Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linksys Still In Violation of the GPL?

Posted by Hemos on from the fess-up-and-correct dept.

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.

11 of 603 comments (clear)

  1. GPL be damned! by Quasar1999 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:GPL be damned! by dnoyeb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's not too much to ask. We can call it the "QPL." And when they are licensed under the QPL, they can follow the QPL's requirements. Until then, let them abide by their licensing (GPL) obligations.

    2. Re:GPL be damned! by Peter+Eckersley · · Score: 4, Interesting
      That's not too much to ask. We can call it the "QPL." And when they are licensed under the QPL, they can follow the QPL's requirements.

      This might be possible. But it may be very difficult to define "good specs and APIs", in the same elegant way that the GPL twists copyright inside out.

      Oh, and "QPL" is already taken.

      --
      Fixing copyright
  2. What's the big deal, anyway? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  3. Samba abused too? by Davak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The article references that Samba has also been abused in this matter. Has this been resolved?

    Davak

  4. Re:oops. by wasabii · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They are shipping software: loaded on the hardware.

  5. Something I've always wondered by nusuth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!

  6. Re:Do you really want them to stop? by Xner · · Score: 4, Interesting
    If they had used "an academically based OS" such as *-BSD, they would be on very solid ground legally. The BSD license explicitly allows this use of the licensed software, although it disclaims liability (using that big block of caps we all love so much).

    The GPL license however has been concocted to prove a point, politically. It does not say "here, do with it as you please". It says "I'll show you mine if you show me yours". Quid pro quo. Linksys has taken the quid, now they need to give us the quo.

    --
    Pathman, Free (as in GPL) 3D Pac Man
  7. Kernel modules need not be GPL'd by RunzWithScissors · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

  8. Re:Why should they? by EzInKy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  9. Are we sure Linksys is in violation? by tuxlove · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.