Slashdot Mirror
Linux Sourcecode To Minitar Access Point
mcbridematt writes "Minitar sells a rebadged Edimax Linux based-802.11b Access Point in Australia (no FCC ID yet) for a relatively cheap price (under AUS $100 in places). These access points are based around the Realtek 8181 wireless-system-on-chip design, have 8MB flash rom, and run a 2.4 series Linux kernel. After requests from the community to get the kernel sources, which resulted in a incomplete sourcecode release, we finally have (allegedly) complete and GPL compliant Linux kernel sources for this fine Access Point. Special thanks to chuna, serialmonkey and screwball at Minitar for making this happen, especially after they ran into arguments with their OEM and Realtek over this." From the attached forum discussion, you can see there's disagreement about whether the source code release is as complete as it should be.
That would completely defeat the purpose of what the gpl is supposed to accomplish.
when it comes to copyright you cannot allow people to break it.
.
you have to make an attempt to enforce it
why do you think the RIAA does it, ( well i think they like being assholes too )
a copyright that is not enforced, will eventually be unenforcable.
that is important. because if you allow people to break it, then you decide to enforce it against something, the claim can be made of unequal enforcement (and in copyright, that matters unlike in patents.
not to mention the OSS community is not doing anything. the license holders are. the OSS community is just a group of people that have similar interests, they are not an entity.
they cannot sue someone, but the individual project can.
and they are the ones that decide.
so the kernel may be an important project in the OSS community, it is not the communities.
" Don't get me wrong. I think that, under GPL, people are fully entitled to ask for the source for this thing."
Then why rant about it? Either they are, or they aren't. There's no middle ground.
"But big deal. The source is going to be 99.8% unchanged from the previously public version, and the 0.2% remaining is just going to be bootstrap code and code to work around bugs in the specific hardware, etc. Further, I bet nobody actually does anything interesting with it now that they've got the source. After all, the HW's only good for one thing, and it already does it."
Kind of hard to tell without the source code, now isn't it? Besides your "it already does it" applies as much to the big battles as does the small.
"Suing every commodity router builder that comes down the pike with a product like this, which has essentially zero software value added in it, is just going to make some manufacturers squeamish about using Linux inside. And I want them to use Linux, because I, as a consumer, would rather have that than the lower quality, higher cost alternatives that exist."
The reasons NOT to do something will always outnumber to reasons to. And I wouldn't call the firmware of "essentially zero software value" since in it's absence the hardware is of no value whatsoever.
"Looking at it another way, if the OSS community sues over these dinky issues, where they get no great new software to show for it, they'll lose out on luring some big fish to use OSS plus their own super-duper-multimedia-software, which the community could then sue for and actually get something out of it."
I wasn't aware that having control over you hardware was a "dinky" issue. Thanks for the heads up.
"P.S. For those that say "but we might get a driver for the buggy chipset that we've only got a buggy closed source driver for now" - will you listen to yourselves? Support another chipset vendor, you twits!"
"
P.S.S. Running away from a problem will not only not solve that problem, it makes you weak when it comes to dealing with bigger problems.
You are wrong on that part. So what if the code on your product is GPL'ed? You are still SELLING the HARDWARE, all you are doing is allowing people to modify it at will. This will in fact INCREASE your sales to the computer community as they can now roll out their own custom solutions and not be bogged down by the compiled software.
The GPL is not a new idea, it's principle is based in history. People thoughout the centuries have written down their scientific breakthroughs, finds and other discoveries. They believed that by sharing what they found and developed would help the world. They are still credited with the finds, but now everyone has access to them. Why are computers so different? Because money and companies are involved. Stupid managers and officers all see, Propritary CODE MUST NOT SHARE, when in fact if they made good products, GPL'd the code they would make money.
You see even though you GPL the code does not mean that your competitor can steal it, they too are bound by it and must make their changes public, which in turn helps you. WHOA!!! The GPL is a idea based on the sharing of knowledge for the benefit of the whole world.
Later,
Arathres
stainless steel
"This is a prime example of how the GPL is going to continue to hurt Linux. Going after a company like this for violating Linux's overly-restrictive license is not going to promote widespread corporate adoption - rather, it will push them towards proprietary solutions."
You wish us to accept your premise? OK. accept this one then. Going after customers for violating overly restrictive EULA's (BSA) is going to hurt proprietary chances in the marketplace, and push customers towards OSS solutions.
Now I leave it to you to match reality with the above.
Eventually people will get the message and either build/buy propretary solutions or adhere to the licenses of the Free Software they choose. Someone should have known that putting a statically compiled in wireless driver into a commercial product means one of two things, yank as a mistake on sight and say sorry, or release the source. If you build a product on Free Software, you should understand what you are doing and if you are not planning on releasing everything you do you had better be real careful you don't contaminate what you want to "keep"! I see it as a good thing, as it reinforces the "community" element of Free Software and reassurres people who might put serious work into Free Software that it won't be hijacked by others who won't follow the rules (well don't know what would happen with GPL violations/violators in China, for example, at present).
