Asus Corrects Eee PC Source Code Issue

ozmanjusri writes "Asus has corrected the availability of source code for its Eee PC, and reaffirmed its commitment to meeting the requirements of open source licenses, including the GPL. They also announced the upcoming release of a new SDK to assist the Open Source community development on the Eee PC."

Comments

What's With the Name?

[Apple Acolyte]

EEE? Triple E PC? What's with the name (i.e. what does it signify)?

Re:What's With the Name?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why was parent modded troll? Its a perfectly legitimate question.

Re:What's With the Name?

[norminator]

I believe it's from "Easy to Learn, Easy to Work, Easy to Play".

It may also be three different 'E' words, though, but I forgot what those are, if that is the case... Initially, I think it was part of the marketing to explain what the EEE stood for, but maybe that's fallen by the wayside now.

Re:What's With the Name?

[skoaldipper]

I think originally it was just ePC? But they wanted their yellow book entry before eMAC? Honestly. I'd like to know too.

Re:What's With the Name?

[Entropius]

Asus has a history of making good stuff (I'm typing on an Asus laptop at the moment) but with occasionally wacky names and marketing phrases.

Re:What's With the Name?

[0xygen]

Seconded, I just got an Asus P5KC motherboard, and on the box and boot screen it says "Rock Solid. Heart touching"!

Re:What's With the Name?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's changed because when I first heard about it the name stood for something, then I *think* it was something different and the guy interviewed said it was also inspired by the named Wii.

Re:What's With the Name?

[Entropius]

My laptop's box says that too.

Re:What's With the Name?

[Bert64]

I have a motherboard that boots with a message saying:
"CoreCell extreme chip you've ever needed"
Tho i think it was MSI rather than Asus, it's still a rather weird phrase.

Re:What's With the Name?

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent down for f_cks sake.

Re:What's With the Name?

[bigblackcar]

It means Expand, Extend, Extinguish, obviously.

Re:What's With the Name?

[CheShACat]

I saw it as
EEEPC
EE E PC
2 Es, E, PC. Es E PC
Easy Peasy..?

Re:What's With the Name?

[Anonymous Coward]

its just the "E" pc

Better late than never

[RandoX]

"The code released by Asus brings the company into compliance with its obligations under the GPL and should satisfy most of the critics."

And those critics that aren't satisfied by that will all be regulars here at /.

They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[hacker]

I see this quite a lot... companies admitting their guilt, and then releasing "cleaned up" source code that complies with the license(s) in question.

The problem is that "cleaned-up" source code creates a different set of binaries, for which source code must also be released.

They need to release the SAME source code that was used to create the binaries which they've already released and distributed, not just "cleaned-up" code, which generates different binaries.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[iamacat]

Guess what? Courts usually allow companies to correct simple, honest mistakes without suffering disproportionate penalties that would ruin their business. A company may not be even in a position to release the source code as it may be owned by a third party. Releasing newly written code with equivalent functionality or even rewriting GPL code and keeping the product closed source is considered enough to cure a license violation.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[wizardforce]

you didn't actually read the article did you? no where does it say anything implying that the source code was "cleaned up" in this case to avoid complying with the GPL. Secondly, had they done so as you point out the binaries would not be the same, surely someone would have noticed.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[TheLinuxSRC]

Wow. I have mod points, but there is no "-1 where the hell did that come from" option. I do not disagree with your first sentence, but the remainder of your post is completely and utterly wrong, at least in how it pertains to Asus and this discussion.

"A company may not be even in a position to release the source code as it may be owned by a third party." Fair enough, but this article is about a company distributing a GNU/Linux system with a modified kernel module that is GPL'd. There is no third party involved and even if there were, there is no way that Asus could both legally distribute their version of GNU/Linux in binary format (installed on the device) and simultaneously *not* release the modified source code; regardless of said third party's standing on distribution of the code. This is GPL 101 type stuff. Check it out.

"Releasing newly written code with equivalent functionality or even rewriting GPL code and keeping the product closed source is considered enough to cure a license violation." That is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. How about you come up with some citations for that asinine bit of trash? I feel dumber for having read that.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[norminator]

For a product that hasn't been out that long, I would think that as long as it matches the binaries they send out from this point on would suffice. I mean, maybe someone could go after them for what was previously released, but why bother?

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[Kjella]

They need to release the SAME source code that was used to create the binaries which they've already released and distributed, not just "cleaned-up" code, which generates different binaries. No, they don't. First of all, unless someone sues they won't need to do anything at all and even if someone did, they'd never be forced to release code but they might have to pay damages. Nor would releasing source free them from those damages. Legally it has no weight in one direction or the other. It's an olive branch, a token of good faith, a "settlement offer" - if I release this, are we cool? To which you can of course say "Not good enough" if you're legally entitled to sue. And quite frankly, unless they removed 99% of the secret source I think most would be happy with "umm we're not usre about the exact source version, but here's the complete source for our latest build with all enhancements and bug fixes we've done since". Anything else is a witchhunt in best RIAA-style.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[Draek]

Releasing newly written code with equivalent functionality or even rewriting GPL code and keeping the product closed source is considered enough to cure a license violation.

care to cite any sources for that? because unless the binary resulting from compiling the rewritten source-code is exactly the same as the one being distributed in the first place, I don't think it'd satisfy the GPL's definition of "the product's source code".

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you come up with some citations for that asinine bit of trash?

It's because it's true. Duh.

In order to come into compliance, one thing you can do is stop shipping the product. You are then in compliance again.

Then, you re-write the pieces that were causing the problem, and you start shipping the product again with the newly re-written pieces.

Now, if you happen to be able to re-write those pieces so that you can stop/start shipping on the same day, well, that's ok too, you are still in compliance.

Read the license - it's in there.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[Chandon Seldon]

Releasing newly written code with equivalent functionality or even rewriting GPL code and keeping the product closed source is considered enough to cure a license violation.

Considered enough by who? GPL-violators hoping to get away with it, but happy to comply with the license as "punishment" if they get caught?

Sure, in practice copyright holders are frequently nice and decline to sue if the violator quickly comes into compliance. But there's no guarantee of that - if any copyright holder in a GPLed work ever decided not to be nice and sued the violator would almost assuredly have to A.) recall the product containing the GPLed code B.) pay damages for every copy distributed C.) never distribute that open source program for anything again because their license was revoked. That's for any violation at all, even distributing one copy without the the source code or a written offer to provide it included.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[hacker]

It's because it's true. Duh.

Not quite, see below.

In order to come into compliance, one thing you can do is stop shipping the product. You are then in compliance again.

And you are still in violation of the license. How do you handle the penalties for your existing violation?

Then, you re-write the pieces that were causing the problem, and you start shipping the product again with the newly re-written pieces.

And you still have not released the source that is mated to the version you've already shipped. Where is the source that goes with version 1.0? If you release version 2.0 with "cleaned-up" source code, you are still required to release sources for version 1.0, as well as atone for your prior violation with that version. Just because you complied at version v2.0 doesn't mean your violation with v1.0 goes away.

