Slashdot Mirror
Linksys Still In Violation of the GPL?
A reader writes:"From a recent post to LKML: "...Clearly, the kernel source that Linksys provided cannot be used to recreate the kernel that they are shipping with their product. Therefore, they have been, and still remain in violation of the GPL." Several heavy hitters have signed this one, including Jeremy Allison and Alan Cox." There's also commentary from David Turner and Bradley Kuhn of the FSF.
I'd be much happier if companies were forced to release good, unhindered specs/APIs... I don't care if you didn't give out your specific implementation, fine... whatever... but give me the means to create my own implementation that can function the same as theirs. Is that soo much to ask?
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
I though us slashdotters had resolved that as long as they were not shipping software, Linksys was not required to release any source. And the only party requored to release source was the party providing software ('firmware' to Linksys). And their source releasing obligation was only to Linksys.
Shows what we know...
Several heavy hitters have signed this one, including Jeremy Allison and Alan Cox.
Yea.... Where do I sign?!
What's the big deal anyway? The thing uses proprietary hardware, so in order to reproduce it, you'd also have to have the masks to make the chips anyways. So they stand to lose nothing by not publishing the source.
So they are in violation. Who the fawk is actually going to DO anything other then sign statements and generally complain. WE NEED SOMEONE TO TAKE THEM TO COURT!
I am sick of all the complaining and no action. Put up or SHUT UP!.
Isn't it enough of a victory for the profession that they have used an academically based operating system rather than a commercial one?
They could conceivably switch to Windows.
This is my sig.
that they aren't charging us $699 to use their stuff!
No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.
The article references that Samba has also been abused in this matter. Has this been resolved?
Davak
If you use GPL, you are supposed to reveal ALL the code you have even if it parts of it was designed completely independently?
You have to release all sourcecode that is part of a derived work of the GPL software.
Since a modified kernel is a derived work of the original GPL-ed kernel they have to release the source to their modified kernel.
...in their armor
Tim
If you don't like the license terms, then use BSD or QNX or something else. Linksys knew the terms, now they have to abide by them.
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
If someone released source code under GPL, do they also need to make sure that others can compile it? These guys use "we can't compile it" argument just to prove that the source code is incomplete but suppose that linksys ported linux to INTERCAL++ and released full source code but did not provide the compiler they made in-house. Would that still violate GPL?
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
That's the deal: You can use ours if you show us yours
I've never been able to find their source or even a reference to it.
How is this flamebait?
The parent makes a good point. Granted he speaks like a troll but in fact this type of behavior will continue and the GPL will be abused unless someone does take one of these companies that violates to court and wins a settlement.
Until companies fear financial loss from abuse of the GPL they will continue to abuse it on a whim.
~Jaysen
If you read the post, they present evidence that the kernel itself was modified (as opposed to kernel modules). Because the modifications to the kernel weren't released, you can't build a kernel that is able to load their modules. In fact, as they distribute it, the kernel itself won't compile if you enable network device support since they have removed a required config file from the distribution.
The merging of Linksys and Cisco was seen by some to be a good thing.
However it appears that culture of 'security through obscurity', as seen in Cisco router firmware apps has found its way into the Linksys product line, to the detriment of the GPL contract.
What Cisco is doing is wrong - plain and simple. If Cisco chooses to use copyrighted material under the GPL, they need to live up to their responsibilities under that license. I urge Cisco/Linksys to fix the problem before things get out of hand. You can't participate in the free/opensource software community half way.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
It is all to do with the linking. Linksys has code that is statically linked to the Kernel. As it stands, statically linking code to the Kernel requires the code to be GPL'd. If they don't like it they can use a different OS.
Consider it payment to the open source community for use of the Kernel.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
I expect someone clever enough could rip out the interesting bits, or port the whole damned thing to another card if interested enough. The philosophy, I believe, is that the community should be able to decide whether it's worth it.
Or, look at it this way - if no one could conceivably do anything with their source, then they have nothing to RISK by releasing it, huh?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
*Sigh*... no, they don't. First, go and read the damn license, OK?
The problem this time round is that Linksys have released some kernel source code, but the code they have released is not sufficient to build a working kernel (minus the binary drivers for their wireless stuff, which don't have to be released under the GPL because of Linus's binary module exception).
Effectively, they've just given back the community exactly what the community gave them, without contributing the changes they made that the GPL requires be released under the GPL.
It may look to the outside like knitpicking. But rights have to defended or they lack all meaning. And we seldom get to pick and choose our adversaries, or the time of battle.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
No it is not . If they want to avoid the huge licensing costs of windows they must abide by the licensing terms of the OS they select (in this case linux) . .
If they want something witch they can turn into a propitary system then they should go with one of the BSDs , if they chose linux then they dam well better abide by the rules
That sounds suspiciously like the motto of a gay bar.
Get your head out of your ass. No one made them use GPL code for their product. No one made them use statically linked code in their product. No one made them use components that require an NDA to implement and use.
Having a driver API done in GPL does not reveal their internal workings of their silicon, only how to interface with it. They could have easily done what nVidia does with their drivers. They chose not to do so. So now they must play by the rules or face the consequences.
But someone might use it for Tourism!
We must fight Tourists with closed source software.
Isn't it enough of a victory for the profession that they have used an academically based operating system rather than a commercial one?
They could conceivably switch to Windows.
That's like saying a rape victim should consider it a victory that the rapist decided to make use of her rather than switch to prostitutes.
If they're wrong, although I doubt it, and it turns out LinkSys did release everything they needed to release in order to comply with GPL, this is probably the latest product they'll release with Linux code.
They're just gonna get fed up.
And sue.
Writing letters to a company....oooohhhh...what a threat.
Look at how threatened Virgin was over the stolen webplayer Linux implementation.
Really, this couldn't be a worse time to go after Linksys. With the SCO case looming over everything, GPL software already looks like a risky investment to people. Now the GPL folks are going to go after Linksys?
Great. So now the perspective of someone who doesn't know the details of either case (Which probably makes up a large share of bosses who would have to sign off on any adoptions of GPL software) will look at GPL software, and see that using it gets you sued from the outside and the inside.
This is going to be bad.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
In the most part I like the GPL. But problems like this make it hard for companies to adopt GPL products. When they are required to release their own IP code. This makes it very hard to convince your Boss who has been for years working to keep the IP code their IP, To prevent cheap ripoffs of their products. Now that there are people strongly enforcing the GPL a lot of companies will be afraid to use it. Good job guys at magnifying Microsoft Concerns on the GPL.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
However, the code base that was released is the COMPLETE GPL code base that we modified for use in the product.
The point here is that Linksys (you?) needs
to release all of the code that was linked
into the kernel, whether the code is GPL
or not. This is a "feature" of the GPL.
If you had used kernel modules all around, you'd
be on better ground. But as it is, you're shipping the binary of a customized kernel that can't be reproduced from the sources that have been released; and that's bad.
It kinda amaze me that these guy are only complaining.
I'm pretty sure that if they really wanted to do something about it, they would create a fund (given they big shot status, it should not be that difficult) to sue Linksys/Cisco for the violation. Why does the FSF do nothing about that matter?
They should also publish their correspondance with Linksys (if they had any) about the issue. What we are earing is just one side of the story!
What they've released will not run on their own product. It cannot be compiled.
The article also shows that they made additions to the kernel itself but did not release them.
This isn't about them revealing the internal workings of their silicon, etc. This is about them taking the Linux kernel, modifying it, releasing the modified version as part of their product but not releasing the source code. Which of course violates the GPL. They have since released what they claimed was the source code in three successive versions but none of them is actually the full source code.
What use would it be anyway? Well, if you have the full source code you can then create further development projects. You can try to create enhancements for the hardware purchased from LinkSys. Without the bits that LinkSys left out, it's pretty much useless according to the article.
No one made LinkSys use the GPLed code. They knew what the GPL required if they did use the code. It's looking a bit like they used the efforts of the Linux programmers to save themselves some development time and expenses but now don't want to "pay" the Linux developers in the contractual "coin" -- release of the derivative source code.
Quoth he
"It's all academic anyway..."
Did Linksys add their own code and exclude it, or did they modify existing code and exclude it?
If they merely excluded stuff that they wrote, without wanting it to be GPLed, then is there a problem? Are we to really know that they didn't just yank these peices of code in favor of their own non-GPL stuff?
Can someone familiar with these peices of missing code do a better job of explaining their purpose?
There is no "drivers/net/hnd/Config.in" in my 2.4.18 kernel source.
"post a rant on slashdot. It's well known that the RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft, SCO, etc. read weblogs to find out what uninformed 12 year olds think of them, and change business practices accordingly."
So some twelve year old girl's rant about not having any boobs yet is what prompted the music industry to get Britney Spears a breast enlargement back in 1997 or so? Sheesh...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Just as a comment, the licensing costs for WinCE aren't that huge at all -- maybe $5 per unit if my memory serves?
OTOH, last I was aware of it, its networking stack's performance was downright *abysmal*.
I don't mean to be redundant, but I see this mistake all the time and I don't want people to go away with incorrect ideas. You need to read your licenses carefully, especially if you write or modify code under them.
The Linux kernel is GPLed, not LGPLed. You can link LGPLed code with new code dynamically without releasing source to the new code. However, with the GPL, you *must* release source regardless of whether the code is statically or dynamically linked. So even if Linksys dynamically linked their proprietary modules with the kernel, it would still be a GPL violation.
The only way to avoid distributing source code that works with GPLed code is to write a GPL-compatibly-licensed wrapper program for the GPLed code. Then you write the proprietary program which uses IPC or some other arms-length method of talking to the wrapper.
The preceding comments reflect the author's personal opinion and are public domain, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
They only have to release their code if it is part of a derivative work based on the GPLed code. A port of the Linux kernel to INTERCAL++ would probably be a derivative work, but the compiler might well be a separate work, so they would not need to release its source. But if the reason that it won't compile is that part of the source of the program is missing, then that's a sign that they have not published part of the derivative work.
CISCO owns Linksys. Inside CISCO people have the option of using a Linux desktop! We should give CISCO some good karma just for that.
Religion is the main cause of atheism.
Then they'll forget all about it by tomorrow, and next week will be proud that LinkSys proves open source is better than a proprietary OS.
Wow, the letter linked certainly is informative and damning, and you are correct, there are some big signatures at the bottom, but in the corporate world, it all means nothing. If you're so sure about it, and want to stick up for the GPL, then sue them. Us ranting about it here won't do anything at all. Even a letter to some mailing list, signed by some big names in Linux, means absolutely nothing to them, because there are no consequences to LinkSys for ignoring them. And that's the bottom line.
