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)
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.
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 $215. No offense, but I think your money is better spent elsewhere :)
How big can your dorm room possibly be to the point where 54mbs wireless would be necessary?
It's really great to see a company that saw it had made a mistake, corrected it and moved on. My only wish is that more companies would take that attitude.
What is this, 1988?
Is it also "rad" that the code was released?
My apologies, I'm on a tear today. Hella has to go the way of "cool beans", but it looks like these things never die. *sighs*
Yes, it would be nice to get the "Secret bits," like drivers, but this is actually better for the community in the long run. Why? Because Linksys will have released the GPL parts publically, without losing control of their "I.P." or the "I.P." of companies providing components for this product (if any).
"Viral" GPL gobbling "I.P." like pac-man with melanoma? Not really!
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Did you really expect them to release proprietary intellectual property?
They complied with the GPL...they weren't required to do anything else, nor should a commercial enterpise be expected to do more if it doesn't aid their business.
-psy
I bet you like playing raquetball in the closet, too, don'tcha?
Maybe he's decided to take a different course of action in the killing of superfluous sperm.
Excessive perhaps, for just the room, but if their dorm is anything like mine was with a den down the hall or a study room in the basement or grassy areas out in front, a wireless connection like this would be pretty sweet.
Happiness is like peeing yourself. Everybody can see it but only you can feel its warmth.
Dear Link$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
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...
Agreed. It makes good engineering sense too. By leaving the kernel unmodified, it removes a maintenance headache. Engineers can design their IP to interface with the kernel in the standard way. The kernel then becomes a "black box" and is decoupled from the internals of the company's IP. It allows for a more modular and maintainable design.
... 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
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.
The original flash image was decoded (by Andrew Miklas) as a cramfs filesystem. We have *all* the components available in binary form. Unless there is crytographic checking in the bootloader (i.e. a signed flash image) we're all set to go make our own images complete with Linksys's proprietary binaries and our hacked/improved GPL binaries.
To my knowledge, nobody has done this yet. I hope that doesn't last long. These units will make lovely general-purpose embedded machines if we can put our own code in them. We'd have to rely on Linksys binaries for some of the hardware, but personally I have no ideological problem with that. What I want is to be able to fix some bugs of the bugs and interface stupidities in the darn thing, and to add some of my own functionality, such as being able to ssh into it. Of course, I'd like it even more if Linksys released the full hardware specs, but hey. It's a start.
Now, I see the kind of hacking I described above, and which I fully intend to get involved in, as nothing but good for Linksys. If it turns out we can reflash the unit as it appears we can, I for one will be in the market for a few more of these.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
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.
--my other user id's Karma is capped
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
And this is exactly why companies should stay the hell away from Linux - the pirate mentality that goes with it.
This is using Linksys software on the Linksys hardware that it was provided with. How is it copyright violation?
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.
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?
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.
There's beta drivers from Atheros that supports 802.11g. Check it out. http://sourceforge.net/projects/madwifi/
The code to whatever custom build of GCC was used to compile the things in the first place...
RIGHT... because nobody ever hacks, cracks, or pirates stuff on Windows. Never mind the fact that the most widely pirated piece of software in existance is Windows itself.
Provided you are modifying the unit for your own purposes and not redistributing the Liksys binary code, how exactly does this qualify as pirating?
Personally, I run my business on Linux and have implemented it in several companies where the Linux system itself was replacing a pirated copy of Linux.
I can only assume you are trolling here...
Pirate mentality? If I buy a car I could disassemble it and change some components, right? How is this pirating?
They should've used NetBSD if they don't like the GPL and releasing the source.
Apparently he hasn't discovered beer yet.