Sony tried this game with their version of the POSE FLOSS project. They would release v1.0 in binary, then release 2.0 binaries, with v1.0 source code, and so on. Always keeping the source 1 release behind. They were in direct violation of the letter and spirit of the GPL license.

Now, if you happen to be able to re-write those pieces so that you can stop/start shipping on the same day, well, that's ok too, you are still in compliance.

You are assumed to be in compliance with the GPL for version 2.0 of your product, but you are still in violation of version 1.0 of your product. What do you do for all of the units already out in the hands of consumers?

Each unit is now subject to US Copyright violation penalties, which vary from $20k to $200k per-unit (look it up). If you shipped 1,000 units, that's a $20M penalty at the low end of that scale.

Read the license - it's in there.

It sure is, and you've misinterpreted it very nicely.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[2short]

"Considered enough by who?"

The Judge hearing your lawsuit. The point is if you appear to have made a reasonable mistake, and make a reasonable attempt to remedy it promptly, a reasonable judge is not going to impose any sort of unreasonable penalties. Whether the rights holder wants to be nice or not, a minor infraction doesn't mean they can burn the infringer's business down.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kindly shut up. Out of interest, how much Open Source code have you written and released? Because it strikes me that the vast majority of shrill whiners that have whinged and moaned, aren't actually the people who have any sort of stake in this, other than their self-declared "support" for Open Source. As an Open Source author, I could do without your "support", thanks.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[iamacat]

Just consider some other cases covered by slashdot, such as:

1. Microsoft modifying Internet Explorer to work around Eolas patent rather than paying up
2. RIM modifying Blackberry to work around push e-mail patent
3. Linux community removing a small amount of code claimed by SCO as infringing and customers not being found liable for past violations
4. Apple renaming Rendevoiz to Bonjour to avoid a trademark violation
5. Ditto Apple Music Store -> iTunes Music store to avoid a clash with Apple Records
6. Ditto Lindows being renamed to Linsprire

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[TheLinuxSRC]

I am not sure of the point you are trying to make. None of the examples you give are GPL violations.

1. Microsoft violated Eolas' patent. Microsoft has no obligation to release source code for IE as they own the copyright to that source code.
2. See above.
3. Please give me an example of SCO code that is illegally included in Linux. The SCO group never could.
4. Trademark != copyright.
5. The Apple Music store thing was a private contract between Apple records and Apple computer.
6. Lindows was renamed due to a trademark violation. Refer to #4 above.

None of your examples have anything to do with the GPL or even copyright.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[greedyturtle]

They might also be forced to cease distribution of any product that still used the code in question.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you haven't looked at the OP's urls in his sig and his post. A quick google reveals that he's involved in a pretty large handful of other OSS projects.

You're the troll, kindly leave.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[Haeleth]

"Releasing newly written code with equivalent functionality or even rewriting GPL code and keeping the product closed source is considered enough to cure a license violation." That is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. How about you come up with some citations for that asinine bit of trash? I feel dumber for having read that.

Insulting people does not make you sound more authoritative. If you can't be polite, perhaps you should refrain from posting at all.

As it happens he is slightly incorrect, but his basic point -- that it is possible to resolve a GPL violation without releasing code -- is valid.

The situation is that a GPL violation is like any other copyright violation. It can be resolved in two ways: either the violator can obtain a license from the copyright holder, or the violator must cease and desist the violation and pay damages. In the case of GPL violations, what typically happens is that the copyright holder says "comply with the GPL and you will have a license to use this code", so the violator complies with the GPL and everyone's happy. But it is entirely plausible that a violation could be resolved by the violator withdrawing the product or rewriting code to remove the infringing sections. The only slight flaw in the GP's statement is that this in itself would not necessarily be the end of the story, because the copyright holders could still demand monetary damages to compensate them for the violation.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[cheater512]

Its nice to hear some GPL sense on Slashdot for once.

Companies still irritate the hell out of me with GPL code.
They always make their product and release the source as a after thought.
So they are all violating for a period of time.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[AusIV]

6. Lindows was renamed due to a trademark violation. Refer to #4 above.

That's not really accurate. Microsoft brought a suit against Lindows for trademark violation. After several court decisions made it look like they might lose their claim on the Windows trademark (because it was too generic), Microsoft bought the Lindows trademark from the company that is now Linspire for $24 Million.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[iamacat]

Are you saying that Copyright somehow has more privileged status than patents or trademarks and courts forgive minor infractions for the later two but not the former?

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[Half-pint HAL]

No, he's saying that patents and trademarks are different items and covered by different laws.

Compare theft and assault. Both are equally illegal, but the crimes are different so the laws -- hence also the punishments -- are different.

HAL.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[orasio]

Are you saying that Copyright somehow has more privileged status than patents or trademarks and courts forgive minor infractions for the later two but not the former? No. He said that copyright is a different beast.

Trademarks, patents and copyright don't have may things in common, aside from the fact that they don't have a physical existence.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[Chandon Seldon]

The judge isn't simply going to ignore copyright infringement because the penalties might damage the offender's business.

If the copyright holder isn't willing to settle, the absolute best case the infringer can expect is an injunction against distributing any further copies of the defendant's code and some minor financial penalty. The problem is that injunction - depending on what the product is and how important it is to the infringer's business, it very well may be equivalent to "burning the infringer's business down".

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[iamacat]

And yet courts have been known to impose no or minimal penalties for patent infringement (if accidental and quickly corrected), trademark infringement (ditto), theft (if getting essential food and medicine in a disaster zone) and assault (if the defendant had reasons to believe that the victim posed an immediate physical threat). Why are you so sure that an accidental, small in scope and promptly corrected copyright violation will not be handled in a similar manner?

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[mollymoo]

Each unit is now subject to US Copyright violation penalties, which vary from $20k to $200k per-unit (look it up).

IANAL, but I suspect it's per violation, not per unit. Each unit contains code from many projects. Not providing the source for the Linux kernel they used would be one violation. Not providing the source for the Busybox they used would be another and so on and so on. [I don't know exactly what they actually used, they're just examples]

Incidentally, according to the GPL it doesn't matter if they modified the source or not, they have to provide the source they used to anyone to whom they provided the binary.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[JohnBailey]

I see this quite a lot... companies admitting their guilt, and then releasing "cleaned up" source code that complies with the license(s) in question. And without long drawn out court cases. In this case, unless proven otherwise, ASUS have not done anything terrible. They didn't release the code initially, but they did when asked. End of story. Its possible some over zealous person in the legal department decided that they might give away ASUS secrets, or it could be a simple oversight. Who knows. Linux working with more standard business models with the usual NDAs and complicated licenses for every little thing are new territory. Just as Dell had a few hiccups with sales people not knowing about the Linux computers, or not offering the extended service agreement. Both of which were solved once it got up high enough in the food chain.

It doesn't really benefit ASUS if someone can't use their chosen distro instead of the Xandros one the Eee comes with, and it doesn't even do anything for Xandros, as they have already been paid for the work they have done. Nobody gains from the source being kept secret, and everybody gains from it being opened.

The problem is that "cleaned-up" source code creates a different set of binaries, for which source code must also be released.

