Slashdot Mirror
Linksys and the GPL, Again
Rob Flickenger writes "While poking around on the Linksys WRT54G (one of the new Linux 2.4.5 based APs) at a SeattleWireless Hack Night session, we noticed a number of binaries in their firmware (including Zebra, PPP 2.4.1, and iptables to name three) that are released under the GPL, some of which are obviously modified. The question is, where is the source code to Linksys' modifications? Their "GPL Code Center" has the packages, but they are the pristine distributions, without any changes whatsoever. I've asked Linksys for clarification, but given Linksys' customer service reputation, I highly encourage other interested parties to ask them as well. More details are up on my weblog on oreillynet.com."
They just bought linksys, right? So wouldn't this take an increasingly interesting turn if it's Cisco violating the GPL instead of "just" Linksys. heh, go after the deep pockets :-)
Did anyone formally request the source? The just might give it up. Imagine that. Why is this getting so much press?
A production product based on the development kernel? Isn't 2.4.21 stable? What does 2.4.5 do that makes it worth using on a linksys router?
Is this going to chase away companies adopting Linux for use with their products?
These days, any GPL'ed work seems to be ala-carte "public domain", till you get caught. Then it's a "release half-assed source" to make developers you actually care.
Then again, how's it to take OUR OWN medicine? They're violating out copyright, as we violate others' copyrights.
What a hipocritical web we weave.
Yes he did request it
Are you sure you're not infringing your countries' laws by fiddling around with the internals of the router
Or is that still legal?
--
This sig is inoffensive.
I would really like to see some "Open source lawyers" ... or the lawyer version of open source software developers. People who go after random problems like this in their spare time. It would make the world a better place. Imagine GOOD lawyers, not bad ones - working for free for the betterment of society.
If there were people like that around, I would like to see them follow up this case, and those like it.
In the absence of open lawyers, I think a lot of GPL and licensing issues will not be followed up. Without someone to pursue a law or contract, it doesn't really do much.
We've been lucky until now because all the people using GPL software have the open source spirit. But the more open source gets into a market driven economy, the more we will see this type of thing.
Bring on the Open Lawyers!
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Could it be that they are using stock versions of these apps..
Many times what seems like magic, is nothing more than spending some time with the config files, and understading the options that are available.
we noticed a number of binaries in their firmware (including Zebra, PPP 2.4.1, and iptables to name three) that are released under the GPL, some of which are obviously modified
What he means by obviously modified? The file size is different? Maybe they just compiled it with different parameters!
To date, many people have asked, no one has recieved.
It looks like Linksys wants to use superior GPL code, but doesn't want to play by the rules and let competitors in on the action. If they were going to act this way, than they should have stuck to proprietary works.
we noticed that the zebra running on the WRT54G doesn't use the standard configuration file locations. This means that it must certainly be a modified binary.
This may just be stuff sent to the configure script, using the vanilla sources.
binaries are compiled with a modified GCC (with a signature string of "GCC: (GNU) 3.0 20010422 (prerelease) with bcm4710a0 modifications"). That bcm4710 refers to the Broadcom chipset that this AP is actually made from.
Did they release the modified GCC? Somehow I doubt they put gcc on the access point. Since they did not release the binary, they don't need to release the source.
The GPL clearly states that the modified source code must be avaiable on-line? Or the modified code may be only avaiable off-line?
------I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either.------
...not the 2.4 series. They are using an *older* kernel, not a newer one.
If i could, i would replace my current linksys immediatly with an OpenBSD software router (Parents eh!).
I did not know this router is running linux. As far as I know there aren't any default ways to log in. Just some lousy website where you can change a -little- amount of options.
--
Kenny Gryp
Why ask them over and over agian. Ask once if they do not provide source, let their competitors know, I am sure they would be inetersted. Let marketplace figure this thing out. It would be cazy for Linksys to continue violating licence when competitors know, makes it too easy to blackmail them.
With no real threat of serious (ie costly) legal action for violating the GPL, what's to stop this happening again and again? How many other companies have stolen GPL code and are distributing it without our knowing about it?
Then again, if someone did sue for copyright infringement, what kind of damages could you claim?
Because the PHBs at these companies really believe that *BSD is dying?
The article also states that LinkSys is using a modified GCC. So what? They aren't distributing a modified GCC, so they are not bound to distribute sources.
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
For those who have not read the linked weblog entry, here are the reasons he believes it to be a GPL violation:
1) "One perfect example of this is Zebra, the advanced dynamic routing software package. By opening the firmware file directly, as well as by making queries through the makeshift ping interface mentioned earlier, we noticed that the zebra running on the WRT54G doesn't use the standard configuration file locations. This means that it must certainly be a modified binary." He also mentions that Linksys seems to have used a modified GCC to compile their software, "with a signature string of "GCC: (GNU) 3.0 20010422 (prerelease) with bcm4710a0 modifications"). That bcm4710 refers to the Broadcom chipset that this AP is actually made from."
