Stalwarts Claim Asus eeePC Violates GPL

WirePosted writes "Members of the Linux community have complained that the hot new sub-notebook from Asus, the eeePC, may have violated the spirit of the Linux General Public License (GPL). Some Linux advocates claim the eeePC has not included required source code with the installed Xandros Linux distribution and does not easily enable users to install another distro. However, there are indications that eeePC fans probably don't care."

Comments

more than the spirit

[crunzh]

If the following from the article is correct they violate more than just the spirit. However, the latest complaint has more to do with the modication of a particular module of the underlying Linux kernel concerned with managing the hardware interfaces of the eeePC. The module asus_acpi (ACPI - Advanced Configuration and Power Interface) was found by Java developer Cliff Biffle to have been modified so that it works with the eeePC. As Mr Biffle says in his blog, this would be fine except that Asus appears not to have followed the rules required by the GPL when making such modifications. Namely, they haven't distributed the source code for the modified module, nor have they attributed the changes to an author or given the new module a version number or name. Mr Biffle alleges that Asus also appears to have attempted to hide what it was doing by removing all references to asus-apc.

Re:more than the spirit

[morgan_greywolf]

RIght. They've taken a community-developed kernel module and have modified it, and then released the result as a binary-only kernel module without including the soure orat least posting an offer to obtain the source to the kernel module. That's a direct letter violation of of the GPL.Sounds like the author of asus_acpi has a lawsuit on his/her hands.

Re:more than the spirit

[that this is not und]

Sounds like the author of asus_acpi has a lawsuit on his/her hands.

It sounds, though, like there isn't an attributable author.

Is there anybody to sue??

Can second, third, and fourth-hand distribution of unattributed but non-compliant formerly GPL'd work be prohibited?

Re:more than the spirit

[Karzz1]

Can second, third, and fourth-hand distribution of unattributed but non-compliant formerly GPL'd work be prohibited?

Regarding the first part of your statement, it doesn't matter how many iterations of distribution there are. The *only* license that Asus has for distribution is the GPL. If Asus violates the GPL, they lose their right to distribute.

As for the second part of your statement, what makes you think this code is not attributed? In the kernel tree on my current machine (using kernel 2.6.23) the file drivers/acpi/asus_acpi.c has the following as the first 10 lines of code:

/*
* asus_acpi.c - Asus Laptop ACPI Extras
*
*
* Copyright (C) 2002-2005 Julien Lerouge, 2003-2006 Karol Kozimor
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
* (at your option) any later version.

As far as compliance goes... compliance to what?

And lastly, and probably most importantly, how did you come to the conclusion that the code was "formerly" licensed under the GPL? That is the *only* license Asus has granting them the permission to redistribute.

I don't know if you honestly did not know this or if you are trolling. This really smells of troll to me though.

Re:more than the spirit

[mrsteveman1]

Asus....I'm pretty sure they had something to do with it :D

Re:more than the spirit

[that this is not und]

And lastly, and probably most importantly, how did you come to the conclusion that the code was "formerly" licensed under the GPL?

Uh, I think everybody here agrees that this software is distributed in violation of the GPL, in other words, it was formerly distributed under the GPL and is now just a warez thing.

Re:more than the spirit

[Karzz1]

...in other words, it was formerly distributed under the GPL and is now just a warez thing.

Ok, I can see that. Thanks for the clarification.

Re:more than the spirit

[Kristoph]

From the blog that started all this ...

I tend to assume incompetence before malice, and I really do believe they just messed up. (Even the asus_acpi stripping seems more like a botched search-replace job by some overworked driver author than a malicious act. Doesn't make it legit, of course.)

Notice that neither the author of the blog, nor the author of asus_acpi has contacted ASUS and asked them to remedy the issue. It is therefore perhaps premature to talk about a lawsuit. In fact, you cannot even nullify a license without giving some reasonable (or contractually specified) time for remedy and you certainly won't win a lawsuit unless you actually let the offender know in advance what the violation is and what you want done to address it.

]{
PS. Company X makes hot Linux platform. Company X neglects to release source for a module. Linux advocates call for lawsuit. It's not exactly a great way to promote Linux. I am not suggesting we should ignore GPL violations but we should at least be a touch more civilized about it. (Maybe, in this case, someone should contact ASUS and (gasp) offer to help them maintain the module in the proper way.)

Re:more than the spirit

[Bert64]

Do consider tho, that this module is specific to Asus laptops, and there is a possibility that the authors of it might actually work for Asus and have granted permission for their code to be distributed under other terms in addition to the GPL.

It could also simply be an oversight or a mistake, have Asus responded yet?

Re:more than the spirit

[xenocide2]

How about someone make a video describing how to use the GPL / kernel source correctly in your product, complete with overdubbable audio (no speaking people on screen). Then just translate and distribute as widely as possible. Maybe hit up English, German, Chinese and Japanese, and more as you find the resources. If you think it's merely a matter of misunderstanding, a public education plan is a good solution as I can think of.

Personally, I think the status quo is a great testament to the legal system and the FSF's work. The threat of a lawsuit makes it possible for a single person to force a large company to obey the license he set out to begin with. Despite having far fewer resources, if the truth is on their side they can win. Now, I can see your point about idiots on the internet calling for lawsuits. Copyright is a tricky thing -- as the blog author suggested, what if ASUS already negotiated permission with the two people listed in asus_acpi? It's probably a bit harder in the kernel's case, because it links with other objects and there is no central copyright holder (the blog author is simply incorrect on copyright assignment).

I think the bottom line is that if you discover a potential violation, share this with a few intelligent people, like the people listed in the source code, Eben Moglen's new group, and Greg K-H before writing something Slashdot can find and sentence in a court of public opinion. I hear Greg KH has lots of experience talking to vendors and finding ways to make them happy to comply. It might be a business ploy -- company infringes GPL, Greg knocks on your door demanding work in compensation for the violation, as he holds significant copyright. I imagine this would work much better now that his business card can say "Novell". But this is baseless speculation.

I hope Asus realizes that there are many purchases waiting for this cloud to clear out -- I'm not going to buy a device that only claims to have source code available. I want to see the real deal. And thats probably the best alternative to lawsuits: making it known that doing open source correctly sells, and doing it wrong does not.

Re:more than the spirit

[mathfeel]

Yes, ASUS violated it, but can we have less sensational headline until AFTER someone ask them to comply and they refused??

Then again, this is /.

Re:more than the spirit

[joaommp]

Yes, ASUS violated it, but can we have less sensational headline until AFTER someone ask them to comply and they refused??

That seems a wiser attitude to me. Awaiting flames and playing devil's advocate, they may even have just forgotten it or published it somewhere on the mess of their site or ftp.

Re:more than the spirit

[Not The Real Me]

"...That's a direct letter violation of of the GPL.Sounds like the author of asus_acpi has a lawsuit on his/her hands..."

This is where the whole concept of the GPL becomes a jumbled mess. Asus is a Taiwan based business. China claims that Taiwan is a renegade province. Asus, much like many other manaufacturers, subcontracts a significant portion of its business to conpanies in mainland China. So, in which country is Richard Staallman and his cohorts at the FSF going to file their GPL violation lawsuit? Bear in mind that the GPL is a U.S./Eurocentric entity. You should also factor in that the GPL in not international law and Asia countries, for the most part, have a vastly different view of copyright issues than western countries.

Re:more than the spirit

[Ewan]

The location of any lawsuit like this is the easiest part, you could file in the USA, Europe, or pretty much anywhere, since there's a distributor in each one of those regions, and it's the distributor who is in breach of the license, not the manufacturer.

Re:more than the spirit

[Domstersch]

Mr Biffle alleges that Asus also appears to have attempted to hide what it was doing by removing all references to asus-apc.

GPL violation or not, that's a bizarre claim and one Cliff doesn't actually make. The "asus-acpi stripping" he mentioned was, rather, stripping the source from the source package that Asus offers for download. I mean, does this look like "removing all references" to you?:

dominic@eeepc:~$ apt-cache search asus-acpi
asus-acpi - Scripts to handle ACPI events on the Asus eeePC.

Re:more than the spirit

[Anonymous Coward]

check out http://support.asus.com/download/download_item.aspx?product=20&model=Eee%20PC%204G(701)&SLanguage=en-us
and click on "Source Code"

Regards, Stu

Re:more than the spirit

[babbling]

"The whole concept of the GPL" is that it is a LICENSE to use work already done. When it comes to what people refer to as "violations" they are not being entirely accurate. What they mean is that the party "violating the GPL" is not abiding by that license. So which license are they abiding by? Unless the party has permission to distribute the software under another license, they are distributing the software WITHOUT any license. It is plain and simple copyright infringement.

So when you refer to "the whole concept of the GPL" becoming a "jumbled mess," I think you actually mean that enforcing copyright internationally is actually the "jumbled mess." This problem is not GPL-specific, and many companies and organisations deal with it all the time.

Re:more than the spirit

[dbIII]

I disagree. If they flat out refuse to give out the source you have a case but otherwise it's building up an enormous and elaborate fuss missing the most important bit of information (ie. will they give you the source as required by the GPL or not).

Re:more than the spirit

[eldepeche]

How about someone write a few paragraphs listing the provisions of the GPL. People could read it, and then they would know what they are permitted to do with software received under such a license, and what responsibilities they have if they choose to redistribute such software.

Then we could create some kind of online community where people discuss these types of things every time someone does something questionable.

Re:more than the spirit

[Mike89]

It's not a misunderstanding, Asus always violates the GPL (their wireless router range was notorious for doing so)

Re:more than the spirit

[renegadesx]

MEPIS developers got in trouble for not distributing all the source code for the distro, despite it being avaliable under Ubuntu repos.

Warren Warford (I think thats his last name) tried to explain any changes he made from the Ubuntu repos he provided source but considered it extreme for something he took directly from the Ubuntu repos he should host himself

Anyways he got slapped on the wrist and had to re-distribute all the code despite it already being readily avaliable and had links to it provided across all Ubuntu mirrors

Re:more than the spirit

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what the fuss is about. Not distributing the source along with the binary is *not* a violation of the GPL. However, not distributing the source upon request *is* a violation. Slashdot of all sites should know this.

Re:more than the spirit

[xenocide2]

And lets write an entire website explaining what we mean! Because I mean, who needs lawyers when there's an FAQ ten times as long as the GPL itself, and even a quiz to test your in depth understanding of the GPL.

Re:more than the spirit

[emj]

No, there are contributors from Intel, I'm not sure about the two main guys but a quick google showed that one of them were using a private email for applying patches.

Re:more than the spirit

[BitwizeGHC]

ASUS can strip the GPL out and simply declare the module to be under their new license. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Re:more than the spirit

[rbanffy]

Asus is doing what just about every company (except a few notable exceptions) does.

They violate what they have to and see if they get away with that. If they can, all is good because they didn't have to incur extra expenses to comply with the license terms.

If, however, some customer notices and decides to complain, they spend the money required to comply.

BTW, we are blaming Asus. Are we sure it's not something coming from the Xandros folks?

Engaging conspiracy-mode, maybe MS is paying them to botch this one and to get Asus to embed Windows on the EeePC.

Re:more than the spirit

[Anonymous Coward]

I have contacted ASUS about this about 3 weeks ago, but never got a reply from them.
see www.eeeuser.com for more details

Re:more than the spirit

[egypt_jimbob]

...there is a possibility that the authors of it might actually work for Asus... That would work if the authors rewrote the entire module. The kernel would then be tainted, which brings on other issues, unless they falsely marked their module with an open source license.

On the other hand, if they modified the existing GPL-licensed module, that's definitely a violation.

Re:more than the spirit

[hub]

> BTW, we are blaming Asus. Are we sure it's not something coming from the Xandros folks?

ASUS is the one redistributing the software. If they want to blame their supplier, they can do whatever they please. That does not grant them the right to not comply with GPL licensing.

Re:more than the spirit

[hub]

And the 1.8GB does not contain everything. For example the Linux kernel source is missing.

