Slashdot Mirror
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."
EEE? Triple E PC? What's with the name (i.e. what does it signify)?
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
"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
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!
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
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.
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.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
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.
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.
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.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
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.
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?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Not quite, see below.
And you are still in violation of the license. How do you handle the penalties for your existing violation?
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.
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.
It sure is, and you've misinterpreted it very nicely.
From the Slashdot meme department: Pot: Hello, Kettle!
My blog
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!
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.
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.
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.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
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.
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 $24 Million.
And yet courts have been known to impose no or minimal penalties for patent infringement (if accidental and quickly corrected), trademark infringement (ditto), theft (if getting essential food and medicine in a disaster zone) and assault (if the defendant had reasons to believe that the victim posed an immediate physical threat). Why are you so sure that an accidental, small in scope and promptly corrected copyright violation will not be handled in a similar manner?
They have no obligation to host the source code, nor to provide it for download, they merely have to provide it upon request, and they did. End of story.
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
These are trademarked by M$, Asus would get into serious trouble.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry