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.
Is that soo much to ask?
Not at all. If they want to not release their source code, they're perfectly free to do that...but of course, they're then perfectly welcome to not use GPL software to build from in the first place, what with that being the deal and all.
"Isn't it enough of a victory for the profession that they have used an academically based operating system rather than a commercial one?"
Umm, No. It isn't a victory at all. Anytime a corporation attempts to co-opt the hard work of others and not abide by the GPL which has gotten GNU/Linux where it is today, its a loss for us all.
"They could conceivably switch to Windows"
Fine with me. They can feel free to pay Microsoft royalties on every unit shipped as well.
I don't mean to sound mean, but you must be new to the opensource movement.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
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
well, the whole rationale and underlying spirit of the gpl is that the whole community should benefit from their modifications/improvements since they benefited from the preexisting gpl'ed code, and then we should be able to turn around and integrate our own improvements and do whatever we want with the new source. (hence 'open' source)
and secondly, the thing is probably flashable by software, so you could theoretically add new features to the firmware by taking their source, modifying it, compiling it, and flashing it to the device.
-fren
"Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"
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
Isn't it enough of a victory for the profession that they have used an academically based operating system rather than a commercial one?
It may be nice to see a major player using Linux, but if nobody makes noise about them violating the GPL, it could have bad repercussions down the road. Not enforcing (or at least trying to enforce) the GPL now gives ammunition to anyone litigating against it in the future. Someone like SCO could argue that not going after Linksys means that the FSF know the GPL is unenforcable, and therefore invalid. Or thgey could argue that not enforcing license terms on the kernel means that the kernel copyright has no value and can therefor be violated without consequences. It's better to send nastygrams now and risk alienating Linksys than not to send them, and risk seeing SCO or MS own Linux.
They could conceivably switch to Windows
Good! Linksys DSL/cable modem routers are pretty insecure by default. Let them generate bad PR for Windows insteads of Linux.
0 1 - just my two bits
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
Err, well, no.
It actually uses, for instance, a set of chips manufactured by Broadcom. Anyone else building an embedded system and looking to use those chips -- or writing drivers for PC hardware based on those chips -- would have a great deal of use for these drivers.
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.
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
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
The big deal is that kernal developers wrote this code and they have the (copy)right to determine how it is being used. Linksys has broken the terms of the copyright licence. Just because the kernal developers have a more permissive license than proprietary software does not give people the right to do whatever they want with the sofware. Just because the copyright is not held by a large corporation, does not mean that they can get away with breaking the licence. Just because the license demands source code instead of money in exchange for the right to modify the software, does not make it any less valid. A licence is a licence and what Linksys is doing is illegal - no different than if someone were to ship with copies of Windows in their hardware without paying for licences.
The main point is that we need to inforce the GPL and out of principle and fairness. It wouldn't be good to crack down on licence violations in cases where we have something to gain and then willingly turn a blind eye to others. We don't want to be seen playing a bait and charge game like what happened with GIF and MP3. We need to be diligent and fair in this manner, find out what source is not being released, and who is holding it back (be it Linksys themselves, or one of their partners), and see to it that they obey the terms of our licence. If we don't, then people will get the impression that we don't care if they violate our license.
Now, if availability of this code helps someone, then great - that's why the GPL is written the way it is. And at the very least there are people that would enjoy having the code. But even if no one ever used the source, we would be setting a very bad precident not to press this issue.
> 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.
Good.
Let Cisco/Linksys take WinCE and use it and not pay MS a dime and ignore that licence. Then you can go pitch your same exact complaint to MS when they sue for piracy and demand money for it.
GPL software does have a cost. Its not money, its to have the changes given back.
If you dont pay the cost of the licence of the software, you are pirating software and voilating copyright. (Or as the less bright of slashdot call it in RIAA/MPAA articles, you are stealing.)
In some cases, they can't release complete specs for the hardware, because some of their proprietary stuff (or, worse, other people's) is in software.
If you have secrets to keep, then do not statically link your precious secrets into the kernel. The kernel specifically allows binary-only loadable kernel modules. If Linksys had gone this route, then the community could compile new kernels and still use the secret loadable kernel modules -- without source.
Even better idea: if you have secrets to keep, not only don't statically link to the kernel, but don't even use open source. Please. That way I'll have more motivation to buy your competitors product.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
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.
RTFM
Its not about a couple of kernel modules , they modified the kernel!