2) Yes, the author DID email Linksys asking for the source code. You can read that message here. According to the update at the bottom of the weblog entry, he got a response shortly before midnight on 29 July, but it just said that the issue was being directed to second level support.
Unless they provided you with a license to run the compiler which they have, they aren't required to furnish source code.
If they were provided with a modified version of GCC, they themselves do have a right to the modified source. The GPL provides you with the freedom to make and distribute modifications to a program which is licensed to you.
However, it doesn't say that you have to provide the program itself to anyone.
I use GPM for mouse handling. The software was made available by the author(s). I can make modifications to it all I want, but unless I provide someone else with a binary based upon my modified source, I don't have to provide source code to anything.
Know your rights well. Know where they stop even better -- you don't want to come off as a maniac claiming rights to that which isn't yours, but be sure that you know what rights are provided to you.
I'd like to know RMS' take on GPL'd apps being distributed as part of an "embedded" device. Google, here I come...
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
1. Maybe someone could tell SCO that the Access Point uses unauthorized derivatives of SYS V unix containing hundreds of thousands of lines of code.
2. Then SCO could sue Linksys to release their code so they could see if it contains their "IP". Then the Slashdotters could see the code.
3. PROFIT!!!
Take this sig and shove it.
Copyright law isn't forcing you to release source -- by simply following copyright law you could NOT release source even if you wanted to, nor copies of your software, based on somebody else's copyrighted software.
The GPL allows you to copy things you would not normally be allowed to copy under copyright law.
MORTAR COMBAT!
BATM is another company that uses modified Zebra without even mentioning it.
Copyright violation for music sharing is good.
Copyright violation for violating the GPL is bad.
Perhaps Linksys feels that they are "owed" the source code, and that the heavy handed tactics of the GPL zealots will never stop them. It is too late now.
Now change that sentence to reflect the argument of the fileswappers here, and all of a sudden it becomes clear how hypocritical Slashbots are.
they don't need dishonest fileswappers either, hence the lawsuits.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
..what about the others.
There are a few other hardware vendors that use Linux and, to my knowledge do not release the source. The first that comes to mind is Watchguard. They make the Firebox firewall which uses the 2.2x kernel and a whole bunch of other highly modified stuff including Watchguard specific modules that almost certainly need to be LGPLed at the least. I have not formally requested the source from the but, I don't see it on their site and it doesn't come with thier software CD-ROM.
This is concerning to me. It is great that so many people are willing to take up the torch and complain / harrass / mail-bomb the various companies that are violating the GPL, but I fear that these efforts actually end up diluting the efforts of the legitimate package owners to protect their own packages.
/.
In the case of Linksys, I know that several of the package owners have retained legal counsel, and have been making actual legal efforts (ie, letters from an attorney's letterhead rather than an e-mail) to remedy the situation. And of course, this is the right and proper way to handle things, (hopefully) resulting in the proper remedies proscribed by the GPL and the applicable copyright laws.
But when average concerned citizens get involved it reduces the power and the influence of the actual responsible party, and it results in an ucoordinated effort may disturb the legal wrangling, which will end up costing the package owner time and money.
My advice? If you are aware of a GPL violation, contact the package owner. He may already have started action. If he has not started action, and you have the time and/or means to assist, then please do so. Otherwise, simply document your findings, and pass it to the correct authorities. At least contact the guys, so the first place they hear about your efforts isn't on
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
while you're at it, imagine whirled peas
Has anyone read the license for redhat advanced server? Has anyone tried to resolve it against the GPL? Specifically the part that says if you are going to have more installed systems, you need to buy the service to go along with it. Installed system is defined as a machine that has the software on it, not a machine that has the software plus the service.
It seems to directly go against the GPLs prohibition against imposing additional restrictions on copying.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
From the article
"I believe the GPL is an important document that is intended to prevent exactly this sort of theft of code. Any company that incorporates GPL software into a commercial product and attempts to skirt the licensing terms is nothing short of a thief, building on the stolen effort of countless contributors. "
Let me make sure that I have this right - it is not OK to "steal" copyrighted software that is "freely" distributed, but it is OK to "steal" other copyrighted materials (mp3s) that were never "freely" distributed?
"Microsoft has made computing accessible to a population who would otherwise not be able to use computers" - B. Kernigha
I just presume that, given the audience that visits Slashdot, people will at least be smart enough to realise that they're now on the other side of the fence. Sure, maybe SCO are wrong. But maybe, just maybe, they believe they're in exactly this same position.