Re:more than the spirit

[Bert64]

Not necessarily, if the original authors are still the copyright holders then they are free to re-release it under a new set of terms without having to rewrite it.

Out of interest, why is a special asus_acpi module needed? Do asus implement additional features not part of the standard acpi, or do they implement standard features in a non standard way?

It's not the Linux GPL

[MountainMan101]

It's just the GPL. Yes Linux is licensed under it, so is a lot of GNU software and millions of other programs.

I'm not after karma, or being a pedant. Just pointing out this piece of information.

Re:It's not the Linux GPL

[maxwell demon]

No, it's not just the GPL. It's the GNU GPL.

Note that this is totally unrelated to the Linux vs. GNU/Linux debate. The name of the license is "GNU General Public License", or "GNU GPL" for short. It's not the only GPL in existence (there's also the Affero GPL), so it's important to correctly qualify it.

Re:It's not the Linux GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

interesting how the public apparently starts to confuse the GPL with Linux itself. Makes you wonder how long it will be before we'll see comments like 'GPL rocks' in the mainstream press. After all it's just another buzzword :)

Re:It's not the Linux GPL

[TehZorroness]

Just goes to show how out-of-touch the author of TFA is.

Re:It's not the Linux GPL

[Kjella]

True, but add one little sign and it's correct: Linux' GPL, that's as valid as "mysql's license". Least I think that's the rule applies to x, sicne it's got the same sound as s.

Re:It's not the Linux GPL

[swillden]

It's just the GPL. Yes Linux is licensed under it, so is a lot of GNU software and millions of other programs.

I'm sure the author just got it wrong, but it actually isn't unreasonable to talk about the "Linux GPL" as opposed to the "GNU GPL", because the Linux GPL isn't, quite, the GNU GPL. Linux uses GPLv2 but modifies it with an exception clarifying that userspace programs are not considered derivative works and therefore don't have to be Free Software.

Re:It's not the Linux GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, "GPL" was first "GNU Public License", then "General Public License". Why they had to bring back the "GNU" to complicate the shorthand is beyond me -- everybody who pays attention to the license knows GNU and FSF already. (And IMO, it's downright idiotic to have "Gnu's Not Unix" as part of the name of a *license* for all sorts of software.) They could easily have given Affero a different shorthand -- why not "APL", "AGPL" (in contrast to "GPL"), or just "Affero"?

I respect and applaud FSF for all they have done and are doing, but the GNU moniker everywhere [not to mention the logo image] is embarrassing.

Re:It's not the Linux GPL

[gEvil (beta)]

To be even more pedantic, the use of apostrophe-s or just an apostrophe is purely a matter of style. Some style guides say do it one way, some say do it the other, while still others say do it this way unless it looks awkward, in which case do it the other way.

Re:It's not the Linux GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=%22general+public+license%22+-gnu

Yes, a lot of those are references to the GNU GPL without mentioning the word "GNU", and there are some mentions of the Affero licence too, but there are still quite a few "General Public Licenses" that have nothing to do with the FSF.

Re:It's not the Linux GPL

[Garridan]

I'm hoping that this gave RMS a coronary. "No! It's GNU/Linux!" *gasp* "No, damnit, it's the GNU GPL! You fools!" *wheeze* "You're getting it all wrong, GNU comes first, not Linux!!!" *hurk*

Re:It's not the Linux GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, in that case it's either "Linux's license" or "Linux's GNU GPL", the name of the license includes the GNU bit.

Re:It's not the Linux GPL

[Aleksej]

"GNU Affero General Public License" is not the same thing as "Affero GPL" or something. If you read GNU AGPL, it says that explicitly.

Re:It's not the Linux GPL

[Hal_Porter]

Most people prefer to call it the Linux\GPL since Linux has contributed so much to its popularity.

Is it just me?

[morgan_greywolf]

Is it just me? Or does there seem to be coordinated effort on the part of Microsoft and their cronies to fragment the Linux community by using legal offensives, everything from the patent agreements mentioned in TFA to out and out violations of the GPL, such as this one from ASUS? I think it's sort of a divide and conquer strategy... BUt I also don't think that they fully understand the dynamics involved ... there isn't just the 'purists' vs. the 'pragmatists'... we're a lot more complicated than that, or so I'd like to think.

Re:Is it just me?

[that this is not und]

It's just you.

You're right that we're a lot more complicated than 'they' think (even though there isn't a single 'they' to reference)

Further, nobody understands the dynamics involved. Notably, the 'leaders' on 'both sides' (the idea of there being 'two sides' is a gross misunderstanding in and of itself) do not understand.

There's no coordinated effort. It's time to get over the idea that there's a villain in a volcano somewhere. Even if it does help some people to validate their 'righteous battle for good.'

Re:Is it just me?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you think that Asus putting Linux on their PCs is a secret move by Microsoft? Hmm, didn't think that one through did you.

Re:Is it just me?

[Taagehornet]

Someone wiser than I once said: Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence. I find it hard to believe that there's any evil scheme behind this alleged violation.

The Linux community - or should I say the GNU/Linux community to emphasize my point - has always been fragmented. You might consider this a weakness, I however would say that the very lack of a single 'head' is one of the major strengths of the community.

Furthermore, you are aware that Asus and Microsoft are two different companies?

Re:Is it just me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as a free software developer, if I was MS I would put people on mailing lists and message boards for free software projects and then have them bitch and moan about every conceivable potential violation.
To exemplify: I released a piece of software, (all original c:a 6000 loc) under the GPL. Some people started bitching to me that I had to include build files, or that my copyright text wasn't right and so on. This caused me to have to go and look it up in the license (which is not trivial because as an original author, not all conditions apply) just to be able to respond.
By the third time this happened, I said screw it, and withdrew my software.

License nit picking can sap developer enthusiasm like a scifi death ray. If MS really wanted to slow down the progress of free software, I'd say that this is a viable attack vector.

Re:Is it just me?

[JohnBailey]

It would be nice to think that Microsoft put Asus up to selling a small low powered laptop with one of their pet Linux distros on it.. And deliberately breaking the license in the hope that the next Steve the Monkey Boy show could point and laugh at the Linux people being anti business. But I doubt it.

Thanks for the mental image though. I like the idea of the Microsoft upper management seeing the sales figures and the internet buzz over a trojan horse project that was never meant to succeed selling out and a new market that Microsoft can't really compete in being revealed.

A far more likely scenario is that Xandros delivered the distro customized for the Asus machine, and somewhere in the various legal departments, someone didn't bother following the terms of the license fully. I'll wait until Xandros and Asus respond before I start seeing malice where bureaucratic oversight is a good enough explanation. The product hasn't been out that long, so give them time to get the source properly organized and published before calling foul.

Re:Is it just me?

[Jasin Natael]

Someone wiser than I once said:

Umm ... Wiser isn't a word I would use to extoll Napoleon Bonaparte above myself, but speech is free (and cheap).

Furthermore, you are aware that Asus and Microsoft are two different companies?

If he wants to wear the tinfoil hat, what could be more damaging than making a minor, innocent-looking mistake, and then being attacked legally for it? Make no mistake: to someone without an intimate familiarity with the issues, ASUS being sued -- after releasing a top-notch product that will put Linux and FOSS in the hands of millions, no less -- for not including the source to a driver they wrote for their own hardware, looks really bad. This is the MS PR Department's dream. Whether they had anything to do with it is anyone's guess (and I suspect you're right that it is unrelated), but I challenge you to come up with a more subtle, but equally damaging, feint. And ASUS does stand to benefit from super-low-priced copies of XP for its Eee laptops.

"Oh, but you can! Though you may have to metaphorically make a deal with the devil. And by 'devil', I mean 'robot devil'. And by 'metaphorically', I mean 'Get your coat.'"

Re:Is it just me?

[Anonymous Coward]

the very lack of a single 'head' is one of the major strengths of the [Linux] community.

What's all this talk of a "benevolent dictator" then? Isn't the impressive progress of the kernel and core system services attributable to a good foreman keeping the effort organised and focused?

Re:Is it just me?

[AaxelB]

Someone wiser than I once said: Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence. I believe that'd be Hanlon's Razor

Re:Is it just me?

[tapehands]

The reason why they need to stay vigilant is two-fold...it allows the community to take down blatant violations of the GPL, and, in this case, that source code could benefit the community.

I don't know specifically if the asus hardware this module interfaces with can be found on any other computer, but even if it isn't, having this module for use with distros other than the bundled one would obviously be beneficial to the EeePC owners out there that want to toy around with it. It just boils down to going after a company to build a better community - had they followed the rules of their license agreement, this wouldn't be an issue.

Re:Is it just me?

[arivanov]

No. It is not just you. It is not a coordinated effort either.

It is Taiwanese company and the GPL. Frankly they do not give a flying f*** about such things like copyright and intellectual property. There is a long history to this. They did it with Microsoft in the beginning as well and it took MSFT a lot of resources and some lobbying to get this one sorted out.

Nothing short of an injunction on import by a court will make them get their head out of their arse. That is all it is about - they have most likely added a couple of lines of code to the module in question. No major IP involved. Just major "do not give a f***".

Re:Is it just me?

[slyn]

Shhhhh...

you never know then their listening [/whisper]

/me puts on tinfoil hat

Re:Is it just me?

[Just Some Guy]

This caused me to have to go and look it up in the license (which is not trivial because as an original author, not all conditions apply) just to be able to respond.

As the original author, no conditions of the GPL apply to you (except that you can't keep people from distributing a GPL version of your software even if you decide not to anymore) because you already have the rights to copy it. In general, the correct response to any such trolls is "kiss my butt".

Re:Is it just me?

[Anonymous Coward]

In general, the correct response to any such trolls is "kiss my butt".

I don't know what happened in the GP's case, but are you saying that if you intended to release a piece of software under the GPL, but the licence grant wasn't legally valid somehow so that no-one but you actually had the right to modify or distribute it, and I pointed this out to you, I'd be trolling? Presumably you wanted to allow people to do those things... if you didn't do it properly, wouldn't you like to know so you could fix it?

Re:Is it just me?

[Just Some Guy]

are you saying that if you intended to release a piece of software under the GPL, but the licence grant wasn't legally valid [...]

No, and neither was the GP:

Some people started bitching to me that I had to include build files, or that my copyright text wasn't right and so on.

As the author of a work, you're not obligated to release the build files or use the exact words other people do or anything else. While those are probably good things to do, they're not mandatory. For example, if you tack "Distributable under the GPL" into a comment in the top of a program and put it up on a server somewhere, I have no legal, moral, or ethical right to tell you that you have to also give me a bunch of extra stuff. If I want to use your work, I should be grateful that you released any of it. Now, I might want to politely ask you if I can have a copy of your build system setup, but if you don't want to for any reason, I have no recourse whatsoever.

Re:Is it just me?

[ozmanjusri]

There's no coordinated effort.

I tend to agree with you on this one, but still, the timing's interesting.

• Online stores, including Amazon and CNET are billing the Linux-powered ASUS Eee PC as America's most wanted Christmas gift among notebooks products.
• Worldwide, the Eee PC is selling out as soon as it appears on the market.
• Microsoft have agreed to lower the price of Windows to below $40 to get it pre-installed on the Eee PC.

A Linux-powered notebook looks like becoming a best-seller, Microsoft slashes the price of it's OS just to get a toe in the door, and the story that hits the frontpage of Slashdot is a legal quibble that hasn't even been raised with the manufacturer?

The decision to publish negative spin on what's a truly positive event is what's wrong here, not that Asus have an unresolved GPL violation.

Re:Is it just me?

[Anonymous Coward]

As the author of a work, you're not obligated to release the build files or use the exact words other people do or anything else.

The GP's wording was "my copyright text wasn't right". Maybe he meant "they said I should use the exact words other people do", or maybe his text really wasn't right, as in not legally valid. As for the build system, the GPL requires that you distribute the build scripts along with the source. While that doesn't apply to the author, it does make it rather hard for anyone else to redistribute it, which sort of defeats the purpose of releasing it under the GPL in the first place.

