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?

[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.

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 /.

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

[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!

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?

[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.

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.

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.

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

[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'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?

[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: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: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: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: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.

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.