But Broadcom would only have to distribute the source to those they distributed the binaries to.
So it's alright to steal music off the internet because music should be free, but when someone takes free software and violates the precious GPL it is the worst thing ever? I think the GPL should not apply in this case. If people want to use and modify the software, so be it. This will encourage open source developement!
Oh wait, everyone here just pretends to be a lawyer.
Their products are shit and their customer support is shittier -- the result of moving their support center to goddamned INDIA.
May they rot in hell.
So.....you're deaf and blind then? -AC the way to be!
Does anyone know of any projects that would allow me to "hack" my Linksys router. I would like to experiment with my own software using the existing hardware, and wonder if there are any projects that will help me get started.
I'm looking for tips about compiling, linking and flashing my own code into my Linksys router.
thanks!
Suncoast Linux - Sarasota, FL
Instead of being so militant and overly-reactionary, why don't you learn a little patience? Let this play out. We've been through this with other companies (remember nVidia?). This is a commercial company with all its usual baggage - it takes time (unfortunately) to get these things straightened out.
Anyway, I'm very happy with my Linksys 802.11g equipment and will wait and see what happens.
Are there any good resources for the general strategy needed to make drivers for a card where the manufacturer isn't giving out any good information? I might be willing to work on some project to get this card working under Linux.
In both cases, I say, prove it. Prove that Linksys didn't build the source using their compiler (which they haven't given you a binary to, and so don't owe you source) and the original source code which the author of the article admitted was available for download, using configure flags to specify an alternate configuration file location.
Guess what? It's totally possible that Linksys is in full compliance with the GPL. This guy didn't bother to make sure that the code was in violation before crying foul and putting up a "Linksys sucks -- email them and ask for the modified source!" page.
I took two minutes to "apt-get source zebra", and look at this:There's nothing to see here, folks. There's no story here, because just like with the SCO stories, there is absolutely no substantiated evidence.
Congratulations, Michael. You have been trolled. Maybe if you'd read the article before posting it to the front page you'd have spared Linksys some bad publicity.
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
Anyone know if those files under the Linksys GPL Code Center will work with the WAP54G?
Troll?
Someone's lost their sense of humo(u)r
--
This sig is inoffensive.
Their modified GCC is not 'normally distributed with the major components of the operating system'. So according to this clause it needs to be distributed (in source or binary form). But, since GCC is under the GPL the source of the modified GCC must be released.
QED.
for those copyright infringing fileswappers as well.
Wait, wait. If I claim rights that I don't have, won't that make it easier for me to get a job with the RIAA?
-------------------------
As easy as herding cats!
Isn't this all a non-issue if the the guy who originally requested the GPL'd code wrote in his weblog that he got the location for it and it appears to have been there all along?
http://www.linksys.com/support/gpl.asp
I don't want to sound like one of the other broken records, but if Slashdot is more out of sync with reality than a company like Linksys (admittedly not large, but definitely not a small company), the quality of content here is really going downhill. I mean, the issue is resolved before I even get to read and reply to the article at the top of Slashdot???
OK, so Linksys used a modified gcc to compile some of the GPL'd software on their AP. As noted, unless they put the modified gcc binaries on their AP as well, they don't have to distribute the source. But this raises an interesting point.
Say I create a modified compiler that recognizes some piece of code, or tag and replaces it with an "improved" piece of code. For example, it recognizes the code for a particular driver, like the tg3 driver in the Linux kernel, for one example, and inserts optimized compiled code in place of the actual code in the output binary, where this optimized code is actually a completely new driver, derived from the original GPL driver.
Now technically, I haven't broken the GPL if I distribute the output binary in a product but don't distribute the source for the optimized driver. The optimizations are present in gcc, not the source code, and I'm not distributing gcc. The changes in the output binary are just the way that the compiler I used "interprets" the code that was compiled. It does, of course, break the spirit of the GPL. Is there a way to address this, or is it a giant glaring loophole in the GNU Public License?
-Todd
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
This will probably get me modded down as troll, but Linux authors need to take legal action to protect their copyrights, that includes LinkSys if applicable, and SCO.
The same doctrines of laches, waiver, etc. that will be used by IBM against SCO (basically saying SCO already gave up their rights by not enforcing them) will be used against Linux one day, if they don't
What if you modify GCC for use with a particular project (based on GPL program Foo) in the following way:
When your new GCC reads in the code for Foo, it compiles it incorrectly so that it convenently produces a program with your desired changes. This could be done by constructing a lookup table with original Foo code lines corresponding to modified code lines.
The result: from the original GPL Foo source, you have your own custom binary. Upon distribution of this binary, you are bound by the GPL to give access to the source, i.e. the original GPL Foo source. Since you're not distributing your custom GCC binary, you don't need to give access to its source either.
I'm sorry if I just broke Linux. Tell me if I'm wrong!
Bitchslapped. Neat.
I'm confused why everyone is attacking Linksys. There code is based off if not entirely from Broadcom. If you look at anyone who is using the 54G chipset they are all supplied the firmware from Broadcom. This is where all the Linux modification is likely to come from. The manufacturers (Linksys, Buffalo Tech, Belkin, etc.) probably do very little if anything in the Linux enviroment most of there work is probably setting up the firmware through there web pages not modifying Zebra and other GPL software.
This brings up an interesting question. If Linksys is supplied firmware from another company and this company provides a tool to create their own firmware without Linksys's knowledge that it is GPL'd code what is their responsibility in supplying said modified code.
Great question. My PHB is a big Linuxphile, and was not pleased when I built my latest project on a FreeBSD box. I politely pointed out the ongoing SCO badness and suggested we might wish to rethink our OS preferences for certain projects until a satisfactory resolution has been reached.
For this I'm sure I will be punished. But at least I won't be a defendant.
Jack
If those wireless drivers are realy not GPL and only binary modules...
Then shouldn't the kernel be complaining that it is "tainted"? Cause if it's not, then either they've made mods to kernel 2.4.5, 2.4.5 is before the "tainted" complaint started, or the drivers themselves are saying "hey, look at me, I'm a GPL module!" MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") Right?
Someone should check this out, as it looks like linksys is not complying wholeheartedly with the GPL already, we might as well see if they really owe even more than it appears they do.
But you MUST agree that Oracle FAILS IT! Why oh why would ANYONE use Oracle when they can't even manage to keep their own web presence reliably up?
ok, this makes me sound like a hard line capitalist bastard rather than the gentle progressive philanthrope I really am... but businessmen don't think like that.
Statistically speaking businessmen are from the type that don't respect you because you are nice, or because you give them something for free... the have far more respect when you kick them in the teeth and tell them how it's going to be... because they will only use your stuff if they think it's useful, and if they use it after being put in line, that must be because it's useful.
It might turn off regular people to get hassled.
But hassling businesses that don't -obey- the GPL is absolutely necessarry part of getting business to adopt and take GPLed systems seriously.
Honestly, I don't think this way myself and have quit jobs rather than work with people I've had to abuse to get a fair deal from... but I've seen it again and again... many business people don't respect you until you beat the hell out of them.
Sort of like barroom brawlers.
-pyrrho
I can't say that I'v read the GPL, but from reading these comments it seems that if you do not distribute something, you don't need to release the source code for the changes.
If that is correct, why could some corporation not take code licensed under the GPL, use a "compiler" that would replace the unmodified GPL'd code with their own modified code and then compile that? The code compiled would technically be the old, unmodified code, which the company would freely provide the source code for. The company wouldn't have to provide the code for their "compiler" since it wouldn't be distributed.
Net result? End of the GPL.
Any ideas on whether this would work?
-Neil
The GPL has no effect if you do not distribute the software. The GPL does not cover the output of the program. Therefore a modified but undistributed GCC does not require them to give you the source.
The source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
The only way I could see that falling under the GPL is if their source is essentially useless because only their unreleased compiler can compile it, to the extent that you couldn't change the code to work with an available compiler. Sounds pretty weak to me.
your comment gave me a thought (eh, the magic of communicative language)... anyway.
What if someone modified the gcc to allow some new idiom/construct, creating a language C--... the modifications in the source rely on the new features. They release the binaries and the source, but no compiler and no documentation.
You would have uncompileable source code. Yike.
-pyrrho
The GPL requires that anyone who publishes or distributes a GPL binary also make available (in a machine readable format normally used to exchange source code files) the source.
The intent is that the receiver of the GPL binary should be able to regenerate it from source, modify it, and generate enhanced versions.
By using a tool not generally available to build the source, the distributor has made it difficult for end users to enhance the software.
Hopefully the FSF will modify future versions of the GPL to require the following:
- The source code be supplied with clear documentation detailing the tools and their versions used to execute the build.
- Any "in-house" proprietary tools and proprietary patches of tools that materially affect the ability of others to replicate the build process must also be disclosed under a free and open license.
- If commercial proprietary software is used as a tool in said build, the distributor must not enter into any sort of contract, agreement, or other understanding with the tool vendor that prevents the user from acquiring those tools and using them to enhance the software.