Re:Is it just me?

[Blakey Rat]

if I was MS I would put people on mailing lists and message boards for free software projects and then have them bitch and moan about every conceivable potential violation.

Why should MS bother? We already have a Slashdot.

Someday I want to total up the number of Slashdot stories about software development and compare them with the number of stories about licensing-- everyone here does nothing but bicker about licenses while not writing code, it seems.

Re:Is it just me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Asus and Microsoft are two different companies. But the software used is
by TurboLinux which just signed a patent agreement with Microsoft. There
is a connection.

Re:Is it just me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone wiser than I once said: Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence.

And ever since, malicious souls have exploited that assumption and used it as cover.

See also: Occam's razor.

Re:Is it just me?

[(Score.5, Interestin]

Speaking as a free software developer, if I was MS I would put people on mailing lists and message boards for free software projects and then have them bitch and moan about every conceivable potential violation.

If I was MS I would too, but as this whole thread shows, there's really no need to do it. The Linux fanboy community is so good at dividing and conquering itself that there's really no need for external action. All MS has to do is come along afterwards and pick up the pieces.

Re:Is it just me?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm amazed anyone bothers with any of it. There was some software I used for WOW that was fantatsic for keeping mods up to date. He released it open source. He added an unobtrusive ad to the bottom of it. About 15 minutes after he released the ad version, people were like 'well I'll just take it, remove the ad stuff, recompile and released it.

Hrm.

Yah this makes me want to have open source. Nothing like trying to recoup a bit of cost with a releveant ad (they were gaming/mmo ads and were not obnoxious) and having some jackass immediately take my hard work and release it without the ad support.

I've yet to see a compeling reason to ever use open source. You're just asking to be abused.

All that said, what is sooooo much funnier about this is watching you guys tear in to Asus. I swear, I don't think you people WANT linux to become popular. You LIKE being the 'elite' unwashed that use linux.

You can keep it. I love the chuckle I get out of reading the slashdot everytime something happens to get your panties in a wad. M$ doesn't have to use tactics to keep it out of the mainstream - you guys do a great job of it yourself.

Shock

[nagora]

In other news, buyers of stolen goods at knock-down prices claim that they're "not too worried" about where their cheap Blu-Ray player came from.

TWW

Re:Shock

[TehZorroness]

There is an outstanding difference between stolen code and a stolen physical object. You cannot compare.

Re:Shock

[nagora]

There is an outstanding difference between stolen code and a stolen physical object.

Not in terms of the apathy of the beneficiary.

TWW

Re:Shock

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes... in both cases an illegal (and most would say immoral) act has been comitted in both cases, but the non-tangible invokes /. to play semantics. I am aware of the rationales that seperate the two btw, so please don't list them. I still consider it less than moral hair splitting.

What the hell is this weak story?

[Henry V .009]

I was wondering when Slashdot would pick this story up. But what's this? Violation of the GPL "in spirit?" It's a lot more than that: they've modified the source code, but haven't distributed their modifications. A friend at work couldn't get Ubuntu working with his eee's wireless card for this reason.

And why should the customers be the ones to care about the GPL? It's the people who wrote the GPL'd code that has been stolen by ASUS that care.

Re:What the hell is this weak story?

[Kjella]

Someone with a little code in Linux should just do the lawyerish thing and send a cease & desist or a legal injunction to stop sales. That'd get them scrambling pretty quick to be in compliance.

Re:What the hell is this weak story?

[eggnoglatte]

And why should the customers be the ones to care about the GPL? It's the people who wrote the GPL'd code that has been stolen by ASUS that care. Because the GPL is designed to protect the customers' (i.e. users') rights, not the rights of the original authors. Specifically, under the GPL, Asus has no obligation to distribute the code to the original authors, UNLESS of course the authors are also customers having bought the eeePC.

Nonetheless, the article is stupid anyhow; "However, there are indications that eeePC fans probably don't care" is such a lame statement one has to wonder why they included it at all ("indications" and "probably" aren't exactly words that would help in a legal case).

Re:What the hell is this weak story?

[mobby_6kl]

What do you mean, "stolen by ASUS"? The original GPL code is still there, freely available from wherever the ASUS folks got it from. The owners are still in full posession of the code. Does not compute. EOF

Re:What the hell is this weak story?

[evilviper]

Because the GPL is designed to protect the customers' (i.e. users') rights, not the rights of the original authors. Specifically, under the GPL, Asus has no obligation to distribute the code to the original authors, UNLESS of course the authors are also customers having bought the eeePC.

That is what the GPL says... HOWEVER, the author's have every right to relicense the source code if they chose, and give Asus an exception. And more to the point, the software authors are the only ones who have the right to sue Asus for violating the copyright terms they chose for their work.

Re:What the hell is this weak story?

[mrsteveman1]

They're talking about the IP type of stolen, not the physical goods type.

Re:What the hell is this weak story?

[Deliveranc3]

It's the people who wrote the GPL'd code that has been stolen by ASUS that care.

If it was used for commercial purposes and forced a renegotiation with the original authors then this would be true, however the GPL liscences the software equally to everyone (except in regards to reliscencing for commerical use) thus they are stealing from everyone.

When the authors offer their software under the GPL they ask the community to improve it but also protect it, reporting abuse is part of this protection.

Re:What the hell is this weak story?

[Kristoph]

... or you know, maybe a polite letter noting that the source is missing and asking them for it.

Because, you know, WE WANT ASUS TO SHIP HARDWARE FOR LINUX IN THE FUTURE.

]{

Re:What the hell is this weak story?

[Eunuchswear]

Yeah, that kind of stealing that isn't stealing 'cos "intellectual property" isn't property.

Re:What the hell is this weak story?

[quanticle]

The original GPL code is still there, freely available from wherever the ASUS folks got it from.

No its not. According to the story, Asus modified the code before distributing it. Because they haven't published their modifications (in source code form), their distribution of the modifications (in binary form) violates the GPL.

Re:What the hell is this weak story?

[skoaldipper]

A friend at work couldn't get Ubuntu working with his eee's wireless card for this reason.

If you check the Asus eeePC specification page, the chipset used in many of their devices is made by bullet. Track down where they got their camera, processor, and ethernet drivers from, and you'll probably find their smoking gun.

In all seriousness, as a long time Asus financial partner, I even scratched the fleas from my chin beard while hard pondering these rather peculiar eeePC "details".

Re:What the hell is this weak story?

[7-Vodka]

You're both right.

Now what?

Arguing on the internet is like the special olympics: even if you win you're still retarded.

Re:What the hell is this weak story?

[Kjella]

That is what the GPL says... HOWEVER, the author's have every right to relicense the source code if they chose, and give Asus an exception. And more to the point, the software authors are the only ones who have the right to sue Asus for violating the copyright terms they chose for their work. When it comes to the kernel, only if you get all the kernel developers past and present to agree. Also, the right to sue also extends to all kernel contributors past and present, since their code is now being distributed against the terms of their license. The whole bit about the GPL applying to the work as a whole means far more people can sue than those that wrote the modified code.

Re:What the hell is this weak story?

[mr_matticus]

Not if you want to sue under Copyright Law. Only the people who own the copyright can sue for its infringement, and even then it is not as clear-cut a case of infringement as you would hope. Without assignment of copyright to some sort of working group, there's a very clear limit on who can sue, and it's not all kernel developers.

It's the kernel developers whose copyright has been breached, i.e. the owners of the code inappropriately modified. Different entities holding different copyrights on different parts of the same piece of software cannot sue for copyright infringement if their code was not improperly modified. This is why the FSF often seeks assignment of copyrights.

That's also setting aside the issue of whether a pure copyright claim would be successful. Generally speaking, it's not. The software is released with a determinable license and no clear timeframe for compliance, no process for dispute resolution, and no procedural repudiation. Falling out of compliance with a license can automatically terminate it, but notification of that termination is still generally required. It also does not mean that a court can simply pretend there is no license involved. Once distributed, the power to revoke has ended and only the power to terminate remains. These are fundamentally different scenarios in litigation.

Re:What the hell is this weak story?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the people who wrote the GPL'd code that has been stolen by ASUS that care.

So if it's GPL code being distributed in violation of the license it's described as being "stolen", but if it's *AA movies or music there's always dozens of posts saying how it's copyright infringement not theft, the original owner still has their copy etc etc... No double standards there then.

Re:What the hell is this weak story?

[ray-auch]

> No its not.

Yes it is - you missed the word "original". Only the modified source code is allegedly not available. The _original_ GPL code will is still available where it was before, therefore it hasn't been "stolen".

All of which misunderstanding demonstrates why "theft" and similar words are not appropriate in the context of copyright violation.

Re:What the hell is this weak story?

[quanticle]

One of the core provisions of the GPL is that modifications to the code (if those modifications are distributed) must also be published under the GPL. Indeed, this is what distinguishes the GPL from more permissive open-source licenses, like the BSD license, which allows you to modify and re-release the code under a closed-source license.

I agree that words like theft are misused in the context of copyright violation. However, that has nothing to do with this case. The GPL is not a copyright, it is a distribution license. Asus must follow the rules of the license, or risk losing its right to distribute the code.

Re:What the hell is this weak story?

[bbc]

Oh, but there are also always a dozen people like you who whine that not everybody complies with your strawman Slashdot groupthink. Except of course you guys never admit that it is some commenters who fail to uphold your strawman; in your deranged little world it's always all of us.

Anyway, more than five hours before you had your little bitchfest, somebody had already pointed out that theft is not the same as infringement. I guess you conveniently chose to ignore that. What a surprise.

Re:What the hell is this weak story?

[rtechie]

A friend at work couldn't get Ubuntu working with his eee's wireless card for this reason. I don't understand this. Are you saying that they modified the kernel to support the eee's wireless card and they didn't release the source of that modification, or did they include a binary driver for the wireless card? The former is a GPL violation, the latter isn't. Basically, what you're saying here seems wrong to me. Several other posters have said they had no problems installing Ubuntu on the eeePC. Getting wireless working in most Linux distributions is a PITA in general, so I'm not the least bit surprised the eeePC is having problem. The blame here lies squarely on Linux, not ASUS.

OTOH, The complaints about the warranty seem to be spot on. As the author points out, it is illegal in the United States to void a warranty if customers use a 3rd-party repair shop or choose to make repairs themselves. This comes from auto manufacturers trying to void warranties because car buyers took their cars to other mechanics (or worked on them themselves) rather than going to the dealer.

Re:What the hell is this weak story?

[ray-auch]

That's all fine (even agreed), but it isn't related to the question of whether or not "The original GPL code is still there" (as it had been "stolen").

You claimed it isn't, I disagreed. Looking for the file in your copy of the kernel source is left as an excercise for the reader...

Cool name

[usrcpp]

...Unless you happen to have diarrhea and you say it out loud just a tad too passionately.

A close miss

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd buy one of these if it came without a "Microsoft distro". A little noise might help Asus get their heads out of their asses and deliver a Machine that existing linux users would be happy with.

Source code is fair enough..

[gilesjuk]

If there's source code that needs to be released then great, let them do it.

However I don't understand this business about not being easily able to install another OS?

I've wiped it a few times and installed Ubuntu.

It has no CD/DVD drive, obviously that means you need a USB CD/DVD drive.

Re:Source code is fair enough..

[Fizzol]

Slashdot lives on hyperbole, misstatements, wild speculation and wrong information. What it comes down to is Asus needs to release the source code from the module they modified. On Slashdot that translate to a Microsoft conspiracy using Asus as its willing pawn. Sheesh.

Re:Source code is fair enough..

[X0563511]

Does the eeePC support booting from the net? (pxe, rarp, etc)

Re:Source code is fair enough..

[AvitarX]

No, they distributed a lot more software under the GPL than just that module.

The GPL puts the requirement on the distributer to provide the source for all binaries they distribute, not just modified ones.