They need to release the SAME source code that was used to create the binaries which they've already released and distributed, not just "cleaned-up" code, which generates different binaries. Just checked the article again, and I couldn't find anything about them releasing cleaned up code, just that they opened up the missing archives with the code in question for the ASUS module and Busy box. Looks like ASUS have complied with the license and are doing nothing wrong.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[Karzz1]

"Insulting people does not make you sound more authoritative. If you can't be polite, perhaps you should refrain from posting at all." - Point taken.

In my own defense, when I posted I was sure the original poster was trolling, but in retrospect I am not entirely sure. I parsed "...rewriting GPL code and keeping the product closed source is considered enough to cure a license violation." to mean "obfuscating the GPL'd code and keeping the product closed source..." and thought for sure that is no mistake. After re-reading the post several times, I can only conclude that the posters statement is very difficult to parse and could mean one of several things.

What I kept coming back to was this section, "...and keeping the product closed source is considered enough to cure a license violation.". I think you put it better than I that this could possibly solve future violations, but does nothing for past violations.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[ScrewMaster]

They always make their product and release the source as a after thought.

Usually they wait until they get caught flatfooted, make a flurry of "oh, sorry, sorry, we didn't know" or "it was an honest mistake" or "some programmer we hired did it". What's odd is how they keep believing that they can do this and nobody will notice. If a device uses GPLed software, somebody will notice, and post that information for the world to see.

What irks me even more is when their attempts at coming into compliance are either half-hearted or simply not.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[Zarniwoot]

And yet courts have been known to impose no or minimal penalties for patent infringement (if accidental and quickly corrected)
If the error was corrected (i.e. the GPL was honored) then what is the point of this discussion? If you need to force someone to release GPL code it would have been an uncorrected violation.

Zarniwoot

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[Kristoph]

No 'default' penalties exist for a license violation, unless specified as part of the license. The licensor would need to inform the licensee of a violation then if the licensee ignored the licensor, the licensor could revoke the license and only then could they sue for breach of contract or (less likely) a copyright violation. If the licensee specifically replied and said they did not accept that a license violation occurred the licensor would need to sue and prove a violation occured. In theory one could ask for some sort of remedies during the period where a license violation occurred but if the breach was cured quickly such that you (the licensor) suffered no monetary damage you would be hard pressed to actually win any sort of award if you sued.

The penalties you cite only apply for a willfull violation of copyright which would never apply to a GPL case because the issues are so complex that you would virtually need a letter from the offending party telling you they are fully aware of their requirement are choosing to ignore them.

IANAL ]{

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[Half-pint HAL]

Why are you so sure that an accidental, small in scope and promptly corrected copyright violation will not be handled in a similar manner?

Because you cannot accidentally download and use someone else's source code, whereas you might accidentally create a company name or logo that is similar or identical to one of your competitors'. Asus did acidentally fail to upload the modified source code to their site, as has been pointed out innumerable times on this thread, they did not break the license because they made it available in a reasonable time after receiving a request to do so. Had they not done, only then would they have been in breach of the license, and hence copyright.

Asus's accident did not break any copyright. No harm, no foul.

HAL.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[2short]

The quote under discussion:

"Releasing newly written code with equivalent functionality or even rewriting GPL code and keeping the product closed source..."

So the injunction is dealt with. There may be a minor financial penalty. The Judge will not do something that is the equivalent to burning the business down for infringement that does not reasonably justify that.

Someone briefly infringed a copyright, it appears to have been an honest mistake, and the infringement is no longer happening. If the copyright holder wants to push it they can probably get a minor financial penalty. That's all.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[iamacat]

If you were correct, nobody would start a software business in United States. Just have a single GPL sympathizer hired into Microsoft and you can get the whole Windows Vista open sourced because of a single infringing printer driver! Conversely, Microsoft can beat this by having someone "contribute" their code into Linux kernel and claiming the whole thing to be their property!

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[iamacat]

Ok, I am off to post some GPL projects, minus copyright banners, as an MSDN samples and also contribute Microsoft shared source into Linux kernel. Let's watch the hilarity that ensues.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[Chandon Seldon]

As long as the infringer corrects the infringement by ceasing to distribute *any* piece of the GPL covered software, you're right. But once the GPL is violated, the violator no longer has a license to distribute that code unless the copyright holder explicitly gives them one - so merely releasing source for some stuff later isn't going to help at all. If the infringer's product relies on the GPLed code at all, the infringer is basically screwed unless the copyright holder decides to be nice about it.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[sepreece]

(a) To begin with, there's no requirement in the license to "release" the code. They just have to offer to provide a physical copy of the code. In fact, just having a site to download it from does not technically satisfy the license. Nor is there any timeliness requirement in the license - they have to provide a copy on request, but any business-like response would satisfy the requirement (think how long it takes to satisfy rebate requests). [I believe that in this case such a request actually was made - my point is just that the website contents are irrelevant under the license terms.]

(b) Second, courts have held that damages cannot be recovered unless the material is registered. My guess is that nobody is paying registration fees on each release of Linux, but that's just my guess and it would be interesting to know if some in fact is registering them. This principle was upheld most recently yesterday, when an appeals court threw out a settlement because in the absence of registration there was no jurisdiction.

(c) Again, under the terms of the license, any violation leads to loss of right to distribute. That can only be restored by the permission of the copyright holders. However, the points in (a) suggest that any eventual provision of the source to all the people who had requested it would mean that no infringement had ever occurred.

Note that I'm not arguing that it's a good thing to push the limits of the letter of the license. I think it's unfortunate that GPLv2 didn't allow net-distribution as an alternative and that it didn't specify timeliness requirements. I wish that GPLv3 had fixed those issues (it makes some progress on net distribution) and not gone off into adding other restrictions.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[2short]

"But once the GPL is violated, the violator no longer has a license to distribute that code unless the copyright holder explicitly gives them one - so merely releasing source for some stuff later isn't going to help at all."

This is incorrect. Once the infringer stops violating the GPL, they can grab again a copy of the code and redistribute it under the terms of the GPL, just like anyone else. Permission from the copyright holder would only be required to continue distribution without fixing the violation.

Assus has fixed the violation. Even if they wanted to be mean about it, holders of briefly violated copyrights have no significant leverage here.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[Chandon Seldon]

This is incorrect. Once the infringer stops violating the GPL, they can grab again a copy of the code and redistribute it under the terms of the GPL, just like anyone else. Permission from the copyright holder would only be required to continue distribution without fixing the violation.

Is that your legal opinion as a copyright lawyer?

The lawyers who wrote the GPLv3 seemed to think that the GPLv2 acts exactly as I described it - otherwise they wouldn't have needed to add extra text to give you your license back if you fix the violation before the copyright holder notices in GPLv3.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[sepreece]

Like many other things, nobody knows for sure. "The lawyers who wrote the GPLv3" are paid to have a particular point of view and have limited value as authorities. They're certainly right that GPLv2 says nothing explicit about how rights are restored after a non-conforming act terminates them.

