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 :-)
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.
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?
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!
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..."
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.
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...
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