Re:Source code is fair enough..

[TheRaven64]

Prototypes of the EeePC were reported to allow you to boot from an iso image on a USB flash drive. Have you tried this with a production model? If it works, it sounds like it would be a great way of installing/upgrading; no more burning CDs, just copy the CD image to a removable drive.

Re:Source code is fair enough..

[Jartan]

The story doesn't even talk about it being hard to install another OS. They just make some off handed comment in the first paragraph saying other people are supposedly complaining about it.

Re:Source code is fair enough..

[Fizzol]

Which you'll eventually be able to get from the Xandros or Asus website once they get their act together. Most of the eeepc's software is probably already up at Xandros' ftp site, in the standard files. They don't have to release code to proprietary stuff, just GPL stuff they modified for the eeepc, everything else should be available from Xandros. Right now, it's sounding like just the one module.

Re:Source code is fair enough..

[SillyNickName]

I'm not sure that releasing the source _after_ you've been caught is good enough.

Re:Source code is fair enough..

[SillyNickName]

If there's source code that needs to be released then great, let them do it.

I'm not sure that releasing the source code after you've been caught is good enough. That's kind of like offering to pay for an item after you've been caught shoplifting: It's too late, you've already been caught.

Re:Source code is fair enough..

[Lehk228]

'caught' makes it sound like they were trying to get away with it. more likely a matter of the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing, and once it's brought to the attention of the leadership at Asus they will post the source code.

Re:Source code is fair enough..

[SillyNickName]

'caught' makes it sound like they were trying to get away with it. more likely a matter of the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing, and once it's brought to the attention of the leadership at Asus they will post the source code.

I can imagine a shoplifter trying to use that excuse. "Gee officer, you see the right carried it out of the store but the left hand is the one that does the paying and, well, it just didn't know what the right hand was doing." (sound of handcuffs going on)

Re:Source code is fair enough..

[Niten]

The point is that Asus's failure to release the source code to asus_acpi (and other GPL-derived software) means that, should a user decide to install the latest Ubuntu over the machine's default operating system, he or she loses whatever compatibility enhancements Asus made to the ACPI code in order to make Linux run well on this device. In essence, better battery life -- or whatever specific benefit Asus's modifications provide -- constitute a lock-in to Asus's particular Linux distribution, until Asus fulfills their legal obligations and releases the source code so that other distributions can incorporate it.

Disclaimer: I cannot say to what extent Asus has embraced-and-extended the GPL software on this device first-hand, because I don't own one; nor would I ever consider buying one unless the company changes its current attitude toward pirating open source software. This action violates the most fundamental principles under which Linux and other GPL software has thrived.

Re:Source code is fair enough..

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to mention it's all George W. Bush's fault.

Re:Source code is fair enough..

[jargon82]

Replace "right hand" with "my son" and "left hand" with "me" and you might have a more accurate analogy.

Re:Source code is fair enough..

[Kristoph]

If you read the original blog you will learn they do distribute source, it just does not include the acpi module. The author of the blog suggests this is nothing more then an oversight.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

]{

Re:Source code is fair enough..

[Eunuchswear]

Rubbish, the shrub just does what Cheney tells him to. How could it be his fault?

Re:Source code is fair enough..

[dotgain]

Nonsense. Everybody knows a more apt analogy would involve crashing the EeePC into the back of a Ford Pinto, causing the whole thing to catch fire.

Re:Source code is fair enough..

[SillyNickName]

I have a relative who works in loss prevention for a large retail chain. He's told me about those kinds of family shoplifting teams.

Re:Source code is fair enough..

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"Most of the eeepc's software is probably already up at Xandros' ftp site, in the standard files." That is confusing. Is Xandros distributing the Asus eeePC? Or is Asus distributing it? If Asus is distributing it commercially (using binaries) then isn't Asus responsible for distributing sourcecode? Pointing back to Xandros isn't good enough, is it?

Re:Source code is fair enough..

[Tweekster]

Because mistakes never happen in releasing a product.

Re:Source code is fair enough..

[Sique]

So he's just following orders?

Re:Source code is fair enough..

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experience, there does not appear to be a problem with installing other Linux OSes, just compatibility issues with various devices. A common occurrence and inconvenience with Linux.

I have managed to get SimplyMepis, Mandriva 2007 and Ubuntu 7.04 Feisty Fawn working on my EEE PC 701 on a 6GB SD. I dual-boot the original OS and Ubuntu. (Mandriva would kill the poor 900MHZ Celeron processor I think)

I own an Asus EEE PC

[DrXym]

I can't comment on whether it violates the GPL, but it does include the GPL text in the manual and there is a support DVD in the box. If they didn't include the source on the CD, then they could have and probably should in future.

BTW the Asus Eee PC is a great little machine although like most Linux dists the UI is a little rough around the edges.

Re:Run Forrest, RUN....

[Anonymous Coward]

Will you stop saying Linuzzz? It's called Linux, and the man who started it is called Linus. There IS NO Z!

Re:Run Forrest, RUN....

[maxwell demon]

> ls /boot/vmlinu?
/boot/vmlinuz

SCNR

Half and Half

[Anonymous Coward]

A couple of things, let's wait an see.

On the GPL issue I like that the poster actually purchased the PC. Give them a few weeks to respond to a request for the sources. Seems easy enough. The GPL is pretty clearcut.

On the upgrades/breaking seals void warranty, that seems completely understandable. If you've tested hardware in one configuration with a specific set of components, that is obviously what you'll warranty.

I don't understand why people think companies should warranty things if you add random, $15 no-name memory or an overclocked, overheating PCI-E card etc. They have no control. Odds are you won't have a problem of course. But anyone who has used computers will realize that even a small change can throw things off. And is a super pain to track down, especially if you weren't the one making the change. This even I have experienced. A good first question is to ask what has changed recently on this system when there are problems.

I did a very short and small stint doing embedded systems programming. Pretty standard small parts under the hood. But that didn't mean if you unscrewed the housing and "upgraded" things we'd feel obligated to warranty it. Especially because there were safety of life implications.

Secondly, there is a simple route to take here. Have someone who actually owns copyright on code make a complaint, or take your complaint to the company, and failing that forward to the FSF/SFLC or whomever....

Re:Half and Half

[Sancho]

The US has a little-known comsumer protection law that prohibits voiding warranties based upon modifications to the product unless it can be proven that the mod caused the malfunction.

Re:Half and Half

[dotgain]

I wish laws like that would go one step further and make it illegal to say you will void the warranty in that case.

Since you say it's a little-known law, it seems to me like not enough people are protected by it, and manufacturers / stores could bully people into not claiming simply because of their ignorance of it.

Re:Half and Half

[civilizedINTENSITY]

But that didn't mean if you unscrewed the housing and "upgraded" things we'd feel obligated to warranty it.
FTFA:

The Magnuson-Moss Act is a 1975 Federal law that lays down some rules for how consumer warranties work. One of the specific things it prohibits are "tie-ins," additional items or services you must buy from the manufacturer to make your warranty work.

The difference between "Feel obligated", and "are in fact legally obligated", pays for the nice cars lawyers drive ;-)

Re:Half and Half

[fluffy99]

They are under no obligation to distribute the source with each computer. They do have to make it available which can be via written request if need be.

more than the spirit-go for the money.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sounds like the author of asus_acpi has a lawsuit on his/her hands."

Sounds like "Lawsuit" happy American has struck again. Why don't you all just invade?

Care or don't care..

[cyberjock1980]

Does caring about whether the GPL has been violated matter? Whether I care or not is not the point. The point is that ASUS is currently in violation of GPL. I bet that if I stole something from ASUS they'd come after me the second I appeared to interfere with their products.

Re:Care or don't care..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, I think people care.

The article does not mention if the developer has even contacted Asus, or received a response.

I really doubt that a large corporation selling cheap Linux PC's is interested in pissing off users and developers.

Lets at least wait for a response and probable solution before we run their good name through the dirt.

Re:Care or don't care..

[Ajehals]

Copyright violation really really isn't stealing.

I agree that if there is a problem it needs sorting out, preferably without anyone having to sue anyone, or any other court intervention, but its not the same a stealing something (arguably its worse) and should not be characterised as such, in this instance it is probably an accident, and may well be an accident on the part of whoever supplied the OS rather than ASUS. We, the F/LOSS community need to try at least to be a little less offensive when it comes to stuff like this. If there is a problem, talk about it, don't shoot first talk later, and the permanent cries of ha! GPL violation, we're going to sue!!! are also counter productive, I'm sure the FSF would agree that legal action is something of a last resort rather than an initial response.

Re:Care or don't care..

[Loganscomputer]

Obviously you do not from the US where we sue first and ask questions later :p

Re:Care or don't care..

[Virgil Tibbs]

He is british & so am I =D

Fortunatly we don't have to put up with stupid court cases

Re:Care or don't care..

[Epsillon]

Fortunatly we don't have to put up with stupid court cases

Oh really?

"Have you had an accident in the last three years? Too stupid to know a wet floor is slippery? Can't see where you're going? Lift boxes with your back? Too stupid to pour piss from a boot without instructions on the heel? Cut yourself on a bread-knife left out in the kitchen of the house you were burgling? NO WIN NO FEE! It's not your fault you're a half-wit, so get the compensation everyone else with only a couple of defective neurons to their name gets."

Now, granted, that's an imported idea but we're getting to the stage where even breathing near someone else can set them talking about "compo."

Re:Care or don't care..

[Virgil Tibbs]

next question: have you met anyone who had actually used one of those firms, or have you just been watching them waste their marketing budget on the obscure cablesky/freeview tv channels...
I suspect the latter.

Re:Care or don't care..

[Epsillon]

I know of one or two people (one in my own family, embarrassingly, was successful, although only a ~£400 judgment and it probably cost more in time pissing about than it was worth) who have used one of the companies in question (AG) since they started hanging around busy shopping areas in town accosting people with the "Have you.." line. For my part, the reply was "No, I haven't, but you're about to if you don't [expletive] off." I'm not too sure whether the local A&E have the facilities to remove clipboards from body cavities, having never had to avail myself of such, so it's just as well he did as he was told.

I also try not to watch the idiot lantern too much. It tends to affect your ability to think for yourself.

Re:Care or don't care..

[dbIII]

It is NOT in violation unless you ask for the modified source code and they refuse to give it to you. Somebody wanted an argument instead of the source code so we got this article instead of an email to Asus. The GPL does not say it has to be on the install media just that it has to be obtainable.

Re:Care or don't care..

[Anonymous Coward]

Selling a product that is the direct result of a copyright violation is much more closely analogous to stealing than what is usually mislabeled as such. Neither (and really none) of these things are at all analogous to piracy, however. That terminology is so far removed from accuracy those misusing it should be subjected to what the term really means. Almost.

Re:Care or don't care..

[Just Some Guy]

Copyright violation really really isn't stealing.

Actually, GPL violation seems to my non-lawyer mind to be pretty close. An important part of "stealing" is that I remove property from your possession, which is why I can't "steal" an MP3 by copying it. However, if Asus kept this code private on purpose, then they would be keeping it from my rightful possession.

Again, IANAL, but that seems fairly close to actual stealing - at least more so than most of the times we hear that word used incorrectly.

Re:Run Forrest, RUN....

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people say Windoze or M$ then?

Linuzzz and Abble have also the right. Discrimination anyone?

eeePC fans probably don't care

[DieByWire]

...there are indications that eeePC fans probably don't care.

Which doesn't matter one bit.

What matters is if the person(s) who's software they used cares.

Re:eeePC fans probably don't care

[FroBugg]

Actually, it matters greatly.

It means that crime (or a civil infraction) pays. Now it's up to the copyright holders to enforce their rights and make crime (or a civil infraction) unprofitable.

Re:eeePC fans probably don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong. They are only required to make the changes available to the receiving party upon the party's request (unless the party has earlier withdrawn from their GPL rights). They are not obligated to hand the changes to people they do not distribute the modified software to. Not being a buyer of eeePC implies that you cannot have accesed the software shiped with eeePC unless only by unlawful means (YES, this holds for GPL software too). Reread the GPL to understand what your rights are and are not.

