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 !!
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
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*
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
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.
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.
Slashdot... where the GNU Public License became a verb ;)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.