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.

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

    They are shipping software: loaded on the hardware.

  3. 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!

  4. 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.