This will be solved quickly

[ardle]

I very much doubt doubt that Asus's modification was made with the intention of exploiting its customers: more likely they are attempting to protect themselves from industrial espionage.
That being so, I presume that all they need to do is to link their changes differently? I don't know (I'm neither a kernel nor legal type) - but I expect that there is a technical solution to this. If so, maybe the solution can be made available for instructional purposes (and not with the purpose of condemning ASUS for something they - or some of their programmers, at least - clearly have put some thought into).
Maybe some day this kind of event will be seen as an embarrassing procedural lapse, rather than a betrayal of the faithful ;-)

Re:This will be solved quickly

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

I very much doubt doubt that Asus's modification was made with the intention of exploiting its customers: more likely they are attempting to protect themselves from industrial espionage.

Tough cookies. If you can't handle the terms of the GPL, then write your own goddamn OS.

Re:This will be solved quickly

[ducomputergeek]

Or use BSD.

Re:This will be solved quickly

[ardle]

It's probably quicker to structure code so that it complies with the GPL than to write an OS from scratch ;-)
I know everyone's salivating at the prospect of a watershed GPL-validating court case but this probably won't be it, folks.

Re:This will be solved quickly

[Antique Geekmeister]

Thank you, I was thinking that. Unfortunately, most (not all) of the more powerful open source tools, such as gcc and OpenOffice, are much better maintained and developed in the Linux world. I'm seeing optimization and performance come out of the BSD world, but not new tools. (And before you say OpenSSH, remember that that came from ssh.com's commercial work.)

Violation? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean... When looking at the GPL it clearly says that you need to meet all 3 specific conditions:

1. You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
2. You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
3. If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

So, I certainly do not see anything mentioned that demands a version number or that the program be named. What is required are notices that the programs have been changed ("to protect the innocent" </joke>). And did the author of this article (or the people who are complaining) also read all the documentation to see if such notes are indeed present ?

Then there's another thing.. The source code isn't installed or distributed. That too is a very one sided point of view. The GPL clearly learns us that you need to do one of these 3 points (thats one, not all):

• Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
• Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
• Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Naturally section 3 doesn't apply here so its either 1 or 2. 1 states that they need to make it available, 2 says that they need to offer it. Which brings me to the following point; can anyone of these users grab the source code from the Xandros website itself? Because if they can then I don't really see anything wrong here. Note; we were talking about the spirit of the GPL right? If users can get the sourcecode somewhere else I don't see any violations being made. As long as Asus makes sure that this situation remains and that if those other mirrors someday stop distributing this software takes over.

Personally, but thats probably just me, I don't understand the need for all this squabbling. Sometimes I also think this to be pretty hypocrite behaviour. When it comes to a widely appreciated website like youtube almost every user agrees that while copyright and license violations are made they should only be enforced if the copyright holder demands it. Being a youtube fan myself I like the approach but at the same time agree that its totally wrong. How can one expect from such a copyright holder to find his/her work on the thousands if not millions of movies out there?

But if those same guys are Linux OSF zealots then beware if you're closely touching or perhaps violating the GPL or any other open source license they favor. Because then everything is different and you should be made to comply

Stalwarts

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me, or does Stalwarts sound like somthing you get from sitting on a public toilet ?

Re:Stalwarts

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like something from "Harry Potter".

Re:Stalwarts

[derago]

I thought of some bearded wart saying that it's GNU/Linux...

Re:Run Forrest, RUN....

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, they do say that. Thing is, they're idiots too.

Re:Violation? Really?

[Haeleth]

Naturally section 3 doesn't apply here so its either 1 or 2. 1 states that they need to make it available, 2 says that they need to offer it. Which brings me to the following point; can anyone of these users grab the source code from the Xandros website itself?

Apparently not, because Asus has allegedly modified the code, which would mean that the version on the Xandros website is different.

And even if Asus hasn't modified the code, there is still a problem. What if Xandros updates one component from version 1.0.0 to version 1.0.1, and Asus doesn't notice that the old version isn't available any more, but there's a subtle regression in the new version that means it doesn't work on the Asus hardware any more? Suddenly anyone who grabs the source code from the Xandros website has a version that doesn't work! Why the hell should they have to debug the problem and then hunt around for a version that works, when Asus has a legal responsibility to be providing it all along?

Note; we were talking about the spirit of the GPL right?

So you acknowledge that Asus is violating the GPL, right?

But if those same guys are Linux OSF zealots then beware if you're closely touching or perhaps violating the GPL or any other open source license they favor. Because then everything is different and you should be made to comply no matter what.

It is true that many people on Slashdot don't mind violating media companies' copyright on Youtube. It is also true that many people on Slashdot get angry when people violate the GPL. However, it does not follow that these two groups are the same, and basing an argument on such an assumption leaves your logic seriously flawed.

In an ideal world, copyright would be a lot weaker, and everyone would have more rights to use and modify others' work. We don't live in that ideal world, so GPL users trick copyright law into creating copyleft, which allows us to grant others those rights in such a way that they are forced to pass those rights on in turn. This only works if we in turn respect others' copyright -- if GPL advocates were proven to regularly infringe others' copyrights on Youtube, then how could we ever expect anyone to respect the GPL?

It would be interesting to do a study of Slashdot comments and find out whether the same nicknames do pop up in both types of discussion, and if so, whether they do (as you claim) take opposite sides depending on who is breaking the law. But until someone does such a study...

Just act when there's a reason; like people who actually own such laptops and are trying to compile / change stuff but are unable to do so. THEN you'd have a strong case.

No. If you wait till someone finds that they are unable to exercise their rights, then it's already too late. The point is to ensure that everyone will always have that ability, whether they use it or not. That's what we call "freedom" -- the ability to exercise any right you like, without having to ask anyone for permission and without having to fight for it.

Remember the benefit of the doubt

[deadline]

I have a Eee PC. It is a nice little system. Once customized a bit is very usable for the hardcore Linux users. The 24 second boot time is nice.

About the GPL. The manual has a printed version of the GPL, so I don't really think Asus is trying to hide anything. What is more likely, and more like most big companies, the Eee was under a deadline to launch before the Xmas season. The last thing to get done is probably posting source code. Has anyone asked the source code? (perhaps someone has)

Their lawyers will make sure that it gets posted as they ship a license with every product that says it will be available. i.e. They could be in a boat load of legal trouble if they don't, not to mention class-action lawsuits, copyright violations etc.

Any finally, here is company that has come out with a full Linux sub-notebook (just 25 days ago). Instead of floating the latest conspiracy theory, how about giving them the benefit of the doubt. But, then allowing/helping a company to do the right thing, does not make for interesting blog headlines. It is all about the page views.

Re:Remember the benefit of the doubt

[SillyNickName]

Instead of floating the latest conspiracy theory, how about giving them the benefit of the doubt.

What conspiracy? What's in doubt? The claim is that they violated the license. Are you saying that they didn't?

Re:Remember the benefit of the doubt

[manekineko2]

The claim is that instead of jumping on them immediately like a pack of ravenous open-source wolves less than a month after they launch their Linux-running product, maybe we should give them the benefit of the doubt that they intend to do the right thing but just haven't had time yet to post the code.

Re:Remember the benefit of the doubt

[Anonymous Coward]

The one other thing that everyone seems to be looking over... The GPL says that the source code must be made available. That does not mean that it has to be posted on a website (ie send them $25 for shipping and handling and they will send you a disk with the code on it).

"But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL."

Re:Remember the benefit of the doubt

[cel4145]

Any finally, here is company that has come out with a full Linux sub-notebook (just 25 days ago). Instead of floating the latest conspiracy theory, how about giving them the benefit of the doubt. But, then allowing/helping a company to do the right thing, does not make for interesting blog headlines. It is all about the page views.

Exactly! Rather than assuming that Asus is intentionally doing something wrong here, the open source community should mentor Asus and assist them by assuming it is an oversight. I've observed enough open source software communities to understand that newbies often make mistakes in their understanding and implementation of the GPL and other licenses. Shouldn't open source be more about community building and enhanced software production rather than adopting protectionist rhetoric common to proprietary IP development? This is not to say that GPL violations should not be noted or acted on, but don't adopt the strategies and criticisms of the likes of MS and other proprietary vendors. See this as an opportunity first to bring Asus into the community, not put them on the defensive and alienate them.

Re:Remember the benefit of the doubt

[lysse]

"The benefit of the doubt" is only really applicable when there is any doubt. There appears not to be in this case - Asus are in violation now; the question is whether they will voluntarily move into compliance with their obligations, in whatever way is most convenient for them, before they are forced to. But "Give me time" is right up there with "I didn't know" when it comes to legal lines of defence.

Re:Remember the benefit of the doubt

[domatic]

The problem is that an awful lot of GPL non-compliant use of covered works in embedded applications is going on. It seems to be standard practice to be out of compliance by default until called on it. Once called on it, drag your feet as long as possible. The default practice should be compliance from day one. These large companies have legal departments don't they? If they use something like a Microsoft SDK, they aren't violating the licenses as a matter of practice on those now are they?

Re:Remember the benefit of the doubt

[cnettel]

In fact, I think there have been quite a bit of violations regarding proper redistribution of the DirectX runtime, and using MS icons within other products, for example. I'm not specifically pointing at Asus now, just pointing out that total compliance is not the norm. On the other hand, the "redistribute the source" part of the GPL is the whole point of it, not some half-assed extra requirement.

Re:Remember the benefit of the doubt

[sgtrock]

Hey, Eben Moglen settles GPL violations like that all the time. If it works for him and the FSF, maybe the author of the module in question will be OK with that approach, too. :)

Re:Remember the benefit of the doubt

[mindstrm]

Welcome to business 101.. don't spend money you don't have to.

So you made a small GPL violation.. what's the worst outcome?

The WORST outcome would be the entire body of copyright holders of the GPL work suing the shit out of you without simply asking you to comply, and so on. That's pretty unlikely, and even more unlikely to succeed.

The likely outcome is either NOBODY notices
or
Someone notices, and eventually you find the spare cycles to fix the issue and say "Yeah well we're a big company, mistakes happened, we fixed it, the software is free ANYWAY so it's not like we stole from anyone."

Re:Remember the benefit of the doubt

[Antique Geekmeister]

They don't have to make it available to everyone in the world: they do have to make it available to *you*, as a purchaser of the distributed software.

Could you please contact them and ask for a copy of the kernel source?

Re:Remember the benefit of the doubt

[dbIII]

Yes he did. I suggest readers here look at the GPL, they may find they agree as well. This is all irrelevant unless somebody actually attempts to get the source code but unfortunately it was about starting an argument instead.

The internet also allows for sending emails to people to ask for things in addition to clicking on pictures with a mouse.

Re:Remember the benefit of the doubt

[dbIII]

Asus are in violation now

They are not. They are in violation if they refuse to let you have it. The author did not ask them for it or attempt to get it from any parties involved. There is a link on another comment here to source code on the asus website! I suggest actually looking at the GPL, they don't have to give it to you on a CD or give you a link just provide it if you ask them.

It looks like somebody was annoyed that it didn't come in the box and somebody else blew the story up a bit to play politics.

I hate to say this but

[LM741N]

"Violation of GPL" is the best form of flattery. When a commercial company breaks all the rules just to use your GPL'd product. (don't get me wrong though,
I still think that company needs to comply with the terms of the license)

Re:Run Forrest, RUN....

[nevali]

That particular file is named that because it's compressed (originally with gzip, but later bzip2). The original output (before "make zImage") was named "vmlinux". Why the resultant file wasn't called "vmlinux.gz" is beyond me...

Source is available

[moikka]

This link seems to include the source code.
Sure it is a little hard to find from the website, but there it is.

http://www.asus.com/prog_content/middle_download.aspx?l1=24&l2=0&l3=0&l4=0&model=1907&modelmenu=4

Or is this not the relevant source?