I think this will generally cover the bases. Linux can be compiled with a proprietary compiler - usually one supplied for use with a specific chip set - but the distributor must enable their customers to replicate the builds.Why the hell any company would touch it with a 10 foot compiler is completely beyond me.
:(
It's not worth it.
All the problems of dealing with commercial vendors for platform lisences is nothing compared to this crap!
Either let me pay for the priviledge of using something or give it to me for free. This method of making something look free, then pulling the rug out from under my feet over and over due to constant differing "interpretations" of what the GPL really means is just too much.
The GPL isn't a virus, it'a plauge.
news at eleven.
While I don't think linksys has done this, I think this thread has hit something substantial. This IS a loophole.
I don't see what would stop someone from creating a new builtin keyword for C/C++ "modification()" and using it throughout their code. If the code is on the compiler side, it's safe.
-pyrrho
Did anyone formally request the source? The just might give it up. Imagine that.
Imagine that the changes should be GIVEN to the project- nobody should have to ask.
If you break the license terms, you break the license terms. Companies are doing it because they know nobody's going to come after them, and the only reason they 'fix' it when someone does notice is to cancel the negative PR.
It's time that developers started making examples out of companies and getting cases on the books- while the FSF can't do it on their own, their mission statement says they're happy to help. Why? Because for every instance people find, there are 10 more we don't. For every instance of modifying the package, there are 100+ instances of developers just ripping off large pieces of code. Etc. Etc.
You wouldn't have been a defendant anyway. Your company would have been. If I were your boss, I'd probably be displeased to find that one of my people added an additional operating system to our support load without prior authorization as well. If you were trying to sway him, you might have considered going to him before you went off on your own and did something that you obviously knew he wouldn't appreciate.
::shrugs::
I see no problem there, no acceess restriction means no DMCA. Of course, just because they don't tell you how to do it doesn't mean you can't try.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Here's an idea I came up with after reading a couple of comments to this story:
If you modify a compiler, say GCC and use it to compile your modifed GPL'ed application, you don't need to release the source to the compiler (unless you include it of course).
Alright. Let's say there exists a GPL'ed application A. I want to make a modified version of A with some extra features or whatnot. Let's call this version B. Obviously, you have to distribute any changes you make to A with B's binary.
However, what if I make a special GCC which just takes A's source code as input and outputs B's binary. So that B's logic in fact is included in the modified GCC's source code. One could call this just a nice "side effect" of using the modified GCC instead of the vanilla. And since I don't distribute my GCC with B, and don't have to distribute the source. Of course, B's source can be included, as it is identical to A's.
... when it's *BSD, and the ONLY thing the BSD guys want you to do is at least acknowledge where you get the OS from, and they still claim it's their propietary uber-cool OS (yeah right). Because "propiterary, secure, patented" sounds much more secure than "based on an common, well studied, stable BSD OS".
Christ.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
It appears that the posters assumed violation of the GPL was because the router used files from non-standard locations. Further, it appears that said file locations can be specified in a 'conf' file. Finally, it appears as a result of this that the claim of GPL violation by Linksys is in error.
Also, the claim that Broadcom may need to release their source also seems to be in error due to the fact that their modified GCC has not been publicly released, and the only one that can claim the right to examine said source code of the GCC modifications is Linksys.
RTFA-and the comments that follow...
I have to wonder if linksys is the only one doing this. I have a broadmax dsl modem that has built in pppoe and nat and some other interseting things and when I portscanned it with nmap its best guess was that it was running linux 2.4.x . I don't remember the exact kernel rev, but I thought it was interesting. The scan of course cannot be 100% accurate because it did not find any open ports, but it did make me wonder. How many other companies are using Linux to build their embeded devices and not telling anyone or not releasesing the source code?
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
The last time a company with big bux (Virgin) violated the GPL nothing happened because the actually copyright holders did nothing.
I'd like to think that THIS time it will be different, but the average GPLer won't actually sue to inforce thier 'rights'.
UNENFORCED RIGHTS ARE NOT RIGHTS, BUT WISHFUL THINKING.
Are LinkSys actually distributing the software?
Perhaps they're just distributing the hardware (that happens to use the modified GPL components in its firmware, or embedded software)?
If the GPL only covers distribution of software and LinkSys are only providing hardware (the customer is explicitly not being provided with the software - the fact that software resides within the hardware might not constitute delivery since the purchaser is not supposed to access it) then LinkSys do not have to release source code.
If LinkSys say "Here are some drivers that we're supplying to you as part of the package", then maybe they would be supplying software, but it doesn't sound like that in this case.
The GPL FAQ explicitly states that GPL software (modded or not) may be privately used without obligation to disclose its source.