... what if a company contacts out some aspects of their firmware design to a third party, but the parent company themselves uses GPL'd software. Say I hire AcmeSoft to write a driver for me for a router I'm making. AcmeSoft delivers some statically-linked binaries to me (but no source code), which I statically link into the GPL'd source code and in-house source code that my guys have written. Now, I make all that GPL software and my in-house software freely available, but I can't make the source for that driver from AcmeSoft available, because I don't have it. While technically, I'm in violation of the GPL, but if I've done all I can (short of pressuring AcmeSoft for source (which they won't give me) or ditching Linux altogether), am I really such a bad guy?
Responding to the accusations would cost money. Ignoring them, at this point, won't cost them a cent, because it's just a bunch of guys bitching and moaning on a mailing list, and here on Slashdot. Until someone with the stones (and the coin to back it up) steps up to the plate with some legal papers, absolutely nothing is going to happen.
That said, I have a question
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Which is just fine for everybody involved! If they don't like the GPL they can just use BSD, or pay royalties to Microsoft.
If Linksys is implementing a bunch of extra functionality through kernel modules, they would not have to release that source because of the GPL. A module developer can cover the module under any license that they see fit.
However, if Linksys is using an existing GPL'd module that they have tweaked, then they would be in violation of the GPL. My thinking is that they are employing the former rather than the latter.
-Runz
They should be sending this to legal(at)linksys.com, or even better, a dead tree letter sent certified mail attn: Legal Dept. to their headquarters mailing address (which is available on their website). I am sure these Linksys receives all sorts of B.S. via email and are blowing their story off. A Yes, its encouraging for large corporations to adopt open sources software, but they MUST play the rules. Too many people and businesses see open source as just free to use and abuse as they please. Once you use, or especially, modify GPL code, you are a member of the community. And you must participate in the community. This is doubly true if you profit from it. The spirit of the GPL is open cooperation between developers. A spirit evidently violated. The sad reality is that Linksys doesn't want to play by the rules. They used the work of thousands of developers and violated the good faith license that it was released under by not sharing their modifications. In reaction to the public outcry of this violation, they apparently released incomplete code to satisfy the malcontent, hoping that no-one would notice. Well it was noticed. (just in case some parties don't believe in free speech, the above statements are strictly the opinions of the author)
Well, after you've gotten into Linux on your Linksys router, when you have the source there's things you can make the hardware do that the original designers did not think of.
The terms of the GPL are that, upon distribution of a binary constructed partially from GPL'ed code, you need to offer the source code of everything that links with GPL'ed code. If you can't do that and simultaneously satisfy your other contracts/commitments, then you can't release the product. Period.
The only two resolutions as far as I can tell that will be acceptable to the kernel development team are to release the missing code and violate your contract with the third-party, or to remove the product from the market.
[ home ]
OK, fine. They're not really doing what they should be doing (from a legal sense I mean). They are, however, using our favorite "OS" to get out to the masses (OK, I really hate the default to 192.168.1.x for the DHCP daemon, but that's a personal thing, I guess...).
/me shakes his head.
OK, so there's a kinda big name company handing out "Linux"... and people are complaining about that...
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
Then it SHOULD HAVE been IMPLEMENTED as a binary only Kernel Module.
If you READ the report, it states your code is statically linked/compiled into the kernel. Thus, it is under the GPL, since it is now essentially part of the kernel.
You should have either made
a) A binary kernel module
b) A userspace library.
Both of which would not have caused your code to become GPL.
But by statically linking it with GPL software, the code must now be made GPL.
So it's okay to play by the NDAs and licenses of 3rd parties, but not by the GPL license?
Hypocrit!
Your IP people should be fired for messing this up! It's been discussed millions of times on the Net by users and companies!
Nvidia has successfully preserved their IP by using binary modules, and retaining their "IP secrets"
Too late now though... Better talk to your IP lawyers and 3rd party friends. You have 2 choices.
1) Release the code under the GPL
2) Stop selling the Linksys units.
By statically linking to GPL software, you essentially agreed to it, and are now beholden to it.
Even after no one sued them or did anything but send a mean letter on geek letterhead? That's crazy!
I have always thought that the GPL was at least a little unfair -- having to release ALL the code for any piece that includes a previously GPL'ed portion. However, what better way could be devised? If it said, "only the module using GPL needs to be released", then companies would just put the GPL'ed part in it's own module. I like that the GPL makes all source more open, but I dislike the fact that people are scared to use it, for fear of revealing competitive advantages or other "really cool" source code -- and isn't that the stuff we all want to see open-source anyways?
stuff |
Everyone:
My above post was an intentional troll. It is to prove a few points about the ridiculous nature of the moderation system on slashdot.
1) If you post quickly, you will have a chance to be read and moderated. This system rewards those who post without spending time to think about or read the article(s) involved. I think at least an hour should pass before any posts are made public, and those posts should be posted in random order. The main problem is that the posts at the "top" get modded, while the others get ignored.
2) The most ridiculous assertions (our proprietary code is not licensed under the GPL and is therefore not released) is modded up a 4-INFORMATIVE??? already?
3) You cannot trust anything that is said on an anonymous forum such as this. Don't take it so seriously.
Thank You,
Bill Gates
My understanding of the GPL is that in creating a single work (Linux Kernel that doesn't require external binary objects) Linksys have taken code that may not have been GPLed (Broadcom drivers?) and spun it into a work that most definately is (The Linux kernel)
Had the broadcom drivers been seperate objects that were not spun into the Kernel but compiled seperately and loaded into memory by the kernel at run time this would not be a problem.
As someone claiming to have an understanding of the problem could you clarify my points please.
Matt Thompson - Actuality - Insert product here.
As a software developer the GPL scares me. Personally I try to stay far away from using any GPL code because I am affraid I will not properly credit it or in some other way infringe on the licence agreement. For instance, I don't have a clue whether or not its ok to use a dynamically linked GPL library with a closed source app. Honestly I don't even really know how I would find answers to this short of posting here or hiring a lawyer.
As a result I probably end up writing a lot more code from scratch than I probably need to. I usually avoid all types of "open source" since im affraid ill accidently do something wrong.
One thing that I would like to see is developers changing the license on some of their code to a less restrictive license once the code becomes very trivial. That is once the code has reached a point where there are MANY other implimentations, and development has stopped, it would seem to me that the GPL would do more harm than good.
Thats just my take.
Grrrrr... don't bother me, I'm thinking.
Just a small question then what will stop people from disasembling the code and figuring it out anyway? Also take a gander at this artical nda. It sums up what you are currently putting us through.
Also many eyes make bugs shallow. Dont you guys want that? It would save you LOADS of money. Also you need to remind the people you signed the nda with that people WILL figure it out any if it is usefull enough. They are only protecting an interface. An open interface helps everyone and closed ones lead to drivers that do not work in the next version. Ask yourself this question there are hundreds of network drivers out there (open source), is ours reaaaaaaaaly that unique?
Until somebody actually has brains enough to file legal action, the GPL is just a paper tiger.
1) Warn them in writing, certified.
2) File action, seek $150K per unit shipped.
3) Don't settle. Go to court, and win, donate it to FSF, OSDL, EFF, or something. Or, settle for millions -- just to prove a point for the "next leach" to prance down the pike.
I work for a company where we are developing a product running an embedded version of Linux with plenty of our own, proprietary code running on top of it (we have been very careful to ensure that the two code bases never mix). You seem to be of the opinion that anyone who purchases this product down the line should be entitled not only to the source of the Linux code we used, but also the specs of the interface we built for interaction with the hardware as well as the code that uses this interface, neither of which contains a single line of outside or GLPed code.
Sounds like your company should be using BSD'd code instead GPL'd since its philosphy is more to its liking. Is there a particular reason they aren't?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Ummm... Doesn't GPL become invalid or at least greatly diminished (in the eyes of the court) if derived code is not released as part of the package?
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
You know thats like 15% of the profit margin on these home user routers, right?
Your obligation under those binding third party agreements is really no different than your binding obligation to the third-party authors of the GPL source code in question. You similarly have no rights to the GPL source code (beyond the standard ones you have to any copyrighted work you see out there on the street) other than those you obtain under the GPL contract, and claiming that release of "the GPL source code we used" but not the entire source code for the module is definitely a breach of contract as well.
But then again, I think you're just trolling based on the blog entry you are linked to, and I think IHBT.
Could insurance for legal fees be used by those effected / damaged? nah, o well worth a shot ;D
A blog I run for the wealth
The actual hardware and core software wasn't designed by Linksys. Linksys however make the web frontend and do make some changes to the core platform.
I've got a Buffalo access point and it's got nearly identical firmware and hardware. Even the firmware file format is the same. The only differences are that the front end was written by Melco (parent company of Buffalo) and the Linksys one was by Linksys.
Featurewise it's roughly similar as well. I'd guess that most of these "cheap" all-in-one Broadcom & Linux based access points were pretty much the same.
I wouldn't solely point the finger at Linksys, other people have the same GPLed code in their products as well.
... why you want Linux to "get out to the masses". If it's just because you hate Microsoft (and who doesn't), or if it's just like your favourite football team, then maybe you won't care. But if the reason you want Linux to succeed is that you want to promote free software, then a non-free derivative is worse than useless. After all, if you didn't want to ban non-free derivatives, why didn't you use a different licence such as the BSD licence?
Okay, and who is going to pay the attorney's fees to file such actions and pose enough threat to make them "settle for millions?"
If people care enough about this, they should send money to the EFF, perhaps earmarked for the "Linksys GPL suit". They're probably the best legally equipped organization to do this.
"It's a very tangled subsystem." --Windows kernel guru
*BZZT*
The linux kernel is GPL'd with the added provision that you are allowed to write a binary moduled to be loaded at runtime without having to release your code under the GPL.
In addition, there are certain restrictions beyond that. IIRC the kernel exports some symbols that are GPL only, and some that for everyone.
So if linksys had not statically linked their code into the kernel, but had made modules instead, everything whould be fine. Since they didn't they need to pay the licensing fee (show us the source).
Unfortunately, that missing code is required to be released under the GPL.
From the GPL:
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
You've just noticed the point of the GPL in the first place. Congratulations.
People license their code under the GPL because it protects their code from being commercialized. Nobody sells GPL code, and therefore anybody who uses it, must use it per the license. The GPL provides a way to ensure that if you give your copyrighted code away, then nobody will take advantage of that trust. In short, nobody can improve on your property and use those improvements to their exclusive benefit. Any improvements must necessarily benefit everybody. period.
And if companies don't like that idea, then they shouldn't use GPL code. tough.
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted
All code that is part of the derived work is covered under the GPL. In the case of the kernel, the only code that is not part of the derived work is code which only accesses the kernel through the kernel modules API. But anything that is inserted by the modules API is not exported by the kernel. So, regardless of binding third-party agreements, the code directly added to the kernel resulting in the exported symbols of bcm_*, pkt*, dma_*, sb*, osl_* and srom_* are part of the derived work. To honor the third-party agreements, you must discontinue redistribution of the derived work. Please read Clause 7 for details on how your third-party agreements effects redistribution of a GPL derived work.
