software" or something similar. But the analogy with a free country is not correct.
When I write code it's either under the BSD or a propietary license. GPL sofware is just as closed to me as free to use proprietary code. I can't use the source since I don't use the GPL.
Most people who release BSD code have benefitted from BSD code in the past. In these cases GPL software was likely too restrictive to use. There are many exaples, grad students working on code with a different license, inexperienced developers making corporate code (remember, many of these people are just trying to live a decent life), perhaps people working on BSD based projects. Such developers feel grateful to the BSD community and often want to return the favour. We don't really care to impose our will upon others though. We give without expecting anything in return. A true gift, as everyones parents hopefully taught them.
I have a Netgear Wireless Access Point WG602 (802.11g/b - current) - this runs Linux - no mention of this anywhere on their support or download site. Seems also to use GPL'ed code - Don't upgrade to the latest version (1.5.xx) or you'll not be able to telnet into it... Funny they released a version without command line capability after the Linksys affair!
What about Watchguard - all of their vClass and Firebox III firewall appliance range use Linux with GPL'ed bits and pieces - they used to provide the GPL'ed bits on a website for the FireboxII range a few years ago - now that seems to have gone away?!
Phil
I guess when the FSF talks about "free software", they don't mean "free to you", but that the software it self is somehow "free" -- i.e., not locked up in a proprietary product. The limitations in the GPL as to what you can do to the software isn't to keep you free (you're already in a free country) but to keep the software free -- i.e., to protect it from you.
Yeah, I think this is a bit extreme ideologically. When RMS says that it's immoral to hide code & prevent people from copying it, I think he's got his priorities a bit mixed up. There are many evil things in this world, and writing proprietary code doesn't rank that high on my list. Nonetheless, I think that making a system that keeps code "in the open", not allowing it to be folded into a proprietary product, is definitely a good thing.
Ok, that actually makes a lot of sense. The GPL is very restrictive -- "You can use my bat, but you have to play by my rules." In that sense, they're not giving gifts, nor did they ever claim to. They wanted to make an economy where people contributed back out of their own self-interest; they didn't want to rely on people's sense of gratitude and fair-play. But I guess I can grant that gift-giving can be a good thing, and I can see why people who've been on the receiving end are disposed to give back.
As for the inexperienced developer writing for a corporation: (unlike RMS) I have no objections to him making a decent living writing proprietary code; nor do I have any objections to him learning general coding principles from my code (tho my own code probably isn't that good to emulate). But the only reason he needs BSD code is that the company who he's writing for skimped when they hired him, or they skimped on training him; I see no reason why they should benefit from the work of an expert, even though they were unwilling to pay for an expert or train someone to become an expert; or (alternately) to make their derivative system GPL as well.
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
I see that you still have not worked on the reasoning skills. Or perhaps it is the reading comprehension that is causing you difficulty. In reality you opened your mouth and promptly inserted your foot and now resort to boring and childish diversionary tactics in the sad hope that will somehow distract from your untenable claims.
So once again, explain how the freedom to choose whatever license a person wants is not freedom? Defend your position if you can.
Oh, I forogot - you can't as there is no defense for it.
Freedom Is Universal
Linux-Universe
I see that you still have not worked on the reasoning skills. Or perhaps it is the reading comprehension that is causing you difficulty. In reality you opened your mouth and promptly inserted your foot and now resort to boring and childish diversionary tactics in the sad hope that will somehow distract from your untenable claims.
I already knew you were an idiot, but each time you write something you seem to remove any doubt. As I pointed out before, I do not want to devolve this thread by wasting it on you. To answer you somewhat off-thread question: it not about the *freedom* to choose a license, it's about the rights to use the licensed code, and the freedoms therein. Again, your missing the conversation about a crappy license and turning it into something about you, and your right to choose a license. I hardly think I'm creating a diversion or inserting my foot into mouth. If anything I think I just proved that you have! Please go back and re-read the thread to understand the point is about linksys would have avoided the so called "community pressure" involved in releasing the code back for the GPL'ed code they used in the 802.11 router. The point is the "GPL strikes again", and you missed it utterly, and completly. Thanks.
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
I guess when the FSF talks about "free software", they don't mean "free to you", but that the software it self is somehow "free" -- i.e., not locked up in a proprietary product. The limitations in the GPL as to what you can do to the software isn't to keep you free (you're already in a free country) but to keep the software free -- i.e., to protect it from you.
Yes, I totally agree with you here. I fear that most people don't understand this though. The 'Free Software' slogan sounds good. I figure it makes people think they are gaining some sort of freedom by using it, silimar to living in a free country. But it is the *code* that is ensured this freedom. If the term 'Protected Software' or some other more descriptive term was used I don't the GPL would have nearly as many die hard supporters.
Once you assign the freedom to an non living object, a lot of warm fuzzy feeling goes away. The moral high ground isn't so obvious anymore.
Anyways, it's unlikely to change given how effective the 'Free Software' slogan is. That slogan is simply good marketing.
On a side note, another reason people release BSD code is to promote quick adoption of a proposed standard. Probably the best example of this is the TCP/IP stack. The success of the BSD based TCP/IP stack is evidenced by the fact that almost all operating system's TCP/IP stacks are based off of the BSD TCP/IP stack. Even Windows uses the BSD TCP/IP stack.
Of course, I'm not trying to suggest the GPL doesn't have it's uses. I've even released a project as GPL. But I did not do it out of kindness. Rather I did it out of greed.
From Dictionary.com:
either: The one or the other. Not BOTH.
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
Your interpretation of this to not mean both is pretty shaky. Try replacing the word "either" with the word "both" in the text. That'd mean that a derived work is 2 separate things. Besides, Section 2 of the GPL is effective even without the definition of "work based on the Program":
either: The one or the other. Not BOTH.
So replacing the word either with the word both is automatically exclusionary. BOTH means BOTH, either means ONE OR THE OTHER. SO, you can easily interpret it to mean ONE OR THE OTHER. That is what either means. A lawyer might have written it, but that is EXACTLY what it says. At the beginning. SO, if you take the word either to mean either the Original Program OR (can I emphasize OR enough here?) the derivative work, all you have to do is release a) the original source, since it can be one OR the other, and a LIST (it says specifically only the list) of the mods.
Search Microsoft copyrighted code and you'll find UC Regents in there - BSD Unix. They've copyrighted BSD code that they co-opted. Try it sometime. You're off base, and just want to prove that you're right, instead of actually looking at what the words mean. Trying to substitute "both" for "either" means that either doesn't mean both, by your definition. Give it up already.