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.

Comments

Re:Corporations and the GPL

[LordArathres]

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

Re:I'm curious.

[mcrbids]

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.)

Re:Not exactly "complete"

[benjamindees]

This thread on KernelTrap is the best discussion I have come across so far wrt GPL/binary/static/module issues like the ones in this case.

Here's some snippets:

Kendall Bennett:

I have heard many people reference the fact that the although the Linux
Kernel is under the GNU GPL license, that the code is licensed with an
exception clause that says binary loadable modules do not have to be
under the GPL.

Linus:

Nope. No such exception exists. ...

Basically:
- anything that was written with Linux in mind (whether it then _also_
works on other operating systems or not) is clearly partially a derived
work.
- anything that has knowledge of and plays with fundamental internal
Linux behaviour is clearly a derived work. If you need to muck around
with core code, you're derived, no question about it.

Zwane Mwaikambo:

What about software which utilises Linux specific kernel services, such as
say some cd writing software?

Erik Andersen:

An ordinary program that uses normal system calls?

linux/COPYING says: This copyright does *not* cover user programs
that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely
considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under
the heading of "derived work".

Larry Mcvoy:

Yeah, and the GPL specificly invalidates that statement. We're on thin
ice here. Linus is making up the rules, which is cool (since I tend to
like his rules) but the reality is that the GPL doesn't allow you to
extend the GPL. It's the GPL or nothing. ...

But given that, neither Linus (nor any of you) get to say "well, that's fine
for userland but drivers are derived works".

I've said this over and over and I'll say it again. If you want the
protection of the law you have to live with the law's rules. You DO
NOT get to say "user programs are a boundary across which the GPL does
not apply but drivers are a boundary across which the GPL does apply".
It doesn't, and can't, work that way. Either userland is GPL and drivers
are GPL or neither are GPLed. Take your pick.

Re:Picking your battles

[putaro]

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.

Re:Picking your [principles]

[Hast]

First of, the main reason to do it is because those are the rules. If a company doesn't want to release their (perhaps) minor additions to the source then they should use a different license. Typically something under BSD. If they can't be bothered to find software with the required license then they'll just have to develop on their own.

They are making money on other peoples generousity, fuck that. They deserve the lawsuits.

Second, when you say that there is no value in firware you are quite clearly not getting the point of OSS. (Besides, I don't know if I'd call an embedded OS firmware.) One of the mayor reasons why we have GPL in the first place is because Stallman got sick of having printers with poor software which he couldn't correct.

Just because you don't have the imagination to change functionality of an accesspoint (perhaps turn it into a wireless information kiosk?) doesn't mean others can't. Just because there is free doesn't mean it's worthless.

For Gods sakes man, one of the main ideas with OSS is that money isn't value.

Damn, I've just been trolled.

The End of Binary Drivers

[ajs318]

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".