If the firmware is tantamount to private use then this would seem to put LinkSys in the clear. They can't help it if someone raids their premises or spies on their private files.
the --sysconfdir=X string ends up in one of the .h files (config.h?) and it propagates thru in your binaries.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Are these Linksys devices counted as part of the installed Linux user base when comparing to the number of Windows machines out there? Should they be?
http://bike.stu.ph/rides - free GPS routes available for Garmin, Magellan, GPX and Google Earth
Nice that zebos.com is using an "evaluation only" copy of a Java applet on their homepage. I hope they put the $35 they saved to good use! :-P
In a case like linksys, where let ssay they've made a change to iptables and used the modified iptables in a commercial product, they are not obligated to redistribute their changes to the public. They are only required to give the changed source code to actual customers who bought the commercial product, and only if they ask for it. However, they must give it to said customers under the terms of the GPL.
So the net result is, they are not required to put their iptables source code diffs up for public grabs under the GPL. However, if you purchase a product of theirs which contains the modified binaries, you have a right to demand the iptables source code diffs from them under the GPL, and once you receive your diffs, you have the legal right under the GPL to post them to the public yourself. Because a company like LinkSys should be able to see that a customer will eventually do this anyways, they generally just give it up to the public to begin with, but technically, they don't have to do it themselves. They can wait and see if any customers actually do it or not.
11*43+456^2
License is automatically revoked due to non-compliance. Therefore copyrighted works are being distributed without a license.
ergo - this is a copyright violation.
*Assuming of course that the GPL version of Zebra has indeed been used, and not the commmercial licensed version.
The GPL -- the last, best hope for humanity!
The FSF works hard to keep these issues out of court. They go leaps and bounds out of their way to keep things out of court. They are the very reason there aren't any cases on the books. Just because a company changes things to comply and avoid bad PR doesn't mean you can't still sue them. If I distribute the binary for a year without notices of where to obtain the source then I've violated the gpl. It doesn't matter if I suddenly stop doing so because I get caught... I've already done the deed, and damages are still owed.
If you keep harassing them every other week about GPL this and GPL that, you are liable to have them tell you to f-off and go off to develop an in house firmware, charge more and we all loose.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"If you were trying to sway him, you might have considered going to him before you went off on your own and did something that you obviously knew he wouldn't appreciate."
It is almost always easier to ask forgiveness than it is to ask permission. As it is, he got his way. If he had asked his boss first, he would not have.
That doesn't change the fact that he is wrong, it is just a reason to not ask first.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
No, it's not bad at all. Anyone who distributes should be held liable for honoring the terms of the license under which they are given the permission to distribute. As Eben Moglen said, don't give up because we're a litle closer to the front of the bus (by settling for infringements and proprietary software). The goal is software freedom--the FSF wrote the GNU GPL to create a body of software that we could all share and modify freely so we can help make a better world. You don't need to worry about "chasing away companies" because it is their responsibility to comply with copyright law, just as it is the responsibility for those who distribute copies of songs to comply with copyright law. It is not your responsibility to look after Linksys' bottom line.
You should consider contributing to the FSF who handles a lot of GNU GPL infringement cases preventing them from going to court. I suspect that the terms of the GPL are simply unfamiliar to a lot of organizations who deal in GPL-covered works. This doesn't mean they're exempt from obeying the terms of the license, it just means they might need assistance in being compliant.
Digital Citizen
This discussion must be another Microsoft seed, I see nothing good coming out of this!
What is Linksys thinking? If they release all of the source code for their routers, every geek in the world will buy their hardware with the intent of improving the firmware. I can envision people building VPNs using Linksys hardware and modified firmware. I can foresee changes that allow the Linksys routers to handle unusual configurations (mixture of static and dynamic IPs on the same WAN interface for example), advanced firewalling capabilities, enchanced logging, or perhaps even simple web page serving.
It's not like Linksys has some kind of monopoly on router firmware. SMC, Gigafast, Netgear, Belkin, D-Link, Trendware, Zyxel, Compex, Asante, Hawking, and probably a bunch of others that don't immediately come to mind all market consumer-grade routers and there is very little to distinguish one from the other. If Linksys would make the source available for their routers, they would have a tremendous edge. Every router that I've gotten my hands on is deficient in some major way (can't assign DHCP IP address by MAC, can't use mixed static & dynamic addresses on WAN, can't do MAC address restriction solely on the wireless portion, can't specify IP address of time server, DNS forwarding not supported, inadequate or missing logging, etc.). I'd love a community-supported, open source router for which advanced features were readily available with a simple firmware flash.
but it'll be hard to know until it's tested.