The language in this part of GPLv2 is somewhat ambiguous - it's not clear whether non-conforming distribution means you lose the right to distribute any GPLed software ("under this license") or only this particular software for which it was violated ("under this license" means the license from this copyright holder for this software). There's nothing that makes it clear whether a subsequent, conforming distribution would be allowed by the license or not. I suspect a court would read it fairly narrowly (remembering that the license is from a particular copyright holder, not from all authors of GPLed software).

Also, beyond that question, is the question of what a court would do with damages. Generally, speaking, damages have to be proven in court. I don't think anyone has a good idea what a court would do with damages stemming from non-conforming distribution of a piece of code that the author allows to be used without charge. Courts really don't like messing with non-substantive questions. My own guess is that a court would go along with an injunction but be reluctant to assess damages (and probably would quash the injunction upon being shown that the defendant was in compliance), but (a) IANAL and (b) judges sometimes do the unexpected.

Note also my previous comment about the difficulty of pursuing damages if the software is not registered with the Copyright registrar.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[Chandon Seldon]

Distributing a GPLed work in violation of the license is a copyright violation (at least if the termination clause works at all). All you have to do to get an idea of what the expected damages should be for copyright violations is to look at recent RIAA court cases - Judges aren't "reluctant to access damages", they take your house away for distributing a single small copyrighted work with zero people.

Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right?

[2short]

So by your theory: If someone put a modified Linux kernel up for download, but didn't get the source up until five seconds later, they are permanently forbidden from ever distributing Linux forever.
Yes, that makes sense I'm sure.

ASUS: Brilliant Marketing Strategy

[multipartmixed]

1. Release geek-oriented product nobody's ever heard of
2. Make it very obvious it's based on GNU/Linux
3. "Accidentally" screw up the GPL code release
4. Wait for Slashdot Story
5. Fix GPL code release
6. Trigger Slashdot follow-up story
5. Free advertising sells lots of product
6. Profit!

Re:ASUS: Brilliant Marketing Strategy

[slyn]

123456....56

wjat?

Re:ASUS: Brilliant Marketing Strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Release geek-oriented product nobody's ever heard of

The "troll" above is correct, this is a very heavily marketed product that is well known and has been sold out in many locations in Asia.

Re:ASUS: Brilliant Marketing Strategy

[Dancindan84]

1. Release geek-oriented product nobody's ever heard of
2. Make it very obvious it's based on GNU/Linux
3. "Accidentally" screw up the GPL code release
4. Wait for Slashdot Story
5. Fix GPL code release
6. Trigger Slashdot follow-up story
5. Free advertising sells lots of product
3. ????
6. Profit! Fixed

Re:ASUS: Brilliant Marketing Strategy

[TeknoHog]

wjat?

qgzy?

Re:ASUS: Brilliant Marketing Strategy

[dfn_deux]

Seems like a common series of integers to me...

Re:ASUS: Brilliant Marketing Strategy

[renegadesx]

123456....56

whatat?

Fixed

Re:ASUS: Brilliant Marketing Strategy

[slyn]

The J is silent.

Re:ASUS: Brilliant Marketing Strategy

[SagSaw]

1. Release geek-oriented product nobody's ever heard of

I don't think that geeks are Asus' target market on this one. From what I've seen, their goal was to produce an sub-laptop with the best possible ratio of out-of-the-box capabilities to cost. What resulted is, IMHO, somewhere between the capabilities of a smart-phone (minus the cell phone, of course) and a note-book. I think they expect to be able to sell this to populations that might not otherwise be able to afford a computer (think OLPC, but less philanthropic), or who might not currently have their own computer (think of schools outfitting every classroom with a set, for example, or parents buying one for their school-aged child).

2. Make it very obvious it's based on GNU/Linux

I think this was mainly for cost reasons. The OS itself is free (not counting anything Asus might have paid Xandros for development work), and massive amounts of software are freely available. I suspect that license costs, hardware requirements, and cost/headache-factor of distributing a similar suite of applications for Windows would have driven up the price.

3. "Accidentally" screw up the GPL code release
4. Wait for Slashdot Story
5. Fix GPL code release
6. Trigger Slashdot follow-up story
5. Free advertising sells lots of product
6. Profit!

Or, more likely IMHO,

4. Fail to release the code on time to some combination of overwhelming bureaucracy, over-optimistic marketing deadlines, and overworked engineers.
5. Release the code shortly after consumers point out your omission.
6. Good will!

Re:ASUS: Brilliant Marketing Strategy

[mrv20]

In this case the "..." before Profit! must have been go back two spaces, in best board-game fashion.

Re:ASUS: Brilliant Marketing Strategy

[Pentagram]

I don't think that geeks are Asus' target market on this one. I can't say what Asus's plans were for the Eee, but it certainly seems to be appealing to the geeks. Who wouldn't like an ultra-portable, well featured, micro-laptop running Linux? (Typing this from my Eee.)

Re:ASUS: Brilliant Marketing Strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Brilliant! Absolutely...Brilliant!

You tested, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

So.. In these like 5 minutes you had the time to test that out? Stop the FUD'ing please.

Free publicity

[GottMitUns]

Is it me, or is it funny how Asus gets free publicity for screwing up.

Re:Free publicity

[DirtyHerring]

Everybody may come to her/his own conclusions. But for me it is clear now, what to expect from them.

Re:Free publicity

[SoapDish]

Note that the *good* free publicity is for fixing the screw-up.

Re:Free publicity

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it me, or is it funny how Asus gets free publicity for screwing up.
I don't know why your surprised, Microsoft has been using this advertising methode for a long time.

Re:Free publicity

[fatp]

But don't forget that GPL / free software also get some publicity

Re:Free publicity

[_KiTA_]

Is it me, or is it funny how Asus gets free publicity for screwing up.

No, they get free publicity for doing the right thing, which, unfortunately, is uncommon amongst the business world.

Re:Free publicity

[mollymoo]

Which corrupt hellhole do you live in? I think you'll find the overwhelming majority of first-world companies stay within the law, and they don't ever get applauded for it. Compliance with the law is the norm, not the exception.

Impatient, Are We?

[Tenshigure]

The EeePC has only been available publicly for a few weeks now. It was purely speculation that they were willingly holding back the code for asus_acpi and the other crap, and now they've corrected that mistake. Those 'critics' need to calm down sometimes, not every large corporation out there is trying to destroy the 'sanctity of GPL' at every opportunity.

Re:Impatient, Are We?

[SeaFox]

Those 'critics' need to calm down sometimes, not every large corporation out there is trying to destroy the 'sanctity of GPL' at every opportunity.

Neither are they trying to comply with it, unless someone points out their mistake.

I mean, we're talking about source code that is already written. They have a disc marked "master source code for product rev 1" somewhere, it takes pretty much zilch extra effort to have that included with the product. Just duplicate it and throw it in. The fact they had to make a different "cleaned up" version just confirms my suspicions as to why they didn't release it to begin with; the actual source code has programming hacks and embarrassing comments in it, like some previous examples of closed-source code that has been forced in to public view by the courts.

Re:Impatient, Are We?