BTW I only want Linux to gain widespread acceptance if it is still Free, the video card market is where this battle is really being fought at present though with Daniel Stone's announcment that XFree86 has been forked (I submitted a first story to slashdot about this 9 days ago and it's still pending), not once but twice (by X.org and freedesktop.org) perhaps a shake-up is coming.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
"and that's what Linux people want, right?" Contrary to what those companies would like you to believe, many of the "Linux people" just want an operating system that they can fiddle with and can modify freely. It isn't about acceptance, or profit, or popularity contests, or usability. If keeping software like this free in every instance isn't your priority, then go use one of the wonderful BSD licensed operating systems and stop telling everyone else what the purpose of the linux kernel is. Linux isn't about sacrificing the freedom Linus put his kernel under (along with every person who ever contributed to it) for some semblance of acceptance and self-esteem.
Yes, I know that there already is a binary driver [realtek.com.tw] for the 8180, but it is very flaky, and rather picky about the kernels and distributions it agrees to work with... (as binary drivers usually are, alas!)
Which is why I contend that the Linux driver interface sucks.
Assume that I have, on my Red Hat system, kernel 2.4.20-8. Which I parse as 2.4.20 kernel, build #8. So a security update comes out, and I upgrade to 2.4.20-12. (Not an atypical scenario).
Suddenly, my nvidia driver doesn't work, and once that's resolved (with a loss of 3D support, no less) I find also that VMWare won't load properly.
It may be that 3 lines of code were changed, so that
"if (a>20){
b=5;
} "
now reads
"if (a>=20){
b=5;
} "
out of umpteen kazillion lines of code, but dammit, now I have to find precompiled binaries for the exact version and build of the kernel I'm now running.
I think that's just retarded.
Kernel modules should communicate through a documented API, allowing a particular binary driver to work on a series of versions. I think it'd be fair to have a 2.4.x api, and a 2.5.x, 2.6.x, and so on.
But the current way is just stupid and hampers Linux' adoption in the less techie areas.
Of course, since I'm not Linus, nor a programmer of sufficient skill to provide any serious challenge to the powers that be, I generally just swallow my gripes and live with it for the parts that I like. (fantastic reliability, good uptimes, reasonable security, etc.)
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Rubbish. It's a prime example of how a corporation saw something for nothing, took it, and is renegging on the deal it engaged it. Few people, if any, in the Linux community got anything out of them using our work, but they got a complete operating system that would have otherwise cost them a shitload to develop or buy. You can bitch about the GPL being restrictive if you want, but all that's really being asked is to give as well as take. Except instead of just asking nicely, it's a legal requirement.
I'm guessing your not a Linux user or contributor, judging by your last remark. Most of us don't give a toss about Linux widespread acceptance, we just want Linux to work better for us - if others like it too, then that's a bonus. We're certainly not doing it to make other companies wealthy on our backs with nothing in return, even if it is a token gesture in comparison.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
I call bullshit on this one. No one forced this corp to use Linux - they could have easily bought or licensed or developed an OS other than Linux.
But they CHOSE to use Linux. And in doing so, they adopted the GPL.
Release the damn code. I released mine, now it's your turn.
If you don't - then here's a tip - yank that product, and reissue it with some other OS. If you don't, then suffer the consequences you assholes.
The GPL serves a purpose (though I'm not sure what)
Perhaps you should read it some time. The GPL is a license that software authors employ to grant others the rights to use and modify their software codes. In other words, if I spend a year developing some software, I can then distribute it under the GPL. The specific advantage of the GPL as compared to BSD-style licenses is that it gives other free software developers (who I presumably share some common interests with) an advantage over commercial competitors who might take my hard work and turn it into a commercial product that competes with me.
Companies developing routers have a simple choice: write the software from scratch, buy commercial software, or use free software. If they buy commercial software, they must respect those license conditions imposed. If they use free software, they must also respect the license. If it's GPL, that means making the source code available.
A business has no right to take GPL software (representing, I remind you, a significant investment of someone's time) and break the license. They should do what everyone else has to do in business: invest themselves in their own products.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
The real issue here (I think), is that it would hurt Realtek more in the long run when there is no sourced driver available for their own hardware.
Without acceptance into Linux, people are more likely to avoid their hardware when choosing a Linux set-up.
So who's the real loser going to be in this situation?
Answer: Realtek, and their own customers!
