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.

Comments

Re:Do you really want them to stop?

[bogie]

"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.

Could no one port it?

[siskbc]

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.

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?

Couldn't have happened at a worse time

[Snowspinner]

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.

Re:Sick of this type of thing

[FattMattP]

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!

It's not wise to rush to court. The courts don't look favourably on people who do that. Instead, the LK & Samba teams are doing the right thing by trying to resolve this matter directly with Linksys. At some point if this does go to court, the fact that several attempts at resolution were made before filing suit will work in our favour.

That's the point.

[3Suns]

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.

Re:What's the big deal, anyway?

[pavon]

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.

Re:This is the scarry part.

[dissy]

> 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.)