Anotherwords, you have cleared nothing up. Linksys is wilfully and with full knowledge violating of US Federal Copyright law. Declairing that code is not covered by the GPL does not make it so. Ensuring that the code is only access via the kernel modules API is the only way to correctly declair it is not part of the GPL derived work known as the Linux kernel. Not all of the derived work is provided in source code form from Linksys and by choosing to lie/declair that it is can only make the mess Linksys has choosen to cause even bigger.
It means that the source must be delivered on a machine-readable device, like e.g. over TCP/IP or CD-ROM. It means they can't hand over a print-out or similar of the code and claim they fulfill the GPL.
For a public program, that'd be no problem as you can more or less DDoS them by everybody requesting the source code. But if the author only gave the binary to a couple others, it could have been a problem, thus this provision.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
BTW, Cisco uses Linux in some of their devices as well. I know at least about Cache Engine (maybe it's called Content Enginge today), their FibreChannel switches and VMPS server. Do they make mods to the kernel available somewhere???
Let me get this straight... If you use GPL, you are supposed to reveal ALL the code you have even if it parts of it was designed completely independently? You want companies to reveal all their silicon secrets just because they are using Linux to access the silicon? They should give credit where credit is due but there is no reason for them to reveal the internal workings of their silicon, etc. Get real.
The GPL is real, and it is about sharing. If all they want to do is give credit then there is always BSD code available. I wonder if they would be asking as nicely as they kernel group is if they thought Linux was violating their license?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Since a modified kernel is a derived work of the original GPL-ed kernel they have to release the source to their modified kernel.
;)
Well, kernel yes, module drivers no. This is how ATI and Nvidia release binary driver. But if Nvidia or ATI released a compiled kernel, they would have to release thier driver source?
Am I reading it wrong, but it says the drivers are missing, not the kernel modifications. And no where in the GPL does it say they have to help you compile the kernel.
Wrong, they are 2 seperate things....
e reAggre gation
...
With a binary module, you can compile the kernel cleanly, then load your module to talk to the chips. Kernel = Gpl, module = Any license. They are seperate objects/executables.
By statically linking, your code is now PART of the kernel, and beholden to the GPL. Nividia wasn't this STUPID, but you were. If Nvidia had done this, we'd be all over them too.
Face it, you messed up big time, and now want out of your legal obligations.
Is it as easy to break a corporate contract or NDA as you think it is to break the GPL?
Also, about libraries, static and dynamic linking, etc. The reason the LGPL exists is to allow propietary software to use LGPL code without becoming GPL themselves. In the case of Dynamically Linked GPL libraries, this is not really a problem. But for static linking (where the library/code becomes PART of the executable ), then a GPL'd library STATICALLY LINKED with a non-GPL application would cause the GPL to apply to the app too, as it is now part of it. The LGPL though allows static linking without requiring the application to becomes GPL.
Now, several times in the past, some GPL projects considered using closed source propietary libraries. But linking to them statically would require the libraries to release code. Now getting a third party to do that willingly, well. Thus the projects wrote their own to implement the desired functionality ( The now-defunct Free-QT project, as a replacement for QT before QT released a GPL friendly version ).
Buuut, you my friends, knew the risks, and still did it. You obviously didn't read any mail lists, read the GPL, or read the GNU websites.
Sooo, yer still screwed. The Kernel is GPL, it's being linked STATICALLY to your code, so your code is now GPL too.
*Slam Dunk*
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#M
I Quote:
"Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them. "
"If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program. "
The last bit SURELY applies to the Linux kernel combined with your code...
Also, this example....
I'd like to modify GPL-covered programs and link them with the portability libraries from Money Guzzler Inc. I cannot distribute the source code for these libraries, so any user who wanted to change these versions would have to obtained those libraries separately. Why doesn't the GPL permit this?
There are two reasons for this.
First, a general one. If we permitted company A to make a proprietary file, and company B to distribute GPL-covered software linked with that file, the effect would be to make a hole in the GPL big enough to drive a truck through. This would be carte blanche for withholding the source code for all sorts of modifications and extensions to GPL-covered software.
Giving all users access to the source code is one of our main goals, so this consequence is definitely something we want to avoid.
More concretely, the versions of the programs linked with the Money Guzzler libraries would not really be free software as we understand the term--they would not come with full source code that enables users to change and recompile the program.
Just substitute "Linksys" for "Money Guzzler"
Note the words "Linking" and "library". Statically linked kernel code is much more tightly joined than a library... So if it applies to propietary libs, it applies to kernel code.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Your company would ruin peoples' lives for breaking contracts. Yet they cry fould when they're the ones under the gun?
You didn't read very carfully, then. Go read it again. Pay careful attention to the reason why the build is failing. And read the section about symbol exports.
This is part of the reason some consider Linux to be viral, some actually believe that code running with or under Linux is required to have it's source available to all those who want it, that would be a big no.
Unless you're statically linking your code to GPLed code, as in Linksys' case.
Signatures are for stupids.
Quite simply, if you're a company, than you have to compare the cost of using GPL to the cost of royalties paid out to proprietary systems.
If the cost of using the GPL [all the searches you mention] is less than the cost of the proprietary system, then you may want to use the GPL.
If it's more, you still have an option: don't distribute the binaries: use it in-house. For example, you could write your own program, and then create a JAVA web application that used your program for a fee.
Now, if you are a private individual, then there's another easy, cheap way to use the GPL: act in good faith to GPL your own product. Then, if someone discovers you didn't properly credit something that you're supposed to, since you're acting in good faith, they will to. They'll notify you "patch your source here...", and you will, and that'll be that.
On the other hand, I suspect that you may be trolling, in which case you just got one fish. Good job, except that trolling is ultimately a waste of your time, whereas my posting is informative, and helpful to others who see it, and therefore is not a waste of time.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
All this does is make companies shy away from Linux. Linksys should just move to BSD and forget about this GPL nonsense.
Maybe this is just an honest mistake. That is, I am not saying they weren't trying to get away with something before, but maybe they really are trying to come clean now, but they just can't. From LKML:
This totally jives with my experiences in trying to get code/documentation from different companies. They people you are talking to want to help, but the original engineers are gone and didn't document or save what they did.
I am not trying to say Linksys isn't wrong here. They used GPL code and need to abide by that agreement. But what if they can't? For all we know there are some junior engineeers wishing they could tweak someting in the kernel for their next firmware and can't because they can't compile the code.
You should be grateful that a company releases any specs for their device if it does not contain GPL based code.
You're fairly far off base. As far as I know, LinkSys hasn't released any low-level specs for these routers at all. What is at issue is purely the GPLed code they've used to shorten their development cycle. That would include any patches to the kernel source, and in some cases, module code as well, depending on how it is linked to the static kernel.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
We've also been trying to get the Zaurus development house the Kompany to comply with the GPL but have so far been ignored. They've released a port of Kpatience, a card game originally for the KDE desktop. Despite claiming this is a GPL-compliant release they are charging $50 for source to the $6.95 program. Their only response so far is to claim that $50 fee is legitimate because of their hosting fees. Any suggestions for encouraging compliance?
They put code in the kernel proper, linksys is in the wrong. Bad linksys!
So who wrote the code in the first place? Probably some guy at broadcom, yes?
I cannot speak to exactly why we chose Linux over BSD, in large part it was due to the quality of Red Boot Linux (a Red Hat distro designed for embedded applications). The licensing aspects of the OS were pretty much irrelevant to us as we have not made any changes to it which we are not willing to disclose to our customer, while the higher level application software which we wrote in house is not bound my any external licenses.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Copyright law is really, really, nasty stuff. The law stipulates default damages of $150K per copy distributed. That's millions, real fast.
The law is so nasty, in fact, that attorney's take take these cases on contingency. Even to the point Boies was willing to take up the wholly dubious SCO thing.
The main risk in Copyright suits is proving they counter party swiped your code. Is GPL code in SCO? Is SCO in Linux? Was it common code? Was it independent? Etc. No such risks here. Here the use of Linux is given. The fact the source kit doesn't compile is given. The violation is really quite clear.
EFF could profit from this. But, first, somebody with a cause of action has to walk into their office, or send an e-mail, or pick up the phone, complaining. Newsgroup whining just don't cut it in circles of law.
Okay, other people may be doing this too, it doesn't excuse Linksys.
In order to distribute the GPL binary, they must also distribute or make available the appropriate source code. If they do not, they are committing a copyright violation.
Others may commit similar violations, that doesn't excuse Linksys from their obligations.
Maybe you need the RIAA's help in this copyright violation?
Companies need to know what they are getting in to. GPLed software is not about adoption, it's about freedom to make and distribute changes, it's about standing on the shoulders of other developers and letting them stand on yours. We don't want to encourage people to use GPLed software by giving up the freedoms that make it meaningful.
Hopefully your company is making the GPL portion of the code available as it should be doing. That is all that anyone is asking of Linksys. Nothing more. It is nice to have more details of interfaces, etc. but it is definitely not required. In your case and in the case of Linksys the remainder of the code may be proprietary and you may not want ot release it. As long as it is not statically linked then it can remain secret.
ZockDeBlur!@#$%
yes, it would be truly insane to pretend to ignore the plight of the planet/population, whilst speculating on the next big payper liesense hostage scam to be perpetrated buy the phonIE ?pr? ?firm? hypenosys peddlers, aka, the walking dead.
you know where to look. see you there.
Release the code to the public, or for free. The GPL in basic form reads well enough to me, but some of the deeper semantics are a bit confusing.
OK: Somebody can public a piece of software with (modified) GPL'ed code, provided the provide the source code to the (modified) GPL'ed code. They are not obligated to provide source for any modules etc that make use of said code (provided for fully modularized code, wherein the sections in private modules don't contain any GPL code at all).
Now, forward this to situation (b)...
Can I write a program which makes use of GPL'ed code, some of which is embedded in my own code, and then release "partial source" wherein the majority of my code is stripped out, but perhaps include function definitions etc and show where/what GPL code is used, or does this count as derived and thus must all be shown
Can I use GPL'ed code in my own works, sell a product, and release the code "upon request" or perhaps even only to those purchasing the product itself. I can then release a product, profit, allow 3rd parties who purhase the product to make modifications if they want... and then restrict others from reselling the portion of my code in a near-original form as a new product? For example, I believe there are many games which are copyrighted, but have the engine or portion of release to the public, without allowances for using the artwork, etc.
GPL gurus... info please?
What is a GPL? Some sort of standard or certification?