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Here's some snippets:
Kendall Bennett:
Linus:
Zwane Mwaikambo:
Erik Andersen:
Larry Mcvoy:
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Manufacturers like RealTek are looking for a free ride. They take the work of other people without compensating them in the way that they ask - in this case to distribute the changes made to their code so that they can learn and modify. If the Linux developers asked for cash in return for using their code would you say they should not worry about it? A deal's a deal. RealTek can BUY an OS if they want to keep their changes proprietary or they could use a differently licensed free OS, like BSD. No one is forcing them to use GPL'd code.
Are you a contributor to the Linux code base? If not, then your wishes as a CONSUMER of other people's work don't really count for a lot.
"but dammit, now I have to find precompiled binaries for the exact version and build of the kernel I'm now running."
Why? Whenever I upgrade my kernel, the nvidia installer compiles one for my kernel.. No need to search for precompiled binaries.
"I'm not distributing it. I'm selling it."
You say tomatoes, I say tomatoes. Selling it is distributing it. The device being distributed includes GPL'd binary software. The person doing the distributing passes on the exact same rights to the source. There is no loop hole; first sale does not over ride the contractual requirements of the GPL. Yes, the GPL is a contract. No, there are no onorous requirements in that contract. Yes, that contract is valid.
If common copyright law could over ride the GPL like that, SCO would have an argument now wouldn't they?
But company X is only required to give the code to whomever it was distributed to, by them - Company Y. Company Y doesn't have to follow any licensing agreements because the right of first sale allows them to sell without any permission from the copyright holder.
No.
It allows them to sell their *single* copy to someone else, thus depriving them of that copy.
It does *not* allow them to circumvent copyright law.
What we need is a new law that makes it illegal for hardware manufacturers to keep driver details secret. If you want to sell me a fancy wireless adaptor, graphics card, sound card or whatever, fine; but you have to give me all the information I need to write a driver for anything that I might want to interface to it.
It used to be so, back in the days when a printer came with a big thick manual explaining how to do various textual and graphical effects, even pulse timings and voltages for the interface. And everyone thought that information was part of the operating instructions. Sometime between then and now, it went sour; probably we didn't notice, but documentation went from hacker-friendly, to (non-hacker)-friendly, to non-(hacker-friendly). Nowadays, it seems printer manuals just say "plug in the USB cable and install the Windows software" -- and manufacturers are treating the important stuff like how to fire the second "red" nozzle down as though it were some sort of nuclear secret.
Well, it isn't. If you buy a piece of hardware you have every right to make use of that hardware, and if the manufacturer will not tell you how to do so then they are obstructing your enjoyment of your own property. At the very least, the owner of a particular device should -- by sole virtue of ownership -- be automatically privy to any "secret" it may contain; ideally, such information would be in the public domain by law.
And sod the whingeing about "competitors having access to your 'proprietary information'". Your competitors already pay people to reverse-engineer your products, and you will get access to their "proprietary information".
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Wrong.
There's really nothing more to add.
My $0.02
Regarding your point of features, there was a firmware modification for the Linksys WRT54G router (A Google search comes up with a ton of results if you start searching for VPN WRT54G linux firmware). This seems to have a reasonable development community now the code is open source.
Lawsuits: I can't exactly chime up and say that I have written large amounts of GPL code, or anything like that. I can only say though, that I am working on a project at the moment, that I will open source shortly. At that point I hope it is more of a contribution. When I think about that, and think if somebody took off with it and rebadged it and sold it as a commmercial binary product, and didn't release the changes that they made, or give me credit for what they did; I would be pissed.
If they continued on with my development, contributed, and became part of the community I want to build, then I would be very thankful.
Bringing this back to the issue at hand however says to me, that they don't want to be a part of the community, and if this is the case, then they shouldn't have taken off with our code.
If they don't like the GPL and what it stands for; they can go out and write their own kernel, take off with BSD, whatever. But they shouldn't be taking off with code that isn't theirs.
As far as I am concerned, (although I don't want to be SCO, or a Microsoft or an IBM for that matter) I say we take them to the cleaners, just to make the message clear "This is our code. You are more then welcome to it, you just have to play by the rules. They aren't difficult or painful, you just have to be open about what you do"
Finally a little support for your comment of:
"Support another chipset vendor, you twits! "
This one I will definately harp in on and say do it. If they don't want to play, then ditch them. Secondly, in personal experience I haven't had a lot of luck with RealTek chipsets before, they have pretty crap throughput and certainly aren't as good as Intel (Old style 82557 style chips) or the 3Com (Etherlink XL? PCI 10/100) cards.
If we could however get a hack for these boards to use something decent and include that in the kernel that we are compiling for these units, why the hell not. Intel have open sourced their code under the GPL, why not get a good Intel Pro100S chip and start doing IPSEC handoff to the chips for VPN? (Just a guess, but something to think about if we have the real code)
Berny
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
Quit your wanna-be lawyer BS and help these guys out!
http://rtl8181.sourceforge.net/