OTOH, it would be a pain to have to ship every single compilation tool... maybe the GPL needs to be changed to handle this.
Consider one wrench in your theory though... what about GPLed code that uses a proprietary compiler... eg. all the projects that use the MS compiler for the Windows version. Can't ship that compiler, can you?!
Yike -- until further notice.
-pyrrho
Nope. Go read it.
The GPL allows for them to accompany their binaries with an "offer" to send you the source at no more than their cost to do so. For all practical purposes, merely including a copy of the GPL varbage and some sort of contact information for themselves completely meets those terms.
Use the contact information. Ask for the source. Be willing to pay duplication, shipping, and handling because they're not obligated to put it on the Internet. (Remember, the GPL was born in the days when you were expected to send your own blank tape and self-addressed return packaging.) If you send your request by registered mail and they don't respond in a timely manner then, maybe, you could have a case against them for license violation.
We made a similar decision when I was a developer at Merge Technologies, that we would not make any effort to "push" the source. Instead, we would wait for requests and answer them as needed. As far as I know, it has never been needed. Not many hobbyists buy medical imaging systems, I guess.
My guess is that Linksys people probably hoped that the demand for mucking about on their hardware platform would be even lower than the demand for Midori Linux, you know... something like two or three hundred requests, max. (Hey, who knew it would end up slated for the entire population of China?!? )
-Rick
(one of the original Midori developers)
Yes, that is a pretty big loophole.
Under GPL, no-one can prevent you from using a non-GPL compiler or linker, and modify or configure said development tools to do very specific things to the results when compiling, without changing the source itself.
Heck, you can be something as simple as using a *non-GPL* linker and LDFLAGS=-I../myproprietarycode
That way, you have NOT changed any GPL'ed source, and do not have to distribute any code changes with your resulting distributed binaries, cause there aren't any code changes to the GPLed source.
Please tell me I'm wrong, and exactly why.
Regards,
--
*Art
Part 1:
When Microsoft's Bill Gates claimed recently that Microsoft IP had made its way into open source apps, I laughed -- a lot. Its so stupid, all one has to do is LOOK and Microsoft could very quickly and easily prove that their IP was used.
Is it just me or doesn't it make more sense to have everything open? If everything was open sourced you relied on your patents to cover things, you would never have to worry about IP theft because as soon as someone did it, you would know about it, and you could quickly and easily take them to court.
Im working on installing a sprinkler system and I was told that Hunter makes really good sprinkler heads and that as soon as the patent ran out, rainbird copied the design and had a model out the next season hot and ready to go. This is how competition is suposed to work. Rainbird didn't get sued by Hunter under the SMCA (S is for Sprinkler) or some shit!
Part 2:
However, with that said, I don't know if I like this "maybe its being done, so lets post a story on slashdot." Im sure there are a fair number of geeks that see this, dont have time to scope the comments and notes about how the inconsistancies are easily explained away, and will now look at linksys in a negative light.
The whole point of open source is to share that code and put it to use! If companies are going to have to deal with defending their use of open source, a time might come when they just don't want to use it anymore, lock it all down, and sue hackers like this under the DMCA.
Yes, it needs to be made clear that GPL violations are not going on but Im willing here to give linksys the benefit of the doubt and time.
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
Here is a copy of their license from one of the source files:
Go ahead and keep pushing it guys. Attack LinkSys on only a shred of evidence, and while you're at it, identify the licenses incorrectly.
You're making open source such an attractive option for businesses.
I'm curious how you know it's "obviously" been modified from the plain GPL version. If it's binary, how exactly do you know what the compiled version should look like on that system?
No two software installations are ever the exact same: different file systems, compilers, or system constants could all cause the differing binary representation you see.
I don't think changing a few constants or directory paths makes a derivative version, and as such are not covered by the GPL.
Hey, that blog about the Linksys mentions Broadcom.
I have a Dell Inspiron 8200 laptop with built-in
802.11b using a Broadcom chipset -- and I haven't
found a Linux driver for it. In fact, I have found
this petition for Broadcom to release info:
http://www.petitiononline.com/BCM4301/
Anyone have more info, or know if the use of
Broadcom chips in the Linksys router is at all
related?
You mean to say there are ppl who are ACTUALLY using Linksys stuff WITH Linksys firmware?
Hell, I modded mine so it would actually work for once.
Hell, Linksys can't write good, working code even if the code wrote itself.
They'll eventually grow sane and switch to BSD.
My interpretation is that if you routinely need to change pieces of GCC to change your code, then the GCC source *is* your source and the GPL requires you to release it.