[orclevegam]

The fact they had to make a different "cleaned up" version just confirms my suspicions as to why they didn't release it to begin with; the actual source code has programming hacks and embarrassing comments in it, like some previous examples of closed-source code that has been forced in to public view by the courts.

[citation needed]

Seriously though, what are you basing this off of? I read TFA and I can't find any reference in that, or in the articles it links to that say ASUS released "cleaned up" versions of the code. Even the guy who originally discovered this and blogged about it, says he thinks it wasn't ASUS being malicious, just negligent and forgetting to publish the code.

Re:Impatient, Are We?

[Tenshigure]

The difference between what I said what you said is based entirely on GPL vs non-GPL. Whereas Asus has made the code publicly available as stated by the GPL itself, your scenario violates the EULA of Vista and would therefore lead to prosecution since it doesn't have any mention of public distribution in that agreement.

Again, I point to the timeframe and also to the other users whom have cited error of forgetting to provide the source of their own codes as far as reasonable acceptance that they weren't out to 'destroy the GPL'. Though the clean-up may be questionable, it's still in compliance with the license.

Re:Impatient, Are We?

[wizardforce]

inflammatory stories with little merit generate a lot more page views than correct ones.

Re:Impatient, Are We?

[andy.ruddock]

Neither are they trying to comply with it, unless someone points out their mistake.

Well I haven't bought one of these, so they have no oligation in respect of the GPL to me, and I don't know what offers came in the box for those who have purchased one.
According to the article there's a 1.8GB archive available for download, which is hardly failing to make stuff available, your comment seems somewhat harsh.

Re:Impatient, Are We?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

I haven't bought one either. I'm what you might call one of those "any third party" people that they have an obligation to under the GPL:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) 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; or,
b) 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;
c) 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.)

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.

Re:Impatient, Are We?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Question: If someone did strip the EULA and distributed (in violation of copyright, for sure) copies of Vista, while they would be liable what about the people who received copies? If they don't distribute, does oopyright have anything to say?

Re:Impatient, Are We?

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation please. How do you know they haven't settled the issue of copyright infringement of the copies they distributed? From the article ASUS are now in compliance. IANAL, but even assuming this source code release doesn't count to stop the case for copyright infringement, it is a matter to be settled between the copyright holders and ASUS, so unless you are party to this (and you have given me no reason to believe you are) you wouldn't know if it has been settled or not and it is none of your damn business.

Re:Impatient, Are We?

[plague3106]

Neither are they trying to comply with it, unless someone points out their mistake.

And you believe this is what Asus did, based on what? The fact that they are a large corporation?

They may have the code written, but its not as easy as you suggest to distribute it (those cds cost money). They don't even need to include it at all; just make it available to someone who asks for it.

Back on topic, why do you simply believe this not to be a mistake? How many other products used GPL code prior to this one? If the answer is "none to very few" I think we can chalk that up to forgetting, not mallice.

Re:Impatient, Are We?

[dbIII]

They didn't even make that mistake. The author of the earlier article didn't even contact them to try to get the code. The GPL doesn't say the code has to be printed on a pile of t-shirts included with the product, on a tape, on a CDROM, a web link or anything like that - just that it has to be provided if you ask. Sometimes you have to ask.

Re:Impatient, Are We?

[mollymoo]

Neither are they trying to comply with it, unless someone points out their mistake.

Exactly. Asus wouldn't dream of shipping a PC with Windows pre-installed without having licensing agreements in place with Microsoft. I not entirely sure if it's fear or respect that makes the difference but I suspect it's fear. If we are to stop this kind of thing happening in future we need to make companies as scared of violating the copyright of FOSS as they are of violating the copyright of proprietary software. To induce fear of violation there need to be penalties beyond simply coming into compliance at some later date.

Re:Impatient, Are We?

[Obfuscant]

If we are to stop this kind of thing happening in future we need to make companies as scared of violating the copyright of FOSS as they are of violating the copyright of proprietary software.

That certainly would stop it from happening in the future. It would also drive companies right into the arms of Microsoft.

Which is easier for a corporate computer manufacturer PHB?

1. Pay a licensing fee once to one company for all the software on a a system, and distribute nothing extra.
2. Pay someone to develop code for specific hardware bits that needs to be version controlled so nobody ever gets sent the wrong code for their version of the hardware, and keep CDs on hand just in case someone asks for the software. Meanwhile, stay on top of all the copyright issues in all the jurisdictions where the product is sold and modify the distribution accordingly. (mp3 and gif, anyone?)

Option 1 is a lot simpler. If your target audience has no idea what Linux is, or even how to pronounce it, you can count on zero sales based on OS. You get Microsoft to discount the licenses because these are starter systems and every system sold today is a Microsoft user for the rest of his life. Your costs are about the same either way, and if you wind up a target for a copyright lawsuit over some tiny bit of code that you left in the distribution, the latter could cost a lot more.

Re:Impatient, Are We?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so let me get this straight. You're saying it is a good thing to attack companies that use FOSS at the slightest hint of a mistake, making them afraid of violating the FOSS copyright, effectively putting this on the same level as Microsoft?

So explain then, why should a company even consider using FOSS if they have to worry about a ravenous horde of supporters demanding access to the source code (for a product they didn't even buy) because the GPL says they can have it, then taking up torches and pitchforks if they don't think they get what they demanded?

At least if the manufacturer licenses Microsoft software they know they don't have to fear these types of attacks, they actually have a place to call for support, and they don't have to be bothered with the expense of dealing with the demands of non-customer.

The only draw back is cost, which depending on volume discounts might not be so high.

Seems to me like the community of supporters does more to slow down adoption of FOSS than the competitors.

Where I work we have out right banned the use of GPL packages in any developed applications, even though all our work is in house and we do not distribute. We do use RedHat, and pay a support license for every copy. We use Postgres through EnterpriseDB and MySQL (and pay support contracts). We allow the use of BSD and Apache licensed code, but ban the GPL completely. And there are members of my staff who are contributors to GPL tools, one is even the primary maintainer of one tool. We're now reviewing the recent Affero details because the moment any bundled service on the RedHat servers starts using this license, we'll shut it down and look for a replacement, even if it means we have to move to Solaris or Windows.

The fact of business is that legal drives many decisions. A company like ours might like to use some of these packages, there are some really talented developers out there. But we don't want to risk it. With a Sun or Microsoft we sign a license and are protected. With FOSS we have no central license authority to work with, and we would rather not see massive web postings from non-customers screaming that we should be sued because they can't have access to our source code.

And before you tell me since we don't distribute we don't have an issue let me say that this has been discussed. We have had varying outside legal opinions as to whether or not our distribution to our affiliate companies in different locations would trigger that issue. And when there is not a consensus among lawyers, they always air on the side of caution.

Re:Impatient, Are We?

[andy.ruddock]

You're only a third party to whom there's an obligaton under the GPL if the source is provided through a written offer, I don't know whether it is or not in this case. I'd say that it isn't, seeing as it's now available for download.

Re:Impatient, Are We?

[cbiffle]

Hi. I'm the software engineer who initially brought all this to the community's attention. I assume I'm the scare-quoted critic you're referring to.