I don't mean to sound mean, but you must be new to the opensource movement.
And you are rather un-informed if you can't suggest using BSD instead. They'd STILL be a 'part' of the open source movement, just like they are a 'part' now.
I'm not sure I understand why everyone's so sure they're violating the GPL. If the missing kernel modules are entirely original, why are they required to release them under the GPL? AFAIK, you are only required to release source that contains GPL-ed code, or that is based on GPL-ed code. If you write a kernel module from scratch, it is not bound by the GPL - Linux API compatibility notwithstanding.
Agreed we don't know if their code is original without seeing it. But if it's original they're not obliged to show it. That's the catch-22 of the GPL I've always found interesting.
I would assume if people like Alan Cox are on this, then the "high up people" have determined that the are in violation. I'd think they'd know their own lisence.
A few of us don't like our copywrited material stolen either..
Take it to court.. the judge/clerks can do their damn job and this can be resolved.. rather than banter back and forth and whine complain and sit around with overpriced lawyers trying to work out a deal for the next 3 years.
IBM thinks the gpl is good enough to fight for/with.. just imagine how upset SCOX would be if the GPL was proven "valid"
In soviet russia.. the people overthrow the govt.
So a group of GPLers called the GPL a gift. I then pointed to the IRS and various dictonaries and showed how gifts come without strings. Yet the GPLers still argued gifts come WITH strings.
A fucked up group the die-hard GPLers are.
Looking at this, I can't help but notice some similarities between what's going on here, and what's going on with the RIAA. Now, before I get modded to a -1 Troll, hear me out. Many of us geeks say that the RIAA should adapt to the times, that their buisness stratigy is outdated, all as we marrily go along liberating/piriting music. We believe that since their way of doing buisness is not what we want, we should change it, even if it's on our terms.
But is this not what Linksys is doing too? Obviously, they disagree with the GPL, so they're flaunting it, much like we do at times with copyright, and even after getting "caught" they still do it. Perhaps then, Linux and the GPL have the same problem as the RIAA and their rules, in that it's holding them back, and causing them grief? The GPL is a wonderful thing, but perhaps in some cases, the community needs to bite the bullet, and change with the times, much like we encourage the RIAA too. Otherwise, we'll continue to have the same problem as the RIAA, and even with "free" alternatives(lighter licences and free music, respectively), people will still continue to violate the licence until they're satisfied.
Yup. That's why GPL operating systems and software don't hit it big with technology companies. I won't develop anything for Linux because it's all expected to be GPL.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
It seems that the crowd is totally against someone like SCO suing for what they believe are their rights, but god help a company that TRIES to comply with the GPL.. they will be burnt at the stake for a mis-step.
By being this rabid about the oversight on Linksys's part, all it will do is serve to help scare more companies away. They don't need that sort of grief.. especially when they are trying to do the right thing.
Good move. Good consistent move.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
They used a non-free compiler. The GPL doesn't say you have to release the source of the compiler you use to compile your source code? They could, theoretically, be using a compiler that adds tons of features or something.
use *somebody elses* gateway >:)
Actually its a very good question whether dynamically linked code would fall under the GPL. The Linux kerne's GPL specifically includes an exemption so even Linus is of the opinion that such a thing is not clear cut.
Try to define static vs. dynamic linking carefully on a modern system (where for example memory position is allocated JIT) and it is not easy. Its entirely possible that the courts will find that any KDE app needs to GPLed.
Personally, I think this is funny. Not the joke itself (which is weak), but the fact it was modded "troll". Was it too close to home? LOL!
In particular, Rob Landley's well thought out response.
If Cisco/Linksys is deliberately violating the GPL, then yes, they should be raked over the coals as appropriate. However, given that they've already tried to cooperate with the GPL, it may be that there was just a disconnect between the guys putting stuff up on the website and the actual developers of the Linksys kernel (which, as Landley points out, might even have been outsourced -- and Cisco is probably pretty upset with them about now.)
-- Alastair
However, what we have with Linksys is allegedly a willful attempt at deception on their part. I like Linksys and I hope this is some misunderstanding. However, I will not give my money to (and thus not depend upon their products and services) someone that I can't trust. I need to know that by spending 20,000 USD on their equipment will be a good decision now and 10 years from now. That means no funny business that will screw me into lowering my productivity until I can find time or pay someone to create workarounds... or get all new equipment. For my home equipment I don't mind tinkering a bit as long as I have absolutely nothing else to do, like spending time with my wife and child. This perhaps is the problem many "open source" contributers fail to realize... if I can more cheaply pay for software than it costs me in time and money to setup the basics for some application then I will go with the paid solution even if it is closed source. Sure I "have access to the code and can damn well fix the problems myself" but then again, I have full access to every thread of my clothes, every nook and cranny of my vehicle, all the components of my house and every appliance within it and I can easily go buy surgical equipment for me to operate on my family. However, the issue here is that many must weigh their limited time against the benefit of "doing it yourself."
A robust API lets me stand on the shoulder of giants instead of recreating the wheel. The better designed the API and underlying framework is, the more efficient it is to use it. If to get anything done beyond some sort of "Hello World" functionality requires ugly hacks and workarounds that will break upon later releases then that is NOT a good product. (Still, this is not to say that a car's inability to be easily converted to a Lunar mining vehicle does not make it "crap")
I think the thing that they don't realize is that you must pay a price for using Open Source. If you use it as a development platform, you must pay by supplying those who ask for it, the sources you modified. Generally, this is much cheaper than buying a proprietary source base, but it is a cost nonetheless. Linksys is refusing payment. So, we must collect. We can do that by constantly requesting payment (ala commercial collection agencies) or by taking them to court to recover payment.
... SCO sues LinkSys for using SCO's proprietary code in their hardware. Doh!
Right, big tech companies obviously avoid Linux -- say big tech companies like:
Or which big technology companies were you referrring to exactly? Sure, it was a troll, but hey -- who isn't supporting Linux that doesn't make a competing OS? I mean, heck Sun, HP and IBM do make competing OSes and they've all jumped on the Linux bandwaggon.
Hold! What you are doing is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
First one to spot that reference gets a cookie.
+++ATH0
Balmer is that you? This is obviously a troll but oh well...
If the you don't like the GPL than don't use the software, develop it on your own. Oh and btw they are not required to "reveal all their silcon secrets" just the part of the software that was derived from the base GPL software.
You would rather make some stupid comment on Slashdot, then cry when it gets modded down. You are pathetic
You seem to be of the opinion that anyone who purchases this product down the line should be entitled not only to the source of the Linux code we used, but also the specs of the interface we built for interaction with the hardware as well as the code that uses this interface, neither of which contains a single line of outside or GLPed code.
You say this like it's some kind of new revelation, or something you expect he didn't realize he was implying.
It's a core tenet of the Free Software movement that if one purchases something, one should have the right to use it however one sees fit, including modifying it. Making part of it software instead of hardware so it can be copyrighted shouldn't (by their philosophy) prevent this, and trying to hide the information is (by their philosphy) immoral and rude.
This work is being distributed under the GNU General Public License so anything short of that (such as distributing specifications) it is not sufficient. Also, the GNU GPL covers patented implementations, making it possible for you to reimplement their APIs without infringing a licensor's patents. So your request is actually too little to ask here.
If Linksys did not want to comply with the GNU GPL, they should have chosen a work under a different license to distribute and modify. They are being granted a valuable work under a liberal license; they did not have the right to infringe the copyrights of the kernel contributors and there is no moral justification for doing so. But, given the high moderation on the parent comment, I'm guessing that many /. readers want to grant corporate copyright infringers anything they say they need to make money.
Digital Citizen
Would you mind telling us which company this is?
It really is very simple. If you want to use GPL software, then obey the rules. GPL is to benefit the people who release GPLd software, it's not meant to be a free lunch for all the parasitic leecher-companies out there.
Then don't, nobody is forcing you. Why even make such a pointless, redundant comment?
If you are taking advantage of the work that many developers have put into the Linux kernel to avoid having to pay licensing fees, then quit complaining about the terms of the license. Of course you should release the information and code required for your users to interface with your product so they can upgrade the Linux kernel to one they've customized themselves. The whole point of the GPL is to ensure users have that freedom. If you want to keep your hardware interfaces secret, then use something else. There are plenty of vendors that would be happy to sell you their embedded OS on terms that would suit you.
(-1, Offtopic)
Holy shit, I think I might be missing out by not reading at -1. Its a whole different world.
I want some of whatever this guy is on, wow...
------------
trying to keep an open mind
"Of course we must be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
who cares.. i download movies and Mp3s all the time. I think it is time that GPLers change their business model and adopt somehting like BSD.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
The GPL does not allow statically linking non-GPL code into a GPL binary, eg the linux kernel.
People have even debated whether dynamically linking non-GPL binary kernel modules is truely permissible under the GPL, but statically linking is definitely a no-no.
This is one of the big reasons why the Lesser Gnu Public License is often used for libraries.
hard work my dick... sorry if my languange is going to get me modded down but i dont want the respect of those who would otherwise criticise my choice of words...
their "HARD WORK" consists mostly of
1. copy code that is gpl'd into linksys kenel
2. add some of our own stuff.
3. stir
the key fact here is that they knowingly used GPL code in the creation of their product... so they have to follow the rules... otherwise.. they should have worked a little fucking harder and written the ENTIRE thing themselves from scratch... why the hell should they make money off of anythign that was given to them (and anyone else in the world) for free and under the contractual premise that it would be redistributed for free.
but it seems they couldnt be bothered to do any of that. besides.. what, prey tell, is stopping them from making a living..
1. they still sell their routers/etc..
2. they already gave away some of the code (which wasnt complete)
3. they dont loose money on giving away the code on a product that people buy to use...
i dont even know why i answer trolls anymore.
It's not about what you want. It's about what's in the GPL. If a company is going to use the fruits of the GPL then they must abide by the GPL. If they don't they should be taken to task over it.
To put it in terms even you can understand, If you wrote some code for a customer and they are using your code but refused to pay. Would you say well our contract be damned? The GPL is a contract between the people that wrote the code and the users of that code. GET IT!!!!!
There's no moral difference between a vendor requiring a customer to produce source code, versus, a vendor requiring a customer to pay money instead. Both require a commitment from a potential user of a product. Just because Linux gives you source for free in exchange for you giving your source for free does not make it morally better than Windows, getting a binary in exchange for money. It is that the terms of the exchange are different between the two.
If anything, the specific act of requiring the vendor to turn over source code for their applications may be an ultimately higher price to the end users in terms of lines of code delivered and organizational impact. The GPL is essentially a barter system. Money replaced barter some hundreds of years ago, because money was more efficient. Yet, GPL says that money is less efficient? That just flies in the face of economic theory and it is possible that the GPL, widely adopted, will introduce distortions in the economy because the real cost of software will be shifted elsewhere.