Re:Source is available

[moikka]

The link seems not to be working.

http://support.asus.com/download/download.aspx?SLanguage=en-us&model=Eee%20PC%204G(701)

Is this working better?

I cannot download 1.8 gigs at this moment so
I don't know whether this file includes the exact content that is in question here.
Even if it does not, then it seems that Asus is trying to do the right thing in here.
They have printed the GPL to manual shipped to the customers and have set up a download section.
The problem might be just a snafu that some component is not included.

Doesn't anybody know what is the response from Asus when pointed to them that something is missing?
Do they tell the complaining person to **** off or do they say
"Sorry, we didn't know XYZ was missing, we'll fix it right away."

The GPL does not require the sources to be put on any website at all.
All they require that the sources to be made available on request
If they respond to the request with "Well put the DVD on mail right away",
that would be perfectly fine and no GPL violation has happened.
So we really need to know what they say to a direct request to sources
before we can complain about them being in violation.

Re:Source is available

[citizenr]

this file includes some debs, some old versions and some garbage, no sources to acpi

!GPL == !buy

[wikinerd]

I would be willing to become an Eee owner, but the possibility that it may not conform fully to the GPL turns me off. Unless I see the full source code as required by GPL, I'm not going to buy Eee.

Purists vs. pragmatists

[Borromini]

From the article: "However, the issue highlighted by the latest revelations concerning the Asus eeePC and the GPL signals a growing rift developing between Linux pragmatists such as Xandros and Novell's Suse, and Linux purists such as Red Hat and Canonical-funded Ubuntu." Dude... I mean - how 'purist' is Ubuntu when it delivers those binary nVidia/ATi blobs out of the box? You tell me.

Re:Purists vs. pragmatists

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Perhaps they misspelled "Debian"?

Re:Purists vs. pragmatists

[dbIII]

Perhaps if the author actually read the copy of the GPL that Asus thoughtfully provided and actually attempted to contact them to get the source code we would have an article based on fact and not buzzword bingo.

Improperly Rated

[hdon]

This guy's post is NOT off-topic.

Get your heads in the game, mods!

The source code is available on Asus's site

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been there since the Oct 16 launch of the eeePC in Taiwan.

The source code for the distro is posted in a 1.8GB tarball on Asus's support downloads site:

http://support.asus.com/download/download.aspx?SLanguage=en-us&model=Eee%20PC%204G(701) -- Find the "Source Code" twisty and expand.

I posted this exact same link on Cliff's blog comments. Fucking people don't look around, don't even read the comments...

-G

Re:The source code is available on Asus's site

[Talavis]

From TFA:

As Mr Biffle says: "ASUS has posted a 1.8GB ZIP file on their website that they claim is the sources, but it's not -- it contains a few .debs (not even the versions that ship on the machine) and some kernel headers."

Re:The source code is available on Asus's site

[dbIII]

So what is in the *.deb files - did anyone look and see if they are source packages? It's irrelevant anyway until there is an attempt to contact Asus and then a reply.

Re:Run Forrest, RUN....

[ctzan]

It's still compressed with gzip, not with bzip2.
It was never compressed with bzip2.
It's not called vmlinux.gz because it's not a
proper gzip file - it's more complicated than
that (vmlinuz include a boot sector, a gzip
decompresser and then the compressed image of the
kernel itself, everything packed like hell)

So sue them

[presidenteloco]

My guess is that with the way that the GPL works, the copyright holder (i.e. contributor) to any other part of the Linux kernel
or even to other GPL software that links with it, could sue a violator of the GPL if that violator is including
the contributor's code in their distribution. Every extension of any part of a single connected GPL software system
potentially violates the copyright of any other contributor, if they violate the license. It is one big cross-licensing
of copyrights.

Correct me if I'm wrong. IANAL.

Benefit of the DOUBT?

[rbrander]

Sorry, if you want to violate copyright terms and get some "benefit of the doubt" out of Slashdot, you have to give away for free the work of a team of hundreds of camera, sound, lighting, carpentry and special effects crews, artists, and so forth, who dropped $100M worth of work on an SF movie. Then you can have benefit of the doubt.

But if you fail in the first month of your rushed-to-market product to post source code and hurt the feelings of authors who aren't getting any money for it either way, man, there will be no mercy. Had they the power, you'd be sent to Antarctica in a Speedo.

(That argument's a two-edged sword, of course: since the poverty-stricken software authors ask only for respect and academic cooperation, it IS kicking-down-at-the-weak to abuse their rights.)

This whole argument's already in the comments below the original blog post, by the way. The comments run about 4:1 in favour of giving ASUS that benefit of the doubt. Also common in those postings: please don't imagine we "fans" are doing anything more than offering BotD to a company that put out a cooool product. Even we concede they're the usual bunch of hard-eyed conscience-free businessmen with no inherent respect for the GPL, and do need to be held to account, or they'll never "get around" to that posting.

Re:Benefit of the DOUBT?

[Anonymous Coward]

...you have to give away for free the work of a team of hundreds of camera, sound, lighting, carpentry and special effects crews, artists, and so forth, who dropped $100M worth of work on an SF movie.

Although I agree with your sentiment, I can't agree with the kind of blatant propaganda you're using to support it. Although you avoid stating it directly, the implication is that the crew is somehow directly ripped off by piracy, but that's completely 100% wrong. Those camera, sound, lighting, carpentry and special effects crews, artists and so forth are paid once for their work. They don't collect royalties or residuals, meaning that they are not the victims of piracy. When you pirate a movie, you're ripping off the studios, writers, actors and directors, who all stand to continue making a profit off the work once it's completed.

There's an argument to be made about the future careers of the crews being jeopardized by damaging the revenue stream of movie production as a whole, but that's about as far as it goes.

Re:Benefit of the DOUBT?

[soulhuntre]

Thats the Slashdot hypocrisy filter slamming into place.

See, if you steal from a company, you get to pretend thats not only OK but heroic. If you suspect a company of doing something wrong you get to jump up and down and whine like a little girl... this is also heroic.

The side effect of this - that it is simply a justification for pirates to steal anything they want while simultaneously trying to maintain a moral high ground - is lost on no one.

Re:Benefit of the DOUBT?

[rbrander]

>> There's an argument to be made about the future careers of the crews being jeopardized by damaging the revenue stream of movie production as a whole, but that's about as far as it goes.

Yeah, that WAS my argument, and it goes far enough - in the long run.

It's the difference between the immediate tactical question of "what's the direct effect at the moment" and the moral question of "what if EVERYBODY did this, for all time to come?" ASUS actions are hardly about to destroy Free & Open Source Software. But people jump on them because of the moral issue - if everybody did it all the time, most people would eventually stop writing free software, because it would just be giving away work to big companies that gave nothing back.

And if everybody pirated every movie, eventually, the industry would grind down, if not to a halt, to a far lower level. Music can now be made in $10,000 basement studios, and musicians can work part time and have day jobs and make money from performance. None of that really applies to movie-making. Well, you'd see a lot of little indie dramas and comedies shot on HDTV on weekends with few props or sets, I guess, but the last special-effects SF movie in history would already be in the can.

For any one act of piracy, you're right, there's no effect on the crew, or anybody but the investors, a bunch of rich people nobody will ever have sympathy for. But in the "big picture", those investors and producers just act as money-aggregators, assembling the money paid by society for the last couple of movies into the salaries and costs for the *next* one. When they lose their business model, so does everybody they cut cheques for.

Thanks for using the word "propaganda", though...here I am, just a single person making a posting to a forum, and I get accused of being some kind of entertainment-industrial complex. I now feel very powerful and important.

Some clarifications are in order.

[cbiffle]

Hi. I wrote the blog post that iTwire cited out of context, and the submitter further mangled. I feel like I should clarify some things.

I'm not accusing ASUS of malice, specifically, just incompetence. They included the GPL in their manual and posted a source tarball, it's just the wrong one. The outside of the retail box even cites the GPL. They've tried to cover their ass and simply screwed it up.

As for the "OMG eee fans don't care!!11", that probably comes from the note I posted which states that I'm not planning to sue ASUS. In fact, what that means is that I've done the lawsuit thing before and simply don't have the time or energy. If I didn't care, I wouldn't have posted my evidence.

I also don't know where that nonsense about making it hard to install another distro comes from, since I posted the info amidst a discussion of installing Ubuntu 7.10 (which I'm using to write this comment).

And finally, I'm not a "Linux stalwart," I'm a "Mac bigot." It says that on my blog.

Re:Some clarifications are in order.

[swillden]

In fact, what that means is that I've done the lawsuit thing before and simply don't have the time or energy.

And probably don't have standing, anyway.

Re:Some clarifications are in order.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a copyright owner of said code? Or why would you be able to sue Asus?

Source code link

[tuliom]

The source code is here: http://support.asus.com/download/Download.aspx?SLanguage=en-us

Blu-ray player?!

[Anonymous Coward]

What would I need a blu-ray player for? I download all my movies, what I need is cheap stolen hard drives!

Always the same

[CdBee]

A promising Linux prodct comes out and all the stalwarts who have been nailing their colours to the mast over their willingness to buy commercial linux computers start looking for excuses

FWIW the vendor of a GPL product only has to provide the source to their customers, only then on request, and can make an administration charge for the code and can deliver it way they like - not just through the conventional public FTP server*, I don't suppose you considered buying an Eee and asking Asus for the code, anyone?

*although printing it in grey ink on the back of a wild rhino might not pass the test

Re:Always the same

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Always found it confusing how "Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party" is interpreted to mean "only has to provide the source to their customers".

Re:Always the same

[Antique Geekmeister]

Good point, but as I read it, only the customer can force them to give it to that third party.

Re:Always the same

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"All third parties" granted a license:

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

Relevant part of Section 3:

Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;

From the FAQ:

What does this "written offer valid for any third party" mean? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?
If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.
The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.

The source is available

[mac.man25]

Hummm. Seems if you look here and click the link to goto here you can search for "eee" and get the page for the eee PC, 2GB or 4GB. Then you do a /source (in firefox) and find the Source Download page.

Seems to me that source is provided, plus, it was released on the release day too. Unless this source isn't the source they are looking for.....

Re:The source is available

[Domstersch]

Yeah, that's not the source they're looking for. Read the link to the original blog post (Cliff Hacks Things) from TFA - he says he did poke through the 1.8GB source archive.

Re:Violation? Really?

[Ian Alexander]

Naturally section 3 doesn't apply here so its either 1 or 2. 1 states that they need to make it available, 2 says that they need to offer it. Which brings me to the following point; can anyone of these users grab the source code from the Xandros website itself? Because if they can then I don't really see anything wrong here. Note; we were talking about the spirit of the GPL right? If users can get the sourcecode somewhere else I don't see any violations being made. As long as Asus makes sure that this situation remains and that if those other mirrors someday stop distributing this software takes over.
According the GNU GPL FAQ, it's not enough that the source should simply be available somewhere on the Internet. ASUS has to identify the place to get the source and have arrangements to keep the relevant source there. They may have arrangements with Xandros, but it doesn't count unless they tell their users where to get the source.

Can I put the binaries on my Internet server and put the source on a different Internet site?

The GPL says you must offer access to copy the source code "from the same place"; that is, next to the binaries. However, if you make arrangements with another site to keep the necessary source code available, and put a link or cross-reference to the source code next to the binaries, we think that qualifies as "from the same place".

Note, however, that it is not enough to find some site that happens to have the appropriate source code today, and tell people to look there. Tomorrow that site may have deleted that source code, or simply replaced it with a newer version of the same program. Then you would no longer be complying with the GPL requirements. To make a reasonable effort to comply, you need to make a positive arrangement with the other site, and thus ensure that the source will be available there for as long as you keep the binaries available.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites

Madwifi

[SleepyHappyDoc]

asus_acpi isn't even the worst of it. Their modified madwifi supports a chipset that the rest of the madwifi community has been wanting support for for months. I read something somewhere about madwifi being licensed in a way which allows this (which seems silly, on the surface, as the community now has to duplicate asus' efforts), but it still doesn't make sense to me. it's not a secret what the wifi chipset in the eee is, so I don't see what they gain by not allowing other linux distros to support it...it's not like they're making millions selling Xandros licenses.

