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.
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.
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
However there's been a couple of additional stories since then about new Linksys GPL releases.
Linksys Releases GPLed Code for WRT54G They released their code mods on their website.
Linksys and the GPL, Again Missing code mods from the Linksys webpage.
Obviously this is something that's going to take awhile to work out, not only with Linksys but other companies that are enjoying the riches of open source code.
Jonah Hex
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
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
That's exactly the issue. The have modules, but for their modules to work they added to the core kernel. The pieces that have been added to the kernel need to be GPL'd.
For example, one of the Bell Labs' UNIX gods (I forget which) demonstrated how a C compiler could (a) insert backdoor binary code into applications it was compiling and (b) recognize when it was compiling itself and insert the backdoor-inserting code. Thus none of the source files, for either the compiler or the application, showed that there was a backdoor. They were making the point that the system is not secure if you're initially dependent on some chunk of binary code (or at least you have to analyze that binary, which is much more difficult).
In this GPL example, if the custom compiler inserted binary code needed to build a working program, and no other compiler working strictly from the source could produce a working program, there's pretty clearly a violation.
I beg to differ with their position wrt the correctness of their analysis on how to go about withholding some of their code as 'closed source.'
As an example of the RIGHT way to do this (whether you agree with the politics of it or not), I would submit that Nvidia withholds the source to their binary-only video drivers, but makes the glue code that adapts it to a specific kernel freely available. In addition, NOT having the source to the Nvidia drivers in no way impedes my ability to compile a kernel.
The fact that it is not possible to configure, much less compile, the kernel tree available from Linksys's GPL software page indicates that they have withheld code which SHOULD be released under the GPL because of how tightly it is interwoven into the kernel code.
Just my US$0.02
utter rubbish
You're not reading the article. There are static modifications to the Linux kernel that aren't being released. It's not a question of "if modules" or "then they're ok". It's clear in the linked article! Sheesh!
Cripes, people. RTFA!
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
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.