Thus, any sane line of reasoning based upon the value of the products exchanged between contract parties must show that the GPL is reactionary nonsense. The GPL is a barter system whose guiding philosophy is a reaction against charging for software, and barter is less efficient than money. It argues against money, as if incorrect, but, it still hangs on to property rights. A more reasonable exchange market mechanism for open source would allow the sale of software, but, would recognize the buy back value of the source being contributed.
If the Open Source movement were really about free software, they would forgo the exchange and use the real intellectually free license : "public domain."
This is my sig.
The GPL is one thing, but most people license libraries which will be linked under the LGPL which specifically covers this issue and AFAIK is it's purpose for existance.
Isn't it odd how, according to Joe Slashdot, copyright is so important when it relates to the GPL, but so irrelevant when it relates to music or movies?
Cases like this are exactly the reason why copyright law should have teeth and be respected: copyright is, in general, a good thing and an important defence of the rights of people who create work and allow others to use it.
However, when it's wholesale abused by large subsets of the population -- many, many of whom arrogantly proclaim their support for that abuse right here on this forum -- it's no surprise that other big companies turn around and slam it back in society's collective face. Did no-one see this coming?
I won't be at all surprised if Linksys wriggles free of all charges on a legal technicality, just as numerous blatant copyright infringers have done when prosecuted by the big media groups. It's just a shame that we have evolved a culture where copyright lacks respect to such a degree, and now the hard workers who create good things like the Linux kernel suffer because of the prevailing greed of song-swappers and the pirate movie business.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
So who is worse for the Linux community SCO or Slashdot?
At a time when SCO and Microsoft are trying to show that the GPL is bad for business, slashdot users keep giving them more proof.
Linksys is giving an effort to comply. Publicly attacking them instead of going through approprate channels at Linksys accomplishes nothing.
Oh, and by the way children, when communicating with a large corporation, don't start your message with "Screw you guys, we're going to sue you!" That won't even make it past the first secretary.
What's INTERCAL++ supposed to mean?
A unary increment program in INTERCAL can be found here. I don't see no lousy ++.
when you have to drag assholes into the street and make examples out of em. This helps keep the rest honest for a while. Of course sooner or later, probably sooner, you have to snatch another one for remedial treatment since most of these parasites have short attention spans.
I find it simply amazing how compliant these little shits get when their head is in the noose. Of course you really do need to stretch a few necks once in a while. You know, for effect.
The linux kernel is GPL'd with the added provision that you are allowed to write a binary moduled to be loaded at runtime without having to release your code under the GPL.
Interesting. Where in the kernel distribution does it explicitly state this? I downloaded 2.4.22 from kernel.org and looked in the COPYING file but found nothing authorizing this. Rather, the COPYING simply state that the kernel is released under the terms of GPLv2. I also looked on some of the main pages of kernel.org and could not find anything.
You are probably referring to Linus's interpretation of the GPL that he posted to the lkml. However, as he is only one of many kernel authors, he doesn't have the authority necessary to make interpretations which relax the license for the kernel. He would need explicit permission from every kernel author to make those exemptions to the license. Some of the module owners are firmly in the Free Software camp, so he would probably have to remove or rewrite some parts of the kernel, as they would be unlikely to acquiesce.
If he got all of the permission necessary, he would need to add the information about the deviation from vanilla GPLv2 to the COPYING file. Thus far, I am not aware of his gathering permission from everyone, and he certainly has not changed the COPYING file. Therefore, to the best of my knowledge gathered from the research I have done, the kernel is still technically licensed under the vanilla GPLv2, which means that dynamic, or runtime, linking of a module still requires GPLing the module.
Now, given Linus's stance, a company might feel safe in making a binary-only runtime module. (*cough* Nvidia) However, technically that is still in violation of the license that is attached to current kernels, and it could potentially open the company to legal action in the future, as Linus is free to change his mind, and any of the other developers could also initiate the complaint.
The preceding comments reflect the author's personal opinion and are public domain, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
I'm sick of this whining. If someone (Linksys or anyone else) violates the GPL and you don't think they're making good faith efforts to remedy the problem (which I'd say Linksys is doing!), then she them! Either sue them, air the whole thing in court and get a legally binding ruling on the GPL, or shut the hell up.
If nothing else, there should be one bit of good that comes of the SCO fiasco: Maybe we'll finally get an authoritative statement on the validity of the GPL. Make no mistake--until the GPL is proven in court, any company's "effort to comply" is based on intimidation, and not licensing.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
This answers the question on the thread,
Thank you,
Why was the parent modded Insightful?
a) A technicality: you don't need to release source to derived code if you keep that derived code to yourself. If, on the other hand, you distribute derived binaries to anyone outside your company, you need to provide sources as well. To put it in a soundbite: wherever the binary goes, the source must go.
b) If you write some code based upon some other code, you need to comply with the original license so that you can use that code at all! Noncompliance and license violations do not weaken the original license; rather, they leave the violating party open to a copyright infringement lawsuit.
Unless you are the judge presiding over the case you have ZERO authority to claim there is no proof.
And regardless of the outcome, if they believe they are right in what the are doing, then my point is proven.
If you cant see the hierocracy that is being tossed around here on a daily basis ( under many subjects, such as the RIAA issue ), then you are blind, or stupid.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
- you went against the GPL or nothing view of world domination movement
- Your attitude was haughty and arrogant and much like number 1
However, you made some good if not redundant (read: needed by many clueless slashdotters) points about Open Source and Linux with proprietary software. You are correct in that your own code is your own choice (free as in freedom) of licensing as long as it conforms to the GPL's views of linking. Many view this as viral and very much NOT free (as in freedom) especially dynamic linking. In this regard, GPL has achieved what MS wishes to on a legal perspective. LGPL and Apache licenses, among others, address this problem.However, this is all secondary to one simple fact... the code does not compile with the supplied Linksys code. That means that by definition it is incomplete; which means they held back whether as a mistake or malice.
I cannot speak to exactly why we chose Linux over BSD, in large part it was due to the quality of Red Boot Linux (a Red Hat distro designed for embedded applications).
Okay...you know what's coming next. Do you think it possible the quality could be the result of the GPL requiring code to be shared by those who distribute the software.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Just to clarify, the post would have been so much more useful had they first pointed out that this was a legal licensing issue and then perhaps covered the API portion of the original post whether they agreed or not.
Try NOT being a pathetic asshole lashing out at better people.
Now, given Linus's stance, a company might feel safe in making a binary-only runtime module. (*cough* Nvidia) However, technically that is still in violation of the license...
I'm not so sure that it is...
The GPL requires you to release the source code of modified GPL software that you re-distribute. nVidia isn't distributing the Linux kernel, and the licence for the nVidia driver clearly states the end-user isn't allowed to re-distribute it. So essentially, you download the binary driver from nVidia, and put it into your GPL kernel, which means you can no longer distribute the kernel as you have it.
This is allowed by the GPL, in whatever section it is that states you 'cannot distribute the software at all.' if you find a licensing conflict.
If you use GPL software modified, but don't distribute binaries, you don't have to release your modifications.
nVidia isn't distributing the kernel in either source or binary form, so they shouldn't have to release the source for their driver, as long as they prevent others from distributing the combination of the GPL kernel and the binary nVidia driver.
The easiest way to do this is to prevent any distribution of their driver, which they have done.
I don't think there is any licence violation here......
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
"...under the contractual premise that it would be redistributed for free."
Freely, as in without restraint, but not necessarily for free. Hence, Linksys can charge for their routers without violating the GPL. What they can't do (but are doing anyway) is create and distribute binary-only releases of kernel derivatives.
The GPL does not forbid renumeration.
MM
--
By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
It's more likely that a court would ignore the technical details of "linking" and look at the greater issue of whether one work is derived from another.
It was a mistake for the FSF to lead programmers into believing that there's some hard-and-fast "linking rule" that can determine GPL compliance.
right, thats what i was (hoping) i was saying. they sell their routers and are bound by the gpl to redistribute their gpl induced code as provisioned by the gpl.
apologies, if i was not clear.
If by "liberal" you mean "do what you want as long as it conforms to what I say it should" then yes your use of the word is correct. If you also mean "We wish to Free the world through our loving tyranny" then yes, that works as well.
Perhaps that implies that you believe moderation is not intended for ranking posts of interest but in fact is a voting/polling mechanism based around your agenda and politics. I was under the obvious misconception that moderation could be used even to mark up posts giving opinions you disagreed with but that was an important and perhaps even popular view/misconception by many. In modding that up and hopefully some well written follow-ups as well you help enlighten the whole community. Loaded statements intended to manipulate and encite emotional REactions like your final few sentences do little to enlighten or educate.A recent example of this attitude on a larger scale was the whole US (and British) war in Iraq. Many good points existed for NOT going to war whether at all or just not at that time. These points were largely avoided by the self labled "anti-war" crowd in favor of chants along the lines of "no blood for war" and "Bush is neo-Hitler." Besides the dishonoring of those who fought against and suffered under Hitler these comparisons and non-point arguments do nothing to actually educate. They rely on emotional manipulation. The real points are avoided normally because they reveal the flaws in the "approved" foreign policy of the protesters as well.
Your post smacks of the "no blood for oil" kind. Put another way, you seem to be one of the "Corporations are Evil" folk that ignore that evils commited by corporate goons still are weak when compared to the equivelent actions by government. A wise man is skeptic of the friendly handshake just as much as the averting eyes. I invite you to fall away from the view that corporations are the source of problems and correctly view that it is any group of people whom laws surpass that is the problem. Corporate greed is a given, but you still have a choice unless government steps in (i.e. government mandated monopolies in municipalities)
Certainly Nvidia's legal department believes that their drivers fall on the legal side of the fence, and I for one am glad, as I enjoy the Nvidia drivers on my GeForce4 ;-)
However, that's not to say those drivers don't inhabit a grey area of GPL law. While the drivers contain no Linux code per se, I believe they do make use of interfaces of the Linux kernel which are neither published nor intended for normal use. Therefore, it could be said that the code that makes up those drivers is a derivative work of the Linux kernel, as Nvidia has to study kernel source code carefully and adapt their code so as to be able to link directly into it. I suppose they could do some cleanroom reverse engineering to get around that, or something.
But I am not an IP attorney and even if I were, none of the Linux developers seem to be concerned about Nvidia's kernel drivers.
The preceding comments reflect the author's personal opinion and are public domain, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Once I buy a tape, CD or DVD I feel I am free to put it in as many formats and locations I like as long as I do not give or sell any of those copies. The argument of "MP3's quality can suck compared to the CD quality" is invalid to the argument that you are then justfied in distributing that suckier format. However, any real study that finds that consumers are largely unaware or unconcerned with the lower quality would indicate that RIAA's (and MPAA's too) business models are inefficient and incorectly targeted.