Re:Madwifi

[jonwil]

Perhaps whoever modified madwifi obtained specification documents from the manufacturer of the WiFi chipset under NDA.

Re:Madwifi

[Creepy Crawler]

And some NDA invalidates the GPL how?

Oh, thats right. It doesnt.

Re:Madwifi

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll ignore the fact that your post doesn't make much sense to me, and point out something that invalidates what I suspect your point was intended to be.

Madwifi is dual-licensed under BSD. To put it bluntly, they don't legally owe anyone anything.

Good try at being a smart-ass though.

Re:Madwifi

[SleepyHappyDoc]

What would they gain from doing this? Sure, they may very well be legally in the right, but I just don't see the business advantage of withholding it here, especially now that its all public. As it is right now, anyone that wants to buy an Eee, but who wants to use a different distro, can't have the working madwifi. I doubt anyone would choose to buy because of the lack of driver source, and if even one person refuses to buy for this reason, it's a net loss (pun intended). I don't get it.

Re:Madwifi

[imr]

But is is it some GPL code that has been modified or is it the firmware?

If the source code is a driver...

[SanityInAnarchy]

Yes, you can wipe it and install another OS. And everything may well appear to work.

But this is getting a bit more dangerous now, with some of the more badly-behaved ACPI implementations. Google for "Ubuntu destroys laptops".

Re:If the source code is a driver...

[znerk]

Your search - "Ubuntu destroys laptops" - did not match any documents.
--
"Maybe... Maybe... I have yet to see someone outsmart bullet."

Re:If the source code is a driver...

[SanityInAnarchy]

I'm feeling lucky.

And there's a better description here.

Re:If the source code is a driver...

[znerk]

You're not lucky, after all.

Yeah, yeah... if you pull the quotes off the string then the search results you're talking about are returned. Sorry, I followed instructions, and searched for "Ubuntu destroys laptops"; not Ubuntu destroys laptops. Maybe if your instructions were more clear?

Besides, it's not an Ubuntu issue, or at least that's not what I got from the stuff you threw back at me. As a matter of fact, the first one looks a lot like user error ("I tried to install Ubuntu and it wiped my Windows partition, this linux stuff sucks"). Uhm... you repartitioned your drive, and you're mad that it blew away Windows?
Sucks to be you; Reading comprehension ftw.

The second link appears to be about some sort of hardware issue caused by hardware manufacturers or laptop BIOS creators.

On the other hand... It turns out that your kneejerk reaction may have been somewhat on-target. The issue described in the bug report in your second link (the "better description") seems to be a non-PEBKAC issue. Upon further research, I found this page (linked to by your second link, and actually the thread your second link is a part of - a much better source of information, I might add) has a lot of info on Ubuntu's aggressive power management settings causing laptop drives to load/unload every couple of minutes. That's a serious bug, and could theoretically reduce a laptop hard drive's life expectancy to less than 6 months. Looks like there are some workarounds and/or fixes available, but the out-of-the-box experience could be catastrophic. Guess I'll have to either recommend against Ubuntu on laptops in the future, or point people to the fix.

Ah, well... nothing is perfect. I'll be honest, here, I was all set to blast back with the "truth" about the situation, and blame the BIOS/hard drive manufacturers (based on your second link), but after reading the actual bug reports, it seems like this is, at the very least, an Ubuntu-fixable issue.

On the *other* other hand, it appears to only affects the machine if laptop mode is enabled and/or the machine can't determine if it's running on batteries, so I'm still going to use Ubuntu on my desktops. I just love it, it's so *shiny*.

In addition, the three items we've mentioned here appear, at first glance, to be 3 separate issues... although your second link is a part of the thread I linked to above, it is a poorly-informed response, with misleading information - unless you have the context it was ripped from.

Update (aka, thank you, preview button):
Upon checking my links (and getting pulled back into the thread on the bug report), I'll use your method of pulling one specific post out to illustrate my point, and cheer mightily for Ubuntu. Check out this post in the same thread.
Vista does it too! So there, nyaaah.

--
Disclaimer: I am a Windows(tm) technician and linux hobbyist. My employer has no connection to my linux rantings. My employer and our customers use Microsoft operating systems and office software. Any and/or all of my post(s) should be treated as suspect information without further verification.</tinfoilhat>

Re:If the source code is a driver...

[SanityInAnarchy]

Maybe if your instructions were more clear?

Well, if I'd italicized it, maybe. I chose quotes, because often "remove the quotes" is implied. If I did neither, you'd be wondering if the process of Googling the word "Ubuntu" would destroy your laptop. (Well, not really, but it makes for clumsy reading nonetheless.)

Disclaimer: I realize I am most likely taking this more seriously than you intended :P

On the other hand... It turns out that your kneejerk reaction may have been somewhat on-target. The issue described in the bug report in your second link (the "better description") seems to be a non-PEBKAC issue. Upon further research, I found this page

Hmm. You're right, I should have dug deeper. That page is exactly what I had in mind (and was preventing) when I first mentioned "Ubuntu destroys laptops".

On my own machine, it's worse -- Ubuntu detects my video card as having a slowdown temperature of 115 degrees celsius. I haven't been able to correct that, and the fan isn't spinning up nearly as often as I'd expect. It's nice and quiet, but I have to wonder if I'm overheating the thing every time I boot it.

I'll be honest, here, I was all set to blast back with the "truth" about the situation, and blame the BIOS/hard drive manufacturers (based on your second link), but after reading the actual bug reports, it seems like this is, at the very least, an Ubuntu-fixable issue.

Well, it is Ubuntu-fixable, but it is frustrating how this seems to be caused by manufacturers only testing for Windows. It's not that something is wrong with Linux, but rather, that Linux is not bug-for-bug compatible with Windows on all ACPI systems.

On the *other* other hand, it appears to only affects the machine if laptop mode is enabled and/or the machine can't determine if it's running on batteries, so I'm still going to use Ubuntu on my desktops. I just love it, it's so *shiny*.

Absolutely. And I'm still going to use it on my laptops, too.

Vista does it too! So there, nyaaah.

Which doesn't negate my point...

I'm right there with you, I'm installing the Linux I want (Kubuntu or ubuntu-server) on every device I own that can handle it. I was just trying to illustrate that simply having it boot and work fine is not proof that you have "working drivers" for everything (even if it's a conf setting somewhere), or even that it's safe to do.

Then again, it's not exactly the most expensive piece of hardware to destroy, if that does happen.

Re:If the source code is a driver...

[znerk]

On my own machine, it's worse -- Ubuntu detects my video card as having a slowdown temperature of 115 degrees celsius. I haven't been able to correct that, and the fan isn't spinning up nearly as often as I'd expect. It's nice and quiet, but I have to wonder if I'm overheating the thing every time I boot it.

I think Ubuntu killed my last mainboard, by pushing the hardware to its fullest potential, with no regard for the lack of cooling on the chipset. The northbridge had this little tiny fan/heatsink combo on it, but still got rather warm. I was doing an OS reinstall (due to general crankiness of the machine), and installed Ubuntu instead of Windows. Worked like a champ, but the chipset got extremely hot (hot enough to actually be painful to touch), and the board fried not too much later (a few weeks). Knowing that I was doing something that might have unintended consequences (installing linux on a known-flaky rig), I chalked it up to a lesson learned, and now have third-party coolers on the chipsets in my linux boxes (they do seem to run a bit warmer under Ubuntu than under Windows XP).

As for your video card... have you done any temperature testing? I'd check to see what the hardware's temperature is before obsessing over whether it's cooking it. Also, does it do the same thing under Windows?

I've found that I tend to get overly concerned about little things that may or may not be a problem... like thinking that my cpu fan was broken, until I realized that I had enabled the smart-fan item in the BIOS, and so the system was cheerfully keeping the cpu temp at an optimal level. Extremely high temperatures can be an issue, but I've found that keeping the temperature constant is more important than keeping it low (Google "chip creep" (you can keep the quotes ;) for more details, and think about the physics involved, then wonder if maybe the pci slots aren't the only things affected by it - bridges, for example, have expansion joints for exactly the same reason).

Re:If the source code is a driver...

[SanityInAnarchy]

have you done any temperature testing? I'd check to see what the hardware's temperature is before obsessing over whether it's cooking it. Also, does it do the same thing under Windows?

Without being entirely scientific, under Windows, there are various fan-spinups much more frequently, and for much shorter amounts of time.

Under Ubuntu, there's almost no fan activity, then loud, long bursts of flaming hot air coming out the side (compared to Windows). Also, when rebooting Windows, the first thing that happens is the BIOS turns the fan on FULL, and it stays that way until Windows is finally out of hibernate.

I've found that I tend to get overly concerned about little things that may or may not be a problem...

Oh, agreed. A full-time job means I'm more an Ubuntu user than developer now :(

But, what that means is, since it's not really my job to debug this issue, I just report it and move on with my life. It's a company laptop. Were it a personal laptop, I would not be having this issue, because I'd have picked one for Ubuntu, and not the other way around. If it dies, I'll hopefully have some influence over which one to get next.

Why do hardware vendors get a free pass?

[cooldev]

When it comes to "information must be free", why do hardware vendors get a free pass? With OSS taken to its logical conclusion, a hardware vendor who bundles their product with open source software should be forced to document and share the schematics for the circuit boards and chips, the molds for the case, and so on.

If "research and development" has no value with software, surely it shouldn't for hardware either. Any company in the US, or Mexico, or China must be able to exactly clone the eeePC and undercut Asus with their own product. Since building the clone would incur near-zero R&D cost the clone's vendor should almost always be able to undercut Asus, even if inferior quality parts aren't used (which is also an option). The resulting competition would reduce prices, so the consumer wins!

Obviously this is written tongue-in-cheek, but really, what is the difference besides the low barrier to entry in writing software?

Re:Why do hardware vendors get a free pass?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the difference is that the 2nd copy of software costs almost nothing to produce while the 2nd copy of hardware costs almost the same as the first (Ignoring NRE costs in both cases).

I don't think the OSS community realistically expects free (free beer) hardware. At they shouldn't. What they want is open documentation for hardware.

As I wrote the above, it dawns on me that monetary cost is a red-herring for the OSS debate, anyway. What it really is about is the hoarding of knowledge for profit.

Re:Why do hardware vendors get a free pass?

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

I think the low barrier of entry is the biggest point.
With software that does almost what I want but not quiet, its easy to write a small patch to change it. I've done this several times and I still wouldn't say I even know C, but it's just that trivial to add some gethostbyaddr() calls to make a network monitoring tool spit out hostnames instead of ip adresses for example.

Not having the source is a huge change because then it becomes much harder, you're talking disassembling, patching the binary and hoping for the best, and arguably becoming illegal especially if you wanted to distribute your work. Huge change.

With open hardware, I really wouldn't be able to do much with it. I'd love it if my Scientific Atlanta DVR had wifi so I could feed it tv rips/share what it records. If I had the full open schematics for it, I'd.. not have a clue what to do and not want to risk breaking it all with trial and error fixes the way you can with software. No real difference than how it is now.

Re:Why do hardware vendors get a free pass?

[cooldev]

To be fair, my post was primarily addressing the "information should be free" crowd, particularly those who think that OSS is the only way to go and proprietary software is somehow evil. (These people also seem to be content stealing* movies and music). This isn't the same as the OSS community, although anecdotally there seems to be a lot of overlap.

So, would you be happy with a License to Tinker that doesn't allow an arbitrary company to legally take advantage of the R&D efforts of the people who created the product (software and/or hardware), but would still keep it fully open for your tinkering?

