Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Visit http://www.crunzh.com/ for free software. Mac/Lin/Win
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.
My blog
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.
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.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
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.
BTW the Asus Eee PC is a great little machine although like most Linux dists the UI is a little rough around the edges.
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.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
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....
Which doesn't matter one bit.
What matters is if the person(s) who's software they used cares.
Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
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):
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
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.
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.
HPC for Primates. Read Cluster Monkey
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.
From TFA:
.debs (not even the versions that ship on the machine) and some kernel headers."
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
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)
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.
Tough cookies. If you can't handle the terms of the GPL, then write your own goddamn OS.
http://outcampaign.org/
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.
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
There is an outstanding difference between stolen code and a stolen physical object. You cannot compare.
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.
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:
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.