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.
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.
Several heavy hitters have signed this one, including Jeremy Allison and Alan Cox.
Yea.... Where do I sign?!
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.
that they aren't charging us $699 to use their stuff!
No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.
The article references that Samba has also been abused in this matter. Has this been resolved?
Davak
They are shipping software: loaded on the hardware.
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.
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!
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
> 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.)
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
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.
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.
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.