I just get annoyed when people use that and the arguments about the bloaty middleman nature of RIAA and their treatment of musicians as justifications to then steal music. Such arguments are clear indication of internal moral turmoil and a lack of reasoning skills.
Also, I feel your argument is along the lines of mine when I tell someone that if they do not currently like the way government is run then they only have themselves to blame. Government and corporations are made up of people like you and me. Even in the best case scenario where the government/corporation is honestly acting in ways that it perceives is "right" according to society (apply the "do what they do, not say" rule here) then we should not be surprised to see a mirror of our choices in office. In the worst case scenario, it is those who merely push the system (society) as far as it will stretch using technicalities, spin, and misdirection to fool the masses. I argue that when the masses so regularly let themselves be fooled that they show a desire to be manipulated and fooled. Maybe it is a form of Masachism, who knows?
It's entirely possible, given the excessively convoluted nature of the GPL, for one file to be GPL'd and another to not be GPL'd. It's all in how it's linked. If not all of the source HAS to be GPL'd, then I don't see where it's wrong that they DON'T GPL it.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Is RedHat guilty of same? Why is it that I can't seem to build any of the 2.1AS kernels on updates.redhat.com? I'm a paying customer and I can build just about anything else from SRPM.
/ SR PMS/kernel-2.4.18-e.31.src.rpm
Try this:
download onto your (registered and up2dated) 2.1AS system:
ftp://updates.redhat.com/enterprise/2.1AS/en/os
[root@box SPECS]# rpm --install ~/kernel-2.4.18-e.31.src.rpm
[root@box SPECS]# rpm --bb kernel-2.4.spec
Patch 2500 will FAIL.
I tried building several others, same _type_ of error. Is this an intentional logic bomb, or am I just inept?
Cheers.
It was *BZZT* not "BZZT" you dumb shit. BTW, the arrogant prick was right and you were wrong.
I wonder though, if perhaps it is not just a few. That or there is a virus on my end that smartly duplicates posts in a way that appears very human (as in drafted by a human). This begs the question, is it a form of murder for me to erradicate that virus from my system now? What Would Jean-Luc Piccard Do?
Yes, slashdot is made up of many pseudo-different people. Then again, not everyone in Stalin's Red Army were brutal murderers as well. That didn't stop the mass homicide though.
I would also like your couch and TV as well. Thanks, I will be around your house picking other stuff at 3:00PM. You shouldn't have any problem with this, so we will be in aggreement
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? He's not talking about the quality of the OS, he's talking about the fact that just because he runs an OS that is GPLed doesn't mean he should have to release the source of ALL the code that runs on top of that OS.
Just because the copyright is not held by a large corporation, does not mean that they can get away with breaking the license.
This is exactly what we would all like to believe. Apparently many people are opposed to what Linksys is doing (and posting on slashdot stating their opposition), but WHO is actually going to provide the funds and bring about a lawsuit against Linksys? It appears, from the responses by Linksys's PR department, that a lawsuit (or serious threat of one) is the only way to get the code released. FSF and individual coders simply don't have the resources to monitor all GPL'd code and take care of GPL infractions. Who does?
Linksys just announced that they are switching to the Freebsd Kernel to eliminate this bs. See the story at:
http://newman.hn.org/
It had to modded "troll". There is no "you are a fucking idiot and should do the world a favor by taking your own life" mod.
what is this talk of copy rights (which are evil of course) GPL is copy left. we all oppose copy rights cpoy left.. that is what the court has to enforce
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
There is no requirement that you are able to compile it... but only with relation to the tools involved. For instance, if it was ported to their custom compiler which used dirctives that ours don't support, that's our problem, not theirs.
If, however, it doesn't compile because they neglected to include the full source code, that's another matter.
These guys didn't just say they can't compile it, they analyzed WHY it wouldn't compile; modules are looking for symbols that do not exist in the kernel.....that means code is taken out.
In your intercal++ example, it would not violate teh GPL in any way.
what could happen is that the Linux community as a whole and all the various groups, companies and high profile individuals attack this as if there were no SCO ever. This would send a message that we do what is necessary and consistent regardless. "Pick your battles" while often true was obviously coined by a coward and fool who doesn't realize that in war you do not pick the time and place your attacker arises and you certainly are not allowed time to "get ready" and call timeouts.
Or look at it this way: Re-read the post you replied to. You are just restating exactly what they said.
This bit: "you'd also have to have the masks to make the chips anyways. So they stand to lose nothing by not publishing the source."
It's a rhetorical question for Chrissakes, which I believe is incorrect. I believe it would be of great use, and the fact that they refuse to release it underscores that fact.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Try to define static vs. dynamic linking carefully on a modern system (where for example memory position is allocated JIT) and it is not easy. Its entirely possible that the courts will find that any KDE app needs to GPLed.
Actually, I seem to recall that the GPL is pretty clear cut, it's just that people make exceptions a lot. According to the GPL, if you link to a library, you've created a derivative work, regardless of whether it's static or dynamic linked. If you create a library and you want to allow everyone to link to it without requiring them to GPL their code, you are recommended to either make an exception in the GPL, or to use the LGPL, which is much looser in that regard.
THe reason you would use GPL with an exception over LGPL is because you'd still want the larger protection of teh GPL, but you only want to make a small exception. The LGPL isn't as mature as the GPL, and is much looser in general. on the other hand, you might choose LGPL over GPL with exceptions for precisely the fact that LGPL is much looser than GPL.
Like what I said? You might like my music
In your last example, a custom compiler inserting binary code, it is NOT clearly a violation.
The GPL does NOT require that you are able to compile the code... only that if you make modifications to someone's code, you release those modifications.
The GPL does not requier that you have the technical means to take and use other's code.. only that you are allowed to use it legally, and that the code is made availalbe to you.
If I port something to VC++, it is not a violation just because you don't have a copy of VC++. Using my own custom compiler you CANT get is irrelevant.
So.. the compiler-that-inserts-code example could perhaps be a way to subvert the intent of the GPL..... at least the way I read it.
There is a second subversion also.
The GPL allows you to statically link against things that are a normal part of the target system. You can write a GPL app for Solaris that is linked against Sun's LIBC, which definately isn't open source, for instance.
This, of course, is open to interpretation... the SUN example is obvoius. what if I say that somethign is built for my particular distribution of linux I use in-house, which has some commercial non-free libraries.... am I violating the GPL by distributing osmeting linked against them? Not if the intended target is that platform, and that platform only... by the letter of the GPL, that is allowed. The fact that it LOOKS like another platform that you want to use isn't relevant.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? He's not talking about the quality of the OS, he's talking about the fact that just because he runs an OS that is GPLed doesn't mean he should have to release the source of ALL the code that runs on top of that OS.
The original discussion was on Linksys not distributing GPL'd code. This particularly thread delved into why they, and his company, chose Linux over some other system that used a license closer to their own philosophy and avoid these issues in the first place.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Who will sue them for GPL infringement? Since it's "free", no one has the rights to uphold it, no?
- We are suing you for GPL violations!
- Says who? You have no case.
We know who the defendant is but who prosecutes?
Trolls dont like to be Flamebait, because they burn so well. Protect our Troll heritage!
I am reading a lot about Linksys, but I don't read nothing about Belkin, who uses the same Broadcom chip in their 54 Mbit access point F5D7130 and router F5D7230-4. They both use a setup very typical to that of Linksys, as noted in some articles (including an article on how to hack the Linksys to customize its system).
...
If Linksys get it, Belkin surely must get it too
Tell me, what is the operating system, in this case, that the linux kernel on the linksys router runs on?
This says you do NOT have to include the source for things that are a normal part of the target platform. As the target platform of the derived work is a linksys router....they don't have to provide their compilers.
The point of this clause is that you can distribute a Solaris version of a GPL program without distributing the source to the solaris kernel, or the solaris LIBC implementation.. despite the fact that the executable is statically linked to it... because those are things that are a normal part of the intended platform for the binary.
In this case, the binary is distributed with it's platform.. the router.
Doesn't GPL become invalid or at least greatly diminished (in the eyes of the court) if derived code is not released as part of the package?
Steve Jobs wanted to release his Objective C compiler as a proprietary add-on to gcc through just such a mechanism. However, after his lawyers got done discussing the matter with the FSF's lawyers, those plans were scrapped. So, while we still don't know what a court would say, we do know that some motivated lawyers (motivated to make this scheme work, since it would have been in their client's interest) don't think such an argument would stand up in court.
Because it has to be said. It's not a world of lollipops and cotton candy out there sunshine. Peeps are out to make money, and you can't make money doing GPL software. In support, perhaps. Not in just giving software away.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
I didn't say 'big technology' take a reading comprehension course.
The companies listed are involved are involved for various reasons. AMD and Intel sell chips. The rest are in it as a hobby. Which is ALL programming under the GPL is good for... a hobby.
Those companies are flush with money, and don't NEED to put food on the table in the traditional sense. BUT, they do need a division that generates tax write-offs.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Has anyone complained to the BSA about this? Isn't it their "job" to make sure businesses comply with software licensing?
Several weeks ago, I submitted an article to my Local LUG on the Actiontec Dual PC modem and the fact that it ran uClinux. It worked it's way up the chain until it got Slashdotted. Since that time, Actiontec has embraced the community and opted to take part in the process. They are not only releasing all source code, but the tool chain, recovery utilities and daughterboards to allow additional development on their platform. They have also hired a consultant to help ensure the Open Source community gets solid documentation and has someone to represent them that understands our needs. The Actionhack mailing list archives can be viewed here. What they will be releasing can be viewed here. Linksys could do well to realize that their actions are pointing the way for other more nimble competition to take advantage of their ill advised behavior.
My ass. Let's hope these stupid companies learn to avoid the GPL, which was designed to steal source code.
As some slashdotter used in his/her sign:
I hate MS, but I find the GPL as a greater threat.
I do prefer the wxWindows license, and in second place the BSD.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
I can't help thinking TimeSys is in even worse violation of the GPL.
For as far as I can see they added real-time functionality to the Linux kernel, clearly a derived work, without providing the source.
Whoah! People really get upset about this!
Yes I am perfectly aware that RedHat, Mandrake, and Suse sell products based on GPL code. And yes I'm aware that the GPL specifically allows you to charge people for GPL products. And yes, I'm aware that there are "commercialized" products based on GPL code, like RedHat Linux. "Made proprietary" is a better term for what I meant.
What RedHat sells is not GPL code. They sell CDs with GPL code on them, and they sell services to people using GPL software. Specifically, they charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy and offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee, as allowed specifically by the GPL This is not the same as selling GPL code.
