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

GPL be damned!

[Quasar1999]

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?

Re:GPL be damned!

[dnoyeb]

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.

Re:GPL be damned!

[Horny Smurf]

Programming is like sex... make one mistake, and support it the rest of your life.

Also, /. readers like to talk about it, but if you're posting to slashdot, you're obviously not doing it!

Let's be thankful

[overbyj]

that they aren't charging us $699 to use their stuff!

Re:oops.

[wasabii]

They are shipping software: loaded on the hardware.

Re:Why should they?

[BorgDrone]

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.

Something I've always wondered

[nusuth]

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?

Re:Something I've always wondered

[michael_cain]

I know of no way other than being able to compile and run the resulting binary to verify that the source code provided is indeed the correct, working source code. Your point about the custom compiler may be valid -- that is, I'll give you my source code changes, but they are specific to a particular compiler you do not have. Given full source code, you can presumably port it to whatever compiler you do have. However, there would certainly be lines across which said custom compiler could not step (IMO) and have the whole thing remain GPL-compliant.

For example, one of the Bell Labs' UNIX gods (I forget which) demonstrated how a C compiler could (a) insert backdoor binary code into applications it was compiling and (b) recognize when it was compiling itself and insert the backdoor-inserting code. Thus none of the source files, for either the compiler or the application, showed that there was a backdoor. They were making the point that the system is not secure if you're initially dependent on some chunk of binary code (or at least you have to analyze that binary, which is much more difficult).

In this GPL example, if the custom compiler inserted binary code needed to build a working program, and no other compiler working strictly from the source could produce a working program, there's pretty clearly a violation.

"Linksco"?

[Lodragandraoidh]

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.

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:oops.

[Jonah Hex]

I believe your thinking of this Slashback story with a response from the Linksys PR rep.

Calm down that jerking knee, then apply ice. In response a post which raised the question of whether Linksys was in violation of the GPL by not distributing, nor offering links to, the source code for the software controlling their 802.11g base stations. A representative from Linksys-PR sent in this note about the "missing" source code:

Linksys is a strong proponent of both Linux and the Open Source movement. The code within our routers is using User Space code without linking dynamically or statically to any GPL (GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE) code. Any code which does not have a static or dynamic link to anything covered by the General Public License is not GPL'ed, and can be considered closed source.

We regret it took some time to respond to this posting. To assure timely responses to inquiries like this in the future, please use the following procedure which complies with the requirements of the General Public License:

1. Please put your request in writing or in an email addressed to info@Linksys.com
2. You have to request the code for the specific modules you want. It is not valid to issue a request for any "code you may be using."
3. Technically, you are also supposed to provide us with a self-addressed stamped envelope, along with funds to cover the cost of providing the code to you. But Linksys will handle requests on a case-by-case basis. Thank you."

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

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.)

Are we sure Linksys is in violation?

[tuxlove]

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.