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 :-)
Is this going to chase away companies adopting Linux for use with their products?
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.
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.
Who is this "we" of which you speak? GNU/Linux users are not violating anyone's copyright. The GPL, the license does not encourage or facilitate copyright violation...
What are you talking about?
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?
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.
Ouch! What a shock this would be:
SlashDork: You're violating the GPL.
Linksys: So, slap me on the wrist. BTW you're going to jail for violating the DMCA.
Take it easy? I'll take it anyway I can get it . . .
while you're at it, imagine whirled peas
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!
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.
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..."
If anybody bothered to RTFA...
He's basically making 2 claims.
1. Zebra uses non-standard file locations, so it must be modified.
2. GCC used to compile the system has been modified (binary signature is different).
However, I'm currious to what extent of moving files constitutes being "modified". Are these changes that can be made with "./config --target-dir=/someplace/else"? If so, then the claim is baseless because no modification of the source was necessary.
As for GCC, we can see that it was modified because the binary signature is different. Does this constitute a GPL violation? Possibly, I'm unclear what the intent of the GPL is in a situation like this. Basically, GCC was modified and used internally by LinkSys. If I modify GCC and don't distribute it to anyone other than me, do I have to put the changes out on a website (or anywhere)? No. Is it different for a corporate entity?
If binaries compiled with an undistributed modified GCC are distributed, does that then require the disclosure of the modifications to GCC? I think that the spirit of the GPL would have to say yes, but since IANAL, they may be perfectly within the law to keep it. It's exclusion may be just an oversight.
The last time a LinkSys issue came up, we discovered that it was just a matter of someone jumping the gun too quickly. I think that LinkSys is a smart company, and I think they respect the Linux community. I don't think they would shoot themselves in the foot with licencing issues. Let's all have a little patience and give them the benifit of the doubt until there are more facts than speculations, shall we?
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.
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.
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...