And yes, I also realize that you can change GPL code and never distribute it. If companies like linksys ever use it in a product to their benefit, they must allow their changes to benefit everybody. It should read "Any improvements that benefit anyone besides the author of the improvements must benefit everybody."
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted
It permits everything in the binary releases, so no developer is held by a weird license.
There is now several projects in source forge using that license and it is aproved by the FSF.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
No, I'm New Here
No, I'm New Here
That's not entirely correct. Of course, nothing can force them to release their compiler, but the GPL forbids them to release the derivative work (here: the kernel) without the in-house compiler.
See section 3 of the GPL v2:So, they only don't need to include the compiler, if it is normally distributed with the OS, which isn't the case, of course, for an in-house compiler.
This is an often overlooked rule, because having the compiler easily available is the rule and not the exception with most OSes.
Keep an eye on which arguments are silently dropped in replies. Not always, but often times it's very telling.
why do ATI and Nvidia not show us the sources to their drivers?
well it's no secret that there's voodoo in them. everytime we turned around, for like 3 years, nvidia would just release another driver revision to smack down any competitors...that were getting to close. it seemed like they could give 15% performance increases at will.
anyone remember the puny & anemic looking tnt1 beating a 3dlabs card that was 4 times the size?
it's all in the driver.
some of it's great engineering.
some of it's sly tricks.
a lot of it's out and out cheating.
ATI does it as well...but Nvidia is the king.
ahhh well. a lot of sites are on to them now. last 3 driver revisions have been a bust for nvidia.
the shell game is over.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
The GPL doesn't explicitly mention static or dynamic linking. Is it conventional wisdom that static linking produces a work based on the Program, while linking to a shared lib doesn't?
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
Ken wrote the article about the backdoor.
6. Notice it fails:
scripts/Configure: line 5: drivers/net/hnd/Config.in: No such file or
directory
and
Notice that the driver wl.o makes several imports from the kernel
that are not included in a stock 2.4.5 kernel. In particular, note
that the symbols bcm_*, pkt*, dma_*, sb_*, osl_*, and srom_* are
imported by the module, but not included in the kernel source.
then states
Clearly, the kernel source that Linksys
provided cannot be used to recreate the kernel that they are shipping
with their product. Therefore, they have been, and still remain in
violation of the GPL.
Exactly, what I was asking... Just because they didnt provide the modules, doesnt make it violate the GPL. Or is everyone 100% sure that the code is kernel src modifications and not drivers?
On the other hand, I have on more than one occassion witnessed the "suits" saying NO to Open Source software after only assuming it was of lower quality and had no "real" support. Sadly, the given pattern had already been established then that they would happily go with very expensive (and restrictive) software that had a proven lack of real support, good quality or extensibility function wise. This led to the bad practice of shaping your business processes around the software instead of the other way around. Plus, since there was crappy documentation and assistance, the learning curve was longer than had the source been available to reverse engineer it.
BTW, my favorite term for much of the trash found on Freshmeat is "craplets." There are however some VERY good projects that as I alluded to above get ignored by suits who care more for rhetoric than doing research and finding the best tool for the job. I don't mind paying more up front if it saves me down the road. I especially don't mind if the quality is good. That is just for inhouse. If I am integrating or embedding then it is imperitive that the quality be great and the system be highly adaptable. Even as a service oriented business, do you really want to put your customers next to crappy software? Many "open source" folks are in dire need of learning about pride in workmanship.
The same legal regime covers both, but don't think that all license terms are the same just because they are all leveraging copyright law. Some licenses demand things they could not get from copyright law alone and grant powers to the licensor far in excess of what the licensee gets in exchange (Apple's APSL is an example of both of these points: Apple tries to restrict merely running APSL-covered software and tries to leverage this restriction if you bring a patent infringement suit against Apple). You don't see proponents of the GNU GPL stumping for the radical expansionist policy of the DMCA. Those who advocate for software freedom generally want a shorter term of copyright, reduced penalties for infringement, and legal exemptions for non-commercial verbatim copying and distribution. Possibly also non-commercially distributed derivative works. I think that would be a bold step in the right direction of balancing commercial interests with the public's need to share human knowledge.
I'm not aware of "numerous blatant copyright infringers" who have "[wriggled] free of all charges on a legal technicality". I'm aware of people sued by the RIAA settling with the RIAA for far less than they might have been ordered to pay had they lost their suits.
Plenty of people respect copyright law, but society is discovering that there are some important freedoms we can't leverage in current copyright law. We allowed government to bargain away our freedom to non-commercially distribute verbatim copies of copyrighted works. Back in the early days of the printing press few could take advantage of this freedom because the printing press was expensive. Now network-capable computers are inexpensive and people want to share information with their friends and neighbors. Even making derivative works is easier than ever before. So, I think people are coming closer (ever so slowly) to realizing that the public needs to renegotiate copyright law to suit our needs.
Digital Citizen
IMHO, it's all about profit.
If I download a song or copy a disc for personal use, I'm not profiting from the authors work without their consent.
If a company violates the GPL in this matter, they are essentially selling Linux for a profit without following the terms that allow them to sell it for a profit.
If I plagurize you, it only matters if I claim the work is mine and publish it. No one cares if I plagurize your and keep the plagurized work in my closet, away from the eyes of others.
Furthermore, if Linus starts suing children and grandmothers, we might stop caring about such things. Blackmailing college students into settlements would also prompt such a response.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
I think its more interesting to see wheter the GPL actually held up in court as a binding agreement/contract.
The EULA on Microsoft products dont hold up in court, because they are presented to you after you made the purchase.
So if the GPL can't be upheld in court, LINKSYS can do whatever they want to the kernel and or samba.
Probably going to get modded down anyway, jut my $ 0.02
NumB http://www.engvig.net
We all know what we want from Linksys -- the Broadcom 802.11g drivers that are NDAed.
You want them so that Centrino laptops will have wireless support under Linux.
Broadcom has tons of GPLed network drivers already and we want this one too.
Here's why we probably won't get it anytime soon.
The Atheros 802.11a/b/g drivers were recently released on Sourceforge. However, the lowest-level hardware abstraction layer code was made closed-source.
This page explains their reasoning.
Here is the regulation they cite.
Yeah it sucks. They are afraid we will screw with the settings.
First, it is very easy to skip over your post entirely. If you didn't know this already, your anonymous post is more likely to be read if you get an account. Slashdot makes it very easy to skip most anonymous posts.
My use of the word liberal means that rights you wouldn't otherwise have are being granted to you by the GNU GPL. The GPL isn't alone in doing this, but no other license is on-topic for this thread. The GNU General Public License grants many powers copyright takes away from you by default. The GPL only asks you to do something when you publish your copy or derivative work, and all for the purpose of preventing GPL'd derivatives from becoming non-free. If you want to maintain your privacy, the GPL respects that and makes it so you don't even have to tell anyone your work exists.
Enough with the straw arguments. I understand full well how the moderation system on Slashdot works and what it purports to achieve. When a post I'm following up to gets a moderation I don't think it deserves, I'll continue to feel free to say as much.
Digital Citizen
I agree with almost everything you wrote there, but particularly the last part: copyright needs to adapt to changing times, so that it continues to serve its purpose with the right balance between the copyright holder and the consumer of the material.
The one thing I do disagree with is your argument (as I understand it) that everyone should have the freedom to distribute copyrighted material as long as it's not for their own commercial benefit. This ignores the fact that doing so is still commercially damaging to the copyright holder, and thus depriving them of the compensation that copyright is supposed to guarantee in exchange for offering their work to the world.
For copyright to be an effective tool in today's environment, and by that I mean for it to protect the reasonable wishes of the copyright holder for a reasonable time after their material is published whatever those wishes may be, it needs to be a near exclusive monopoly: no exceptions that either prejudice the effects for the copyright holder or benefit someone else instead. In fact, IMHO, real "fair use" should be defined in this way, thus allowing things like back-ups, transfer to different media for personal use and fair criticism, but not allowing anyone other than the holder to spread the material without consent.
Without this sort of framework, the meaning behind the concept of copyright is lost, and it doesn't protect anything, commercial (songs, movies), philosophical (GPL) or otherwise.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
If it's compiled into the kernel, it's part of the kernel. It wouldn't matter if it's a driver or not. Notice the section about the symbols - the driver is attempting to load symbols that are NOT in a stock kernel.
She'll never be satisfied by a simple 8-key twitch. I want to see keys all over the place, and the glitch where you had to get a new keyboard 'coz the old one was all ground up and got... well, soggy.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
These guys have a set of NAS boxes that run a "proprietary NASware operating system" which is an "operating system uses embedded Linux kernel"
Have a read...
NASWare
They also use Samba, and who knows how many other opensource or GPL projects they use to make this thing work. I'm sure Apache, ucd_snmpd, and probably even sendmail.
Asking for the source is like talking to a wall.
Alan.
According to the GPL, if you link to a library, you've created a derivative work, regardless of whether it's static or dynamic linked.
That's according the FSF's understanding of the GPL. Its not clear the courts would agree regarding dynamic linking (its very clear they would agree regarding static). That's why the seperation is made.
Ok. I admit I was getting into the rhetoric :). But the clever thing about the GPL is that it's impossible to violate the license without also exercising an exclusive right (and thus, modulo exceptions, violating copyright law).
The GPL is thus always enforceable either by copyright or by contract law.
This is unlikely to be the case with a license designed to promote open access to hardware designs and specifications. The people who are designing hardware, and the people who are modifiying/redistributing various bits of free software, are not necessarily the same. So its kinda hard to write a license based around the latter, which affects the former.
This doesn't necessarily mean it isn't worth trying -- just that you would need a pretty clear idea of what you were trying to achieve and were going to achieve it.
Fixing copyright
That's according the FSF's understanding of the GPL. Its not clear the courts would agree regarding dynamic linking (its very clear they would agree regarding static). That's why the seperation is made.
We're both right. :) From the GPL:
Therefore, "derivative work" is defined under copyright law and not the GPL itself. In this case, I suspect there's case law to support both sides of the fence, which makes you right. What makes me right is that copyright law does (iirc) include a clear definition of "derivative work", even if case law seems to contradict it.
I suspect that Fair Use exemptions mean you can copy and paste small amounts of GPLd code into your program without requiring you to GPL your whole program, the same way a reporter can quote sections of lyrics so long as they don't quote the entire thing. That's interesting, I never looked at the GPL quite that way before. I wonder how it applies if you create a proprietary library that does exactly the same thing as a GPL library and you copy and paste sections of that GPL library into your proprietary library. I also wonder if that means that SCO has to really show a HUGE amount of code in order to have a claim, and that small amounts of code would be considered Fair Use.
