Verizon Being Sued for GPL Infringement

darthcamaro writes "According to the SFLC, Verizon can be added to the list of companies infringing on the GPL. They filed a lawsuit in New York yesterday (pdf) alleging that the company is handing out routers using the GPL'd software 'BusyBox' without accompanying source code. Today the SFLC spoke to the media to lay out its case: 'The legal action against Verizon come as the fourth action that the SFLC has undertaken this year on behalf of BusyBox on GPL issues. The GPL is a reciprocal license that requires users of GPL-protected technology to make their source code available to end-users. To date, the SFLC has settled with one defendant out of court. Two actions, facing Xterasys Corporation and High-Gain Antennas, are ongoing and Ravicher said he's optimistic about negotiations resulting in a resolution with each.'"

Comments

Re:Is the router user-modifiable?

[morgan_greywolf]

Hmmm...you bring up an interesting point. If busybox were GPL 3, would Verizon then be forced to give users admin rights to the router?

I have this router

[EMIce]

They are handing it out these Actiontec routers with fiber optic service. It has a coaxial port which is WAN/LAN port (different frequencies for each), WAN ethernet port, and a few LAN ethernet ports. The coaxial LAN and cat5 LAN are bridged.

The TV set top boxes get IP addresses on the LAN via their coaxial connections. So these Verizon controlled boxes actually sit on my LAN in the same subnet as my PCs. They start at 192.168.1.100 while the PCs start at 192.168.1.2. Well I pinged then port scanned these Motorola set top boxes, and at least the HDTV DVR model of the box had it's VxWorks debug port left open. Interesting...

With the right tools I could imagine full access to the drive and the running software. So what does it take to work with this VxWorks debug port?

Some people may want to copy recordings out or enable the USB/Firewire to allow more than the 80GB internal storage included, but I am more curious if this untrusted box is doing anything I don't want on my home network. Few have the special equipment to tap these MOCA (multi-media over coax) wires between the router and the STBs, so this debug port might be a good way to check.

Uh-oh...

[idontgno]

I wonder if Verizon is the right place to be looking for the source code?

If the "infringing product" is, indeed, the Actiontec MI424WR, wouldn't the correct place to look be the manufacturer of the hardware and integrator of the firmware, Actiontec?

Looking on Actiontec's "Support: Open Source" website (http://opensource.actiontec.com/index.html), I see the following:

GPL Code Download is available for the following Actiontec products: Wireless Broadband Router Model MI424WR

The following is the portion of the Actiontec source code for the MI424WR Products.

List of modules:

busybox-0.50
Release Date Filename
11/27/2007 actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr.tar.gz

Hmmm... looks like Actiontec is at least attempting to honor the license. I haven't researched what's in the tarball, but at least it's there.

So, again, why is SFLC suing Verizon? I'm sure Verizon would argue that (A) they're just retailing and installing off-the-shelf hardware, and (B) any license liability is the hardware manufacturer's.

BTW: to the 4 anonymous cowards that I upmodded earlier in this article, sorry you lost my moderation bump. I hate wasting modpoints, but this seemed relevant and important.

Re:Uh-oh...

[idontgno]

Now that's the answer which makes the most sense. If it's not stock firmware, and the altered firmware is in the scope of the original open source (i.e., not just simple aggregation), then yes, Verizon is obligated to honor source redistribution requirements.

But remember: not everything in the firmware image is necessarily open source. (Again, the "simple aggregation" criterion.) Therefore, not everything would trigger an obligation to share source.

TFA is a fine piece of press-releasemanship, but awfully light on technical goodness. Does anyone know of any in-depth analysis of the nature of the alleged infringement?

ObDisclaimer: IANAL, but ya gotta admit I can fake it pretty well.

Re:How did they infringe?

[Rene S. Hollan]

That exemption is only available for non-commercial distribution.

Re:Replica of the hardware?

[sumdumass]

Depends on how you create it. If you purchased the chips, then presumably your patent obligations concerning them would be covered. If you purchased the radios pre-configured and so on, it could be the same. Think of it more like building a PC and selling it. You aren't actually building it as much as assembling it.

Now, according to the FCC and radio frequencies. If you purchased the radio broad/chip and antenna from the same manufacture, they might have already had it certified. If they haven't, then you can do this too. There are several companies that can help with it. Personally, I would attempt to get one already certified and then change out the antenna to something with a little more gain and act like nothing ever happened.

Re:Is the router user-modifiable?

[Ed Avis]

(a) a written offer is kind of pointless, when you can download busybox source code off the net free of charge (and we can assume that anyone with this router has an Internet connection...)

(b) again, you can study the busybox source code whenever you want, whether you have bought this router or not.

I support the GPL and of course it should be enforceable but I wonder what makes this particular router a target for spending time and money on a lawsuit. Surely there are more pressing threats to freedom that the SFLC could be busying themselves with. Or do they just sue as a matter of principle?