I am not a GPL zealot (in point of fact I'm a BSD guy), and I have never used the term "sanctity of the GPL," except possibly in jest.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that they were willfully withholding sources; in my original analysis I said that I suspected it was a mistake on their part. It's possible you read a sensationalized second-hand source (like iTwire), but all I noted was that they had shipped modified GPL binaries without source. As you say, the eee's been available for weeks now, which is weeks longer than the GPL permits you to distribute binaries without source.

Had you read the initial analysis or the followups where I tested and verified ASUS's source releases, you would know this.

Honestly, seems like anything can make 5/Insightful these days.

Re:Impatient, Are We?

[Anonymous Coward]

The EeePC has only been available publicly for a few weeks now. It was purely speculation that they were willingly holding back the code for asus_acpi

"I only walked out of the store with a new computer a few weeks ago. It was purely speculation that I was willingly holding back my money when I was sneaking past the cash register".

Re:Impatient, Are We?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

I believe the offer was shipped with the unit. Since the source code wasn't shipped with the executable, that is why the offer was required. Making the source available is as they have done now is one way to make good on the offer, and thus is indeed why the source is available online now. :-)

Re:Impatient, Are We?

[sepreece]

I've worked for product-making companies. It is not that uncommon to not be able to identify the specific source code that a particular build corresponds to. Not all companies use version control; not all companies have processes that assure that they do things in a repeatable way.

Note that the binaries may not have all been built at the same time - you may be pulling libraries from a binary repository. I would consider it highly embarrassing if a project I was involved with got into that situation, but I have absolutely seen projects that did.

[This isn't meant to excuse such errors, but just to say that ineptitude is absolutely as likely an answer as evil intent.

Now that the source code is available...

[bogaboga]

Now that the source code is available, is it irrational to expect that one or a group of folks will in the very near future, provide code in ISO format that I can use to install on my "ordinary" PC? Hope so. So, for those who can, go to work. A slashdotter is watching this space.

Re:Now that the source code is available...

[HiThere]

That's nice, and I hope it happens, but for me...

For me the benefit of Asus releasing the code is that the next edition of Debian, Ubuntu, etc. will install cleanly if I buy one of their machines.

I'm not realistically likely to buy one of their machines soon. I'm not in the market, I'm just continually evaluating what's out there so that when I AM ready I'll have my ducks in a line. I had pretty much decided not to consider ASUS, because closed drivers mean I can't rely on installing the version of Linux that I need...but since they've released the code under GPL, that's not true. Now I'm a potential future customer. (I need more storage, but I'll bet anything that the next version will HAVE more storage.)

Re:Now that the source code is available...

[ozmanjusri]

is it irrational to expect that one or a group of folks will in the very near future, provide code in ISO format that I can use to install on my "ordinary" PC?

Yes, it is irrational.

The code related to the GPL violation was specific to the Eee PC hardware and would not work on an ordinary PC.

If want your normal PC to run the same distro, you already can. The Eee PC runs Xandros, which you can download and install anytime.

an honest mistake, let's take it easy

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear Asus was contacted on Friday for this issue; they responded on Monday morning Taipei time, and got it corrected on Tuesday. People have every right to be dissatisfied, but If I were the software lead in Asus I would start to feel that the open source community is too difficult to deal with. Asus is rather new to this, the open source community shouldn't burn a company just because it got started on the wrong foot, we ought to be more supportive.

As a company that "Sells" Open source...

[houstonbofh]

I work for a company that provides Open Source solutions. We are actively involved in several FOSS projects, and support the concept any way we can. That said, with the rapid advances of the base projects, and our changes to those projects, it is very easy to let publishing the source slip down the priority list. I have forgotten several times, and this has been on projects I develop for! (I fix it as soon as I realize...) I would bet many omissions can be attributed to overwork, and not malice.

Re:As a company that "Sells" Open source...

[kfort]

According to section 3b of the GPL v2:

b) 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; or,

The part about a written offer might be a minor quibble, but you should be in the clear as long as you provide the source when someone asks for it. So you don't necessarily have to publish the source at the same time you release the binary if it is an oversight. As long as you include the license with the software and make it clear it is covered by the GPL, you should be legal by the letter of the license.

Re:As a company that "Sells" Open source...

[civilizedINTENSITY]

From the link in the original slashdot article, I thought it was stated that they did provide the offer. The problem was that they provided the original rather than the modified source code in their 1.8 MB zip.

That Extra Mile

[tundra_man]

I have noted in the last few days the release of the various bits of source code and am happy to see Asus ensure that they are in compliance. Now I would love for them to go the extra mile and release the code changes to MadWifi to support the wireless. I know this is released under a BSD style license and they are not obligated but one of the biggest weaknesses of the Eee right now for me is the inability of their wpa_supplicant to offer enterprise encryption support. Something that is hard to change without the MadWifi source or switching to use NDISWrapper. The Eee is the best gadget but I want my wireless @ work.

NOTE: I have asked Asus about enterprise encryption support and they have said it may be coming. I have also asked about the madwifi source but received no definitive answer yet.

Re:That Extra Mile

[urcreepyneighbor]

NOTE: I have asked Asus about enterprise encryption support and they have said it may be coming. And the check's in the mail! ;D

Re:That Extra Mile

[Constantine XVI]

In TFA (from the Asus website), they give you an email to Asus support. Tell them you (and many other Eee owners) would be much happier with the Eee if we had the madwifi drivers so we could use the Eee with whatever distro we wanted.

Or you could go the OSS zealot route and tell them that if they don't release the source, you will send your Eee to Blendtec and ensure that no one you know will buy one. Of course, I'd go with the first route.

Re:That Extra Mile

[cheater512]

Thats one reason I never liked the BSD license.

Re:That Extra Mile

[swillden]

Now I would love for them to go the extra mile and release the code changes to MadWifi to support the wireless. I know this is released under a BSD style license and they are not obligated

That's not "the extra mile", it's what they're required to do. They're distributing the madwifi module linked to the GPL'd Linux kernel, that means they're distributing it under the terms of the GPL. Because the driver is BSD-licensed, it is permitted to distribute it under the terms of the GPL, but the GPL requirements must be fulfilled.

If Asus hasn't released this code, they're not done complying with the GPL yet.

Re:That Extra Mile

[tundra_man]

Kernel modules have definitely been a contentious issue vis-a-vis the GPL. That being said I believe you are 100% correct. Although MadWifi is dual license, in this case linking to the kernel provides the GPL infection to force the decision. Well again they have not yet replied to me as of yet so let's hope they also come to this conclusion and release this code.

Re:That Extra Mile

[swillden]

Kernel modules have definitely been a contentious issue vis-a-vis the GPL

Yes, but I don't think I've ever seen someone try to argue that a kernel module linked directly to and distributed with the kernel isn't a derived work. The questionable cases have been, for example, the NVidia and ATI drivers. The argument in those cases is that the binary-only component is not a derived work of the Linux kernel, doesn't dynamically link directly to the kernel, doesn't use any Linux headers to be built and may even be usable without the kernel. The source-distributed shim that connects the binary-only component to the kernel is clearly a derived work, and those shims are GPL'd.