What happens if I modify the linker in this manner:
After the machine code is generated, right before it is streamed to the executable file a.out, the linker now performs a cryptographic transform on the binary code with my private key. My proprietary hardware, call it Broadcom++, has the corresponding public key embedded in it's chipset, preventing any code from running, unless it has been signed by me!
I am now the only person in posession of the only linker which can reproduce that binary. If I were compiling the GPL'd Zebra's source code, what's to prevent me from changing Zebra's internal code, and not publishing my changes. No one can verify I didn't change it, they have to take my word for it.
Hmmmmm.
How is it that if SCO wants to have the courts
enforce a legally binding licensing agreement
to keep others from misappropriating its code
that the Linux community sees this as evil, yet
will turn around and do the same thing to ensure
that licensing terms of the GPL are enforced, and
call it good?
Does this really constitute distributing the changed code? Just "using" GPL code does not mean you have to provide the source code or any credit. Could Linksys not argue that you were never supposed to have access to the code at all (in source -or- binary form) and thus the code wasn't really distributed at all?
They only have to release the source code if they are distributing the software. In this case, it is embedded in a product (firmware). I don't know how the GPL would be interpretted in this case (are they distibuting this software).
I would say that in this case a company should not have to release their source. I think it is quite petty to be making this into a big deal. They've adopted linux in their firmware. It's been modified to work with their hardware, so how are these modifications going to be useful to people who haven't bought their router?
I do agree that in most that when you distribute modified GPL software you should release the source, but in this case the software is hidden inside a product. The only thing obvious to the user is the FUNCTION of the firmware, not the architecture of the firmware. So are they really distributing GPL'd software? Not in the traditional way.
I just want to emphasise that point, the written offer (presumably binding) is to give "ANY THIRD PARTY" at all a copy of the source for the cost of copying it.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...if you used an old PROM with the binaries in it as a spacer to keep a circuit board away from a piece of metal inside the box, you would still be required to distribute the source. It would be appropriate, of course, to burn the source into another PROM and use that as a spacer in a different part of the box. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
hey dominic,
i'm very curious which software of yours is threatened by GPL violation... but i suppose that's not publicly available information. abiword???
[OT]
by-the-way: there's an ambiguity in your CV (resume)
[qoute]
LibOLE2: A C library for reading and writing OLE2 streams, used by MSWord, Excel, Powerpoint, Visio, Corel, and others
[/quote]
OLE streams are being used by..., but the sentence suggests that LibOLE2 is being used by... Easiest (and ugliest) way around this is to split the sentence after 'streams'.
Linux 2.4 was prematurely taken out of prerelease due to political pressure to get it out on time. I wouldn't run _anything_ prior to 2.4.13 on a production system.
2.4.19 or later for SMP.
Yes SCO SHOULD "go down"
And Linux is "unsinkable"
Do not let SCO win though Linux users apathy.
Sco
Copied
Opensource
Not everyone is the same person. Perhaps he should realize this.
Your assumption is incorrect, as is that of the poster you responded to. I was asked to build a fax server. I was told there was no budget to do this beyond my time on the project and whatever hardware I could assemble.
My PHB assumed I would use Linux. There is no policy, formal, informal, or otherwise, specifying OS usage. PHB is a Linuxphile bordering on bigot. I was once a Linuxphile too, using Redhat distros, and finally decided I liked the BSD approach to the OS better. The pending SCO nonsense, which isn't going to go away nicely, also influenced my decision.
I also know my Corporate Masters, who aren't Linuxphiles at all, will cheerfully send around their hit squad from IT Auditing to make sure we the humble subsidiary weren't exposing them the stock option holders to any potential drop in portfolio value. I've lost that battle once already, and it wasn't pleasant.
Anyway, thanks for your opinions, but I'm a grumpy bastard who likes tweaking the boss. And I only do that when I believe I can justify my horrid behavior.
Jack
Oh, and yes, forgiveness is easier to get than permission. How do you think PHB got all of his Linux boxen in place?
Well, days have passed so you will probably never see this, but what I meant was that you are wrong in thinking that using Linux can make you a defendant, IMHO and IANAL. If you just prefer *BSD, more power to ya, but there is no mechanism for SCO to sue users. Before that could happen, SCO would have to let Linux developers know where copyright infringement is occuring (if there really is any infringement that is) and that would allow Linux to be "cleaned" long before SCO could target users.
When it comes to copyright infringement, all developers and users need to do is a good-faith effort to comply with the law in order to avoid any penalties. The only people SCO can really get are people who might have (though I doubt it) claimed copyright over code they don't really own.
Add to all that the fact that SCO has either released the code itself by distributing Linux, or willfully violated the copyright all the hundreds of Linux writers and it becomes apparent that SCO is just issuing wild, unfounded threats.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.