This wouldn't necessarily replace OSS software; there's nothing wrong with people deciding to release their work under the GPL or any other license. However, it does concern me when people think that all software MUST be released under such a license because this allows other companies to get a free ride (as in my Asus example) and profit off the original creators work. This also implies that the R&D process has no value, but the manufacturing process somehow does. I believe the net effect would be to discourage the creation process, leading to stagnation and exclusively promoting annoying business models such as ad-driven software.

* - The pedant who mentions that copyright violation is not a criminal act is an example of said person. :-)

Xandros

[foldingstock]

More then likely the fault lies with Xandros. In any case, the product is still relatively new, give them time to get everything sorted. I'm not trying to sound negative, but I do find it funny that for the past few years (decades, even) linux fanboys have been crying for a mainstream release of linux for the "average" person. When they get what they wanted, they immediately find fault with it. Don't get me wrong, I'm an avid *nix user myself, I just found it humorous. I hope they don't get sued anytime soon, I was looking forward to picking up one of these after Christmas.

Letters are fair enough..

[Anonymous Coward]

"Slashdot lives on hyperbole, misstatements, wild speculation and wrong information. "

Notice that slashdot brings up the spirit of the GPL but uses the letter when discussing piracy and stealing.

No Down Side

[Hercules Peanut]

Fortunately, selective enforcement of the law has never had any serious drawbacks.

only hurting yourself

[timmarhy]

GPL advocates realise that but going on the attack like this only hurts them in the long run, right? i mean what company is going to touch gpl'd software with a 10 foot pole if they risk the attention of these rabid dogs.

Re:only hurting yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

i mean what company is going to touch proprietary software with a 10 foot pole if they risk the attention of these rabid dogs:

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/11/26/0620255.shtml

trying

[sacrilicious]

Stalwarts Claim Asus eeePC Violates GPL

There's a joke in here about Richard Stalwarts, but I can't quite figure it out...

"not included required source code"

[nurb432]

Since when do you have to include it? I thought you only had to make it available 'at cost', but i don't remember seeing anything that requires you to ship it with the binaries.

I don't care if people like it.

[Allnighterking]

Likeing something doesn't justify violation of the law. A lot of people are fans of dog fighting and football. Didn't keep one the games best out of a ton of trouble did it? IE was the #1 browser when the were taken to the mat for patent violations. Popularity wasn't even a factor in that decision.
The GPL is clear, case law supports it. Asus isn't exempt by virtue of country of origin either, as the GPL has been upheld in courts around the world. Xandros has always treaded the edge of the rules, occasionally needing a reminder of who owns the code.
Unfortunately this is normal. As much as I love my n800/770 I do remember that early on Nokia needed a very firm reminder (more so than they may admit) that they had to release kernel source of the actual kernel not just the source they started from.
Once they (Asus) fall in line, the community can then get behind them and make that rock really roll!

Re:I don't care if people like it.

[walter_f]

As much as I love my n800/770 I do remember that early on Nokia needed a very firm reminder (more so than they may admit) that they had to release kernel source of the actual kernel not just the source they started from.
Once they (Asus) fall in line, the community can then get behind them and make that rock really roll!

That's the way the gpl-violations.org people usually work:

http://www.gpl-violations.org/

They have approached companies like D-Link, Edimax, Gigabyte, Longshine, Sitecom for alleged GPL infringements. Most cases have been finally settled out of court.

Main target is to educate these companies, to explain them what GPL means, eventually to show them how easy it is to be a good citizen of the community world, in order to let them find out by themselves later how rewarding it might turn out to be as well.

The community world is a culture different from the company world and culture, and very much so.

Re:I don't care if people like it.

[Allnighterking]

My only diff is that first I like to try to motivate from within. 99.99% of the time simple education does work. Some may not think that advocation of adherence to law is a trollable offense. I disagree. But yes. Pushing them back from the edge works best as an encouraging thing.

Not sure where the problem is...

[Anonymous Coward]

... because here's a link to the source code:

http://support.asus.com/download/download.aspx?SLanguage=en-us&model=Eee%20PC%204G(701)

Huh?

[The Ape With No Name]

My eee runs OS X.

Aren't they jumping the gun?

[kimvette]

Maybe I missed it in TFA but where did they:

1. Actually expand the .deb packages rather than make assumptions based on the filenames?
2. Did they actually contact support to inform them of the apparent discrepency between the support download and what is shipped?
3. What was their response to the support request?
4. Is there any written offer (or a dialog box) shipped with the PC informing customers of their rights as prescribed by the GPL?
5. Did they contact Asus requesting the source code? If so what was Asus' response to the request for source?

Re:Aren't they jumping the gun?

[Cheeze]

so many questions....

Stalwarts

[MrCopilot]

StallWarts

Isn't that Richard's new Wizard College?

Re:Violation? Really?

[imr]

But if those same guys are Linux OSF zealots then beware if you're closely touching or perhaps violating the GPL or any other open source license they favor. Because then everything is different and you should be made to comply no matter what. Why don't we leave these things as they are as well and only start making noise when someone actually complaints about it for reasons other than "Whaaa, you violated ...

I disagree with you there.
ACPI is a very precise and sensitive issue. So the workding of the news is misleading and yes, no flamfest is needed, but clarification around this issue is important.
If you have been through a few installations of linux on different laptops, you will know what I mean. Just do 3 install parties and you should begin to understand the problems in this area, and you should see that some laptops behave well and some behave strangely, you will start to be wary of certain brands and after a while and some documentation, you will learn that there is a spec, an intel compiler, a microsoft compiler, and that strangely the microsoft one is crappy to the point that some BIOSes are crappy because of it and not the other way around, and that some OSes have difficulties because of that situation.
Here is some doc:
http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Fix_Common_ACPI_Problems
Here is some related info from a broken legal system that can't manage its misbehaving trusts anymore:
http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03020.pdf

Even in terms of support to asus, it might be important. If this is just a temporary problem, then asus might come out as a reliable source of linux compatible laptops with working ACPI. Or not. Right now, there are more and more laptops working for linux out of the box and it's a no brainer to find one, but we have to stay alert so that the situation continues to improve.

What the hell is this weak argument?

[Anonymous Coward]

Misunderstanding my eye. More like double standard.

It's not breaking the rule if nobody asks

[dbIII]

Has anybody asked them for the source yet? Remember it's about supplying the source code on request, not about putting it somewhere obvious immediately (which is the usual case now), or sending the modifications back to the maintainer of the parent software (which is often done becuase it is polite).

IMHO this is a case of some fanatic getting upset at people that merely don't have their stuff together enough to put an obvious link on their website yet. If there was any record of correspondance before making an accusation it would be a different story.

Mod parent funny, an obvious joke?

[John Jamieson]

I think this has to be a joke(otherwise a troll), it would take this PC about five minutes and another 8 gigs of flash to boot the real version of Vista.

I'm glad I heard this before buying!

[Glomek]

I had been looking at an eeePC, and I'm goad that I heard about this before plunking down any money. I am no longer considering any ASUS products.

Re:I'm glad I heard this before buying!

[tomandlu]

Yes, because it's quite clear that what ASUS did is truely evil and without any possible excuse. Those bastards - they sell a nice linux-laptop for kids and then ruin it all by forgetting to include the full source. Possibly. Not sure. Maybe they did.

Evil, I tell you, evil.

I've even ordered one of these for my kids - they're going to be heartbroken when I have to tell them about the missing source for asus_acpi. They were really looking forward to that.

Oh, wait. It's fine. I've got a sense of perspective. Phew!

Re:I'm glad I heard this before buying!

[Glomek]

Yes, because it's quite clear that what ASUS did is truely evil and without any possible excuse.

Your general tone seems to be sarcastic, which seems to imply that you believe there are possible excuses. Assuming that I understand you correctly (and I may not), what do you consider to be acceptable excuses for violating the GPL and removing copyright/license notices?

Re:I'm glad I heard this before buying!

[tomandlu]

You understand correctly. As for excuses (assuming they've actually done anything "wrong", which doesn't seem to be completely certain), in order of significance:

1. It was a mistake or oversight, and will be rectified
2. Killing the eee over this would do greater damage to the cause of free software (and linux) than ignoring a minor transgression

Now, the last is a slight strawman arguement - well, I'd like to think so, but the reaction of some on these boards makes me wonder. I can't help thinking that what ought to be happening is that the FSF or similiar ought to be contacting ASUS, congratulating them on the eee, gently pointing out the issues, and offering to help resolve the problems. Instead, we seem to be acting out a scene from Life of Brian.

Re:I'm glad I heard this before buying!

[Glomek]

1. It was a mistake or oversight, and will be rectified

I hope that is the case, but I doubt it. I have trouble imagining how someone could accidentally delete the copyright/license notice.

2. Killing the eee over this would do greater damage to the cause of free software (and linux) than ignoring a minor transgression

That depends. If the community accepts GPL violations, they will continue and become more egregious. That seems like a very serious threat to the essence of Free Software.

And to me, a GPL violation in the kernel seems worse than one at the application level, because the freedom of the whole system relies on the freedom of the kernel. If they violated the GPL at the application level, we could always just toss what they deliver and install another distribution, but by doing it at the kernel level, they have created a vendor lock in situation. Use their OS, or the hardware is not fully functional.

Yes, it may be possible to make their binary driver work with some other kernel or distribution, but there is no guarantee, especially long term. The only way that I can know my hardware will still be fully functional with whatever version of Linux is out in 5 years is if we have the full source code for all of the drivers.

linux-self.footshoot()

[(Score.5, Interestin]

Why Linux on the desktop will never happen, reason #137: The instant some vendor ships a nice, cheap, Linux-based desktop PC, a zillion Linux fanboys will descend on them complaining that they've violated some usage condition so obscure that it takes a hundred-message thread just to explain it.

Here is the source code

[EEPROMS]

The source code for the EEE is available here. You will need some grasp of Chinese but I dare say the zip files are pretty obvious to anyone.

ADS Tech's NAS Drive Kit

[Tekoneiric]

Is ADS GPL compliant with their Linux based NAS Drive Kit? I've searched their site and they don't have the source on it anywhere.

No drivers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or use BSD.

If you used BSD, then you'd probably have to write some device drivers yourself, because BSD's driver coverage isn't anywhere near as extensive as Linux's.

Windows would be worse, even if MS gave it away for free initially: the overhead of complying with Microsoft's licensing terms would cost more than writing a few device drivers for BSD.

The overhead of using BSD or Windows would be death to a vendor of rock-bottom priced hardware. So there really is no alternative to Linux.

Re:No drivers.

[ducomputergeek]

You haven't used FreeBSD recently have you? Again, if you are running the most bleeding edge video card and wanting to play video games....well you aren't probably looking at *iux anyway.

When you are developing an specialized distro to work with a specialized set of hardware, then it's not as hard as you might think. I've done some custom driver writing for an embedded hardware maker that started offering some of their networking equipment with OpenBSD. Soon Linux was out of the shop and all their hardware now ships with *BSD based systems.

I think it took me a grand total of about 3 weeks to write the needed drivers for OpenBSD at the grand total cost of about US$6,500 to them including some optimizations and customizations they were wanting.

Re:No drivers.

[Anonymous Coward]

I notice that you don't dispute the fact that Linux's driver coverage is vastly better than any BSD's. It can be easy to write device drivers for Linux and BSD (the complexity of the driver largely depends on the device, not the OS), but it's even easier and cheaper not to write any. Linux wins big.

Anyone ever notice...

[petrus4]

...how these are always violations of the "spirit" rather than the letter of the GPL? ;)

"Well, you're making source available, but...but...you're not a member of the cult, and you don't believe that RMS should be worshipped as God! DIE!"

or maybe.

[LWATCDR]

They complete rewrote the module but kept the name. Maybe it doesn't contain any GPL code?
I don't know if it does or not but it would see that there is a lot of I don't know going on here.

ASUS has now "supplied the source for Asus_ACPI"

[ctid]

There is a report on engadget that ASUS has uploaded some source code for the Asus_ACPI module.