Even that case, however, hasn't survived a test in court. None of the Linux copyright holders have pressed the issue. If one of them did, it's not clear what would happen.

Although MadWifi is dual license, in this case linking to the kernel provides the GPL infection to force the decision.

I agree, thought I wouldn't use the word "infection", because it's not accurate. It's not that being linked to the kernel forces the madwifi code to be distributed under the GPL's terms, it's that unless the madwifi code is distributed that way, the Linux kernel code can't be distributed. If anything, the "infection" goes the other direction. The presence of the madwifi code distributed without source "infects" the rest of the kernel it's connected to and cause the GPL to be inapplicable to it in this case. Without the GPL's permission, of course, Asus has no legal right to distribute the kernel code, even though they can distribute the madwifi code without source or an offer of source (in compliance with the BSD license).

Well again they have not yet replied to me as of yet so let's hope they also come to this conclusion and release this code.

Absolutely. I suspect they will, and probably without much -- if any -- fuss. That's the best outcome for everyone.

Re:That Extra Mile

[ItMustBeEsoteric]

Have you gave xsupplicant a try? It's a command-line based tool, at present, with a GUI forthcoming. I use it on my Nokia tablet to get LEAP and PEAP support for use at my university. Check it out: http://open1x.sourceforge.net/

If you need some help getting it set up, feel free to drop me an email.

They need to do more than calm down

[Kupfernigk]

They need to get a grip and get a clue. Unfortunately something attracts impossibilists to Gnu/Linux. It's the same self destructive urge that stops organizations like the Green Party going anywhere - they want impossibly perfect behaviour from their supporters and proponents. There is something weird in the psychology that seems endlessly to find fault with the things it claims to support, but it is remarkably common. I'd like to think that all the original attacks on Asus were actually astroturfing Microsoft PR flaks, but unfortunately years of experience lead me to the knowledge that Linux and FOSS needs to be protected from some of its friends as well as its enemies.

Memo to these guys: you may not like having to live in your parents' basement, but you will find that a little tolerance of other people (and suppressing the hair trigger attack reaction) goes a long way when trying to lose your virginity.

Re:They need to do more than calm down

[skoaldipper]

You make a few good points in there, but lose me towards the end. I don't think it's impossible, nor a higher set of standards (necessarily), but just maybe, that others adhere to the same set of standards (which GPL requires) as any other commercial license does. In truth, to what degree are commercial license non compliant companies granted this same levity provided here by the GPL community? A shout here or there? Ok. Would a few mil in court be better? I guess that leads me to the latter - if such action were taken, how would financial compensation (and to whom) be granted? Any precedent on a prior GPL court award?

Re:They need to do more than calm down

[Hatta]

The point is, the GPL is not about extracting damages from people. It's not even about forcing people to give us their code. It's about ensuring code that is free remains free. If companies see GPL software as a legal trap where a simple mistake could leave them liable for thousand of dollars in fines, they're just going to avoid it completely. Which would kind of negate the entire purpose of sharing free software. Remember, the GPL is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Re:They need to do more than calm down

[expatriot]

I seem to remember a lot of /. comments recently (0620255) about how unreasonable BSA was in being excessive about honest mistakes in managing licensing.
Too many FOSS enthusiasts (to use a neutral word) seem to be actively trying to stop the widespread adoption of Linux. Major company produces cheap Linux laptop. Isn't that what everyone wanted?
So the reaction is to call for production to be stopped and threaten lawsuits.
And you wonder why some companies are reluctant to adopt Linux?

Re:They need to do more than calm down

[imr]

I find your statement as ridiculous and intolerant as the ones you describe. And you get from it the same "insightfull" moderation points they got in the previous news.

Re:They need to do more than calm down

[cbiffle]

For context, here's how this looks from outside Slashdot.

Me: "It looks like ASUS may have violated the GPL in the eee software distribution. I suspect it was a mistake. I've contacted them and publicly stated that I don't intend to sue or anything." (This is the 'hair trigger attack reaction' I guess.)
Blog community: "Lame!"
ASUS: "Oh, hey, you're right, here are some source tarballs."
Me: "Thanks! Go ASUS!"
"Kupfernigk" on Slashdot: "OMG MOUTH-FROTHING AD-HOMINEM ATTACKS"

One of us is involved in civil dialog, the other is making angry Slashdot posts -- I'm not certain the latter is in any position to give lectures about losing one's virginity. :-)

Re:They need to do more than calm down

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The problem is that OSS proponents didn't even seem to give ASUS enough time that I could tell in the linked blogs. Instead, they quickly post to the internet, and the blogs and angry OSS proponents get all frothy when actual reasonable people could have gone to ASUS first, made their case and actually give them time. If ASUS turns them down or takes far too long, then that's the time to spread the information. As it is, the (I assume few) loudest OSS advocates just sound angry, irrational and willing to skip steps in order to get people angry.

ASUS releases source code

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm missing something but the web site listed in the article does not seem to have any source code listed

Public SVN!

[SanityInAnarchy]

It's actually not that difficult to make publishing the default. What version control system are you using? Most will allow public (read-only) access, either with their tool or via some web interface.

Re:Public SVN!

[TheRaven64]

If you don't want to publish the latest unreleased version, you can use svnsync to create a public version with everything up to the latest release and just change the version it syncs with when you push out a new release.

Re:Public SVN!

[houstonbofh]

It's actually not that difficult to make publishing the default. What version control system are you using? Most will allow public (read-only) access, either with their tool or via some web interface.

gedit... :) Essentially we do some slight modifications to existing projects, generally by hand, but occasionally by script. There is no svn, so scripts may be modified for a version rev with no backup taken. It is not major development here... The major work we do is contributed to the project first and rolled out by the project incorporating it. However, this makes tracking the little changes and helper web pages a challenge.

Re:Public SVN!

[SanityInAnarchy]

There is no svn, so scripts may be modified for a version rev with no backup taken. It is not major development here...

I would strongly recommend that at least the scripts, if not the entire project, be covered by some version control. I'd recommend bzr, specifically.

(And you might consider the scripts themselves to be source for the project, in some way...)

The main reason I recommend this is it's so easy to do. I do this for all my personal projects that I intend to keep -- basically anything beyond just tooling around with a new language.

Re:just don't bother

[$RANDOMLUSER]

That's not what it was designed to be. Picture a sales force or service technicians armed with these. Calendar, Google maps, IM, Open Office and Skype in less than a Kg. This is the unit that's going to put linux in a LOT of peoples hands. And who knows? Once they get used to Linux on the road, they might want it at home and the office.

Re:Source code here:

[Anonymous Coward]

reading /. is part of your job?

Re:Source code here:

[morgan_greywolf]

From the Slashdot meme department: Pot: Hello, Kettle!

Last minute changes

[Anonymous Coward]

Full Disclosure.....I haven't received my eee yet, I ordered it last Wednesday and it is due to arrive this week. I can't logon here at my client; my nick is alanbcohen

As I understand it, Asus used a new chip to meet the cost targets and had to make some last minute code changes to get working systems out the door. No 'cleanup' of proprietary source, no trying to hide stuff. Over at the eeeuser forum, they are already reporting successful recompiles of the source and use in a different distro install on an eee. Delay due to oversight is the simplest explanation (huh, ever heard of Occam's Razor?). All you conspiracy hunters; find a new playground!