Like what I said? You might like my music
<speech length=warandpeace>
Until the recent advent of the Internet, there was no practical way to get your music distributed other than through the RIAA and their ilk. This follows software... outside FidoNet, there was no way of getting your software into users' hands other than the traditional (expensive, cumbersome, backroom-deal-riddled) retail channels, and no easy way of remotely collaborating in real time; and then with academic and later public networks, a different way of doing software arose, people from Alaska to Zambia collaborate on software and get enough direct benefits from the collaboration tha they have no need to charge for the software, and this revolution is currently mowing down the entrenched software providers.
One of the driving forces behind the software revolution is and was the excessive greed of software manufacturers. One of the driving forces behind "music piracy" ("Harrrr! Yer music or yer life!") is the excessive greed of the RIAA-style cartels. As Microsoft worked hard to force all providers to work through their operating system, so RIAA & co work to force all musicians to work through their distribution channels. There are a lot of parallels. Microsoft tries to own your software, the RIAA tries to own your music.
From this, you can see that GPL and anti-RIAA are indeed on the same sides of their respective revolutions (if not exactly parallel: it should be the Creative Commmons licence and the GPL teaming up), so you would expect the same people to be standing up for each.
Now for the difference. With software, you can offer the item percieved as a product for free, and then make money on peripheral factors like support. The money to be made from anciliary music products (T-shirts and other merchandise, concerts) generally isn't there, and nobody's dreamed up a musical equivalent for "support". Musicians still need to be able to make money by making music, and finally people seem to have begun stepping up to that particular plate. iTunes and MusicMatch are just a scratch on the surface. As independent musicians start to realise that, hey, they can get up to half of the retail price of their tracks, and yes, it is possible - even realistic - for MusicMatch to sell two million copies of their track if it's really good, these outlets will take off.
The next step will be when more open methods of creating music hit the mainstream. There's now no particular reason why Joeline (in Chicago, USA) can't lay down a bass track written by Olaf (in Helsinki, Finland) for Enrico (in Ivirgarzama, Cochabamba, Bolivia) and Anastasiya (in her NSTU dorm at N
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The spirit of the GPL clearly frowns apon what Linksys are doing but I'm not convinced the letter of the GPL prohibits it.
In my opinion where Linksys may be in violation of the GPL is that they did not release the source code in the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it".
and who knows how many other opensource or GPL projects they use to make this thing work. I'm sure Apache, ucd_snmpd, and probably even sendmail. ;)
do you realy think that any open-source software is GPL'ed?
you've just named 3 projects none of wich are
That is not its purpose. Copyright exists for the benefit of the public. Consider reading this essay by Richard Stallman. Many of the points you raise are responded to (almost directly) in this essay.
The public does not bear the onus of responsibility to showing that publishers won't be hurt if we change copyright in some way. From Stallman's essay, talking about the difference between the copyright bargain and the "balance" between the public and authors or publishers:
Furthermore, although Stallman's point trumps this one: commercial publisher's loss of income is largely assumed, not proven. There is not and never was a "guarantee" of income under copyright. Copyright was supposed to be a mechanism for incentivizing authors to publish more work--a behavioral change that benefits the public. Stallman clearly explains how copyright does not exist for the sake of authors and publishers, it exists for the sake of the public. Thus, when we consider copyright it is paramount to consider the public's needs. Not publisher's needs, not author's needs, the public's needs.
Digital Citizen
I think you just found a reference I didn't know about.
The line is from Star Control 2. I guess they must have ganked it from AD&D. There's a lot of extremely liberal references to everything shot throughout the game, though - it's basically Uplift the Computer Game, for one thing.
+++ATH0
You are misinterpreting the intent of that clause.
The intent is for you to not hold out on scripts and whatnot that are part of assembling the final product... but the compiler is not part of that deal.
What you suggest would make it imposisble to , say, port something to Delphi and distribute it, as Delphi is not a normal part of ANY platform.
Similarly, MS VC++ or Visual Basic is not a standard part of the windows platform... yet we have windows code, GPL, and compiled with it.
The GPL was not at all intended to force you to use open, freely available tools.
You do not have to give people everything they need to compile the code; you have to give them all the CODE, including supporting scripts needed to build it. Not the compiler.
I am not sure if I understand what you meant to say. I did not say anything about executables. I am fine with the source of your compiler. :-)
(As long as there is a compiler available for the language it is written in, e.g. the C source for a fortran compiler.)
Regarding executables: scripts used to control compilation and installation can mean a non-executable Makefile, but also something which is directly executable (e.g. "configure"). I even tend to say the autoconf scripts themselves are also covered.
But now I think I understand what you mean: That it talks about definition files and control scripts and so on, but not explictly about the compiler (executable) itself. You are right on this, but that doesn't change my point, because I took the need to also distribute the compiler itself, from the exception clause below (by the argument that the exeption clause wouldn't be necessary, if the above wouldn't be meant to include the compiler). But as you will see below, I am not sure of that interpretation anymore.
Yes, it does. Indirectly. Since it is declared as an exception, one can deduce that (at least) the authors think there is a rule which implies the contrary, i.e. since it is an exception to the first paragraph above, that this first paragraph is to be understood in a way that the implied rule stands.
But you are right, by a different argument. Presuming that "source code" in the first paragraph does not include the compiler itself, but only the "helper stuff" (the possibility of which I agree to), then this second paragraph is only an exception to this helper stuff, and therefore the compiler itself still wouldn't be part of the requirement.
This reading is seconded by the wording "anything that is normally distributed [...] with the major components [...] of the OS" (emphasis mine). If it was meant to mean these components itself, it would probably be worded without "with". IMHO, the "with" suggests that only parts of the components are discussed, i.e. the "helper stuff".
On the other hand, the GPL FAQ states that this exception also affects libraries coming with the compilier, which are not directly mentioned in "source code" definition above, either. I think they are covered under "modules it contains", although dynamic libaries are not contained in an executable. So we have some inconsistency here.
Nevertheless, describing an exception can clarify the meaning of a rule. For example, the existance of the LGPL makes absolutely clear that GPL is meant to "infect" via dynamic linking (again, at least in the author's point of view). If it wouldn't be the case, there would be (almost) no reason for the LGPL to e
Keep an eye on which arguments are silently dropped in replies. Not always, but often times it's very telling.
I'll say this up-front... While I respect Stallman for the strength of his beliefs, and his willingness to stand by his principles, I do not find his arguments exceptional, nor sometimes even logically sound. Having read the article you cited previously, as I recall it is a prime example. Sorry, but I don't accept things "just because", whether said by RMS or anyone else.
Now, my problem with the article in question is that while it contains many true statements, I do not accept its basic premise. I'll try to explain why below.
Firstly, Stallman appears to confuse benefits to society as a whole, such as a wider body of literature being available, with benefits to the individual consumer, such as being able to copy any material they like without paying for it. Copyright exists to support the former, not the latter. An individual member of society has no more right to benefit under changes to copyright law than the individual(s) who created the work. (In Stallman's defence, many other people make the same mistake in these arguments.)
Secondly, consider that by default, society has no inherent rights to any artistic creation. The artist is under no compulsion to share it with anyone, and is quite within his or her rights to keep the work entirely to him- or herself. If society is to benefit from this work, a mutually acceptable agreement must be made between the creator of the work and the government (acting as society's collective representative). Thus it is always a matter of balancing society's well-being with adequate compensation for the creator to share their work. To claim otherwise is simply ill-founded: it takes two sides to have an agreement, and without that agreement, nobody benefits here.
On these bases, I refute Stallman's claim that the "reader is entitled to primacy". The benefits are for society as a whole, not individuals, and even then, contrary to Stallman's argument, it is necessary to have a balance for anyone to benefit.
In conclusion, as you say, when we consider copyright, we should indeed place the needs of society at the front. But shortly behind them must comes the needs of those supplying society, for artistic material is a slave to supply and demand just as any other resource is. Without a balance between these needs, both sides suffer. And when we consider the needs of society, remember that that means the material being available for those who wish to have it, not that any given individual in society has a right to take it for their own benefit without compensating the artist fairly.
As a footnote, I'll observe that none of this negates RMS's later points. Eroding copyright for the benefit of big corporations rather than either society or artists is a bad thing. Absurdly long timespans are a bad thing. These do not support either society or the artists, and I agree entirely that recent laws have gone the wrong way. (As another aside, RMS, and many other Americans, might do better to stop trying to convince the rest of us about something by citing a Constitution we neither know nor care about as the Root Of All Good Things, too.)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I think most people would agree that I have not released the source code in the preferred form for making modifications to it (as nobody has a G compiler except me). If I release my G compiler (with source code) everyone would be happy.
Now the question is whether code for a C compiler, unavailable to the general public, which may have incompatabilities with other widely available compilers, can ever be the preferred form for distribution of GPLed code. There is no way for another developer to recreate the distributed executable with the distributed source code.
If I use Intel's compiler, I get different code than with GCC. If I provide binaries built with Intel's compiler... am I violating rules, because you can't produce the same binary? no.
what's teh difference between that, and soem other custom compiler only I have?
Furthermore...
We're talking about a linux kernel here... what OS, exactly, is it running on?
One could argue it just runs on the hardware.. and that any "missign" binary blocks are just that, blocks that are already a standard part of teh target platform (a linksys router)
The musical equivalent of support is concerts. Oddly enough, that's where most artists make most of their money already.
IF the G source code was *your* preferred form for making modifications, then you have fulfilled the GPL by making the source, but not the compiler available.
If you actually edit the C source code and then convert it to G source code to compile it, then you have to release the C source code to comply with the GPL.
Say I create my own programming language (lets call it G) and write a compiler for it and keep it both the language specification and compiler secret. Then I write a program linking to GPL code and release the source code (in G).
:-)
I think most people would agree that I have not released the source code in the preferred form for making modifications to it (as nobody has a G compiler except me). If I release my G compiler (with source code) everyone would be happy.
Now the question is whether code for a C compiler, unavailable to the general public, which may have incompatabilities with other widely available compilers, can ever be the preferred form for distribution of GPLed code. There is no way for another developer to recreate the distributed executable with the distributed source code.
ROTFL
Well, that is exactly my argument/interpretation to begin with.
And you had me already (well, half) convinced that the wording of the GPL doesn't support that.
But I stand half convinced. I think in your example above, your are right. The compiler, only written for that project, becomes part of the source code.
But in the case where I write a compiler. And then a lot of projects with that compiler (which is not too unusual within for a big company), then the compiler is an independend project, just not with a big user group. A real-world example of something like this would be the in-house interpreters/template engines written by Yahoo for the web sites (there are 2 or 3 of them; sorry, but don't have the link to the slide show anymore).
Well, let's say that a in-house compiler is a grey area that will only be decided in a court.
Keep an eye on which arguments are silently dropped in replies. Not always, but often times it's very telling.