Re:Last minute changes

[xenocide2]

I think it speaks more to the skills of asus to market the concept to people. Nobody accuses openMoko of failing to disclose the source, because they did so from the start! Even if you wanted to hide your engineering from the world, the source code is part of the selling point to the eee. A more skilled Asus would have it available on day one, if not before, and be proudly trumpeting it.

More likely explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Release small usable laptop at nice price point for geeks and non-geeks alike.
2. Use Linux to develop a free interface, keeping costs down.
3. Push to keep up with an ideal holiday release deadline.
4. Accidentally omit incidental GPL code during the rush.

Never attribute to malice what you can to incompetence and/or the simplest explanation is most likely the right one.

Left hand, right hand?

[kbahey]

Some of the posters see conspiracies every where (marketing strategy, ...etc.).

A simpler explanation is that in a large corporation, you have communication "issues" causing delays and lags. The technical folk may have finished their part of the project, but the web presence or product management folk has not gotten to publishing the source yet.

This is the classic left hand does know what the right hand does ...

Let us not assume bad intentions where no hard evidence exists.

Pronunciation

[ahecht]

According to this video, the ASUS Eee PC is pronounced "ah-seuss ee pee cee"

Warranty?

[rtechie]

Any news on whether or not they're going to start honoring the warranties on the eeePC?

A bit of background on this: Apparently it's not just breaking those "void warranty" stickers on the memory door that voids the warranty, but doing anything at all to the box. Several users have reported Asus refusing to honor the warranty on completely unopened and unchanged eeePCs.

Re:Warranty?

[kenh]

WTF - citations on this? Can this possibly be anything but a few isolated cases? I wonder if these were grey-market Eees looking for warranty repairs in the wrong market...

Very Little Committment to Open Source

[HermMunster]

You can go to ASUS site and see that they have very little support for their products for open source. I have a relatively new model of a motherboard with wireless built in but I can't use it because ASUS decided I was not worth writing open source drivers for it.

So, then they create a project and base it on Linux, violate the GPL, and then claim they are well intentioned and support Open Source. This just isn't true and has not been. Their efforts to support Open Source has always been spotty and they've never really been committed.

Re:Very Little Committment to Open Source

[tomandlu]

Jesus f***ing wept.

Do you honestly think arguments like yours are doing anything towards promoting OS or linux?

They are a business. They are not in it to "support" OS - if anything it's OS that should support businesses.

By your argument, I can only assume that you would rather see them install windows on these machines rather than taint your precious OS ideals with their money-making shenanigans...

Re:Very Little Committment to Open Source

[wwahammy]

What's funny is that I just installed a new ASUS motherboard (no wireless though here) a few hours ago and was impressed when the driver CD included Linux drivers. I was pretty impressed by that. I don't use Linux but I always appreciate when companies choose to support the open source community.

Combining that with their free product recycling program and I think I may have found my new motherboard vendor of choice.

Re:just don't bother

[tripppy]

"This is the unit that's going to put linux in a LOT of peoples hands"
WOOOHOOOO!!!!!!!!

Re:just don't bother

[mollymoo]

I would help out with the OLPC, but I guess I'm just not nice enough to make a pure cash donation or I would have done. I was all ready to go for the give-one-get-one, but for whatever reason they don't care about the $200 they would have got from me, or my (modest) skills writing code and offering support, because I'm one of the 93% of the planet's population who don't live in the US or Canada. So instead of my cash funding a laptop for a kid in the developing world it's going to end up lining the pockets of first-world shareholders. *shrug*

what about amazon?

[arivero]

Any idea about the GPL status of the Kindle? The Asus lets you reinstall the modified source code, the Kindle is only GPL "in legal" but not "in spirit".

Re:just don't bother

[kenh]

And how does this relate to the Asus Eee laptop and GPL concerns?

As for your moaning - grow up! I applaud your directness in admitting you are too cheap to give OLPC a cash donation. As for the Buy 1 Get 1 offer, first off it would cost you $400 - $200 for the laptop you get and $200 for the one you donated. As for not living in either the US or Canada that is your own fault, we've left our borders to the US wide open for hundreds of years, that neither you nor your ancestors couldn't find time to make it over hear before we close the borders is your own fault.

The buy 1 get 1 deal is way to get some much-needed cash into their coffers ASAP (as their 1 million unit minimum is really cutting down on potential sales), and they really weren't looking to set up repair depots and support services around the globe.

Your problem is your ancestors didn't make it into US/Canada, and you happen to live in the developed world - this effort should really be called One Laptop Per Non-White Child...

As for your coding skills, I guess OLPC will have to get by with an infinite number of monkeys minus one (you) to craft their software...

Re:just don't bother

[mollymoo]

It has nothing to do with the Eee PC and the GPL, and only a little to do with the Eee PC, but it does have something to do with the comment I responded to. Threads drift.

I know it would cost me $400 (I also worked put the duty and VAT I'd have to pay on top - and pondered the inevitable argument with customs over whether the taxes should be paid on $200 or $400 worth of kit), I was only referring to the $200 which would nominally be the net donation. And it wasn't a moan, it was more complete bemusement. I just don't understand why they would restrict the takeup of the offer like that. It makes no sense to me at all. I'm not alone, they must be turning down hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps millions. I know it's not a commercial product and I wouldn't expect any support whatsoever and no more than a DOA warranty.

As for the actions of my ancestors being my fault...

Re:just don't bother

[ywl]

Check on this: http://www.olpcnews.com/sales_talk/g1g1/give_one_get_one_globally.html.

Where's the story here

[Eskarel]

The GPL requires distributors to provide source code upon request. Asus released some source code which was apparently out of date, someone requested the updated source code and Asus released it.

They have no obligation to host the source code, nor to provide it for download, they merely have to provide it upon request, and they did. End of story.

Re:Where's the story here

[cbiffle]

If I had mod points, they would be yours. I've gotten attacked so much in this thread that it's nice to see someone who gets it.

I hope not these three

[someone1234]

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

These are trademarked by M$, Asus would get into serious trouble.

Re:Source code here:

[CheShACat]

One of the things in my job description is that I need to "Maintain a broad knowledge of state-of-the-art technology, equipment, and/or systems". So yes, reading /. is part of some people's jobs ^_^

eee mod: built-in bluetooth

[endoplasmicMessenger]

Not to mention that tnkgrl has created an awesome hardware mod for the eee:

Modding the Asus 701 (Eee) - Bluetooth
to allow you to have built-in bluetooth.

Sweet!!!

Sony seems to have a clue

[WindShadow]

I recently purchased a new Sony TV, and in with all the versions of the User's Guide was packed a copy of the GPL, LGPL, and list of all the open source software used in the set. I look forward to mentioning this over the holidays when my brainwashed friends comment that "free software can't be as good as written by professional programmers" and "you get what you pay for."