Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Do the users have admin rights on the router to install a new version of busybox? If not, sending them the source code seems like a pointless formality, like a map to a country you are forbidden from visiting.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
The router in question is the ActionTec MI424WR. It's very pretty, and the web admin page is quite intuitive.
Unfortunately it has a MAJOR flaw. They're giving it out to their FIOS customers now, and the router shuts down when it gets hit too many times. This happens when using a Torrent, but also when refreshing STEAM server lists!
It's quite annoying, and since it's used by the TV set-top-boxes in the house it's kind of necessary. It's a shame, my 20Mbit connection can't handle Steam.
The problem was found a while back (when the casing wasn't as pretty about a year ago) but still no fix. I believe it has to do with a small NAT table.
Well, given that they are using the code one must assume that they have accepted the GPL or they would have no rights to it at all, so the failure to release source can be seen as a failure to comply with the license. They can of course argue that they never accepted the GPL at which point it's a plain copyright violation.
They don't really have to bundle the code with the units though. Just hand it over on request from a user. The article wasn't to clear on that. But I expect SFLC tried to ask them for it before it came to this.
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.
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:
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.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Oh, bullshit.
You claim that Verizon, a huge company, which probably employs quite a few lawyers is unaware about the terms under which the code is distributed? Here's a hint: Every piece of software comes with a license. There are much nastier things out there than the GPL, and it'd be outright stupid for a large company to use anything without having a lawyer through the terms.
Now, if this makes them stop using GPL code, that's a perfectly good thing. I for one write GPL code for very good reasons and prefer it not to be used to infringement.
Soon, the *AA will be forced to deal with a strange new concept...competition.
... and yes, these organizations _will_ take on the *AA, and there _will_ be a film at 11!
Soon, they will find that they are not the only ones prosecuting copyright violators...
Soon, they will be struggling to keep ahead of the organizations that prosecute GPL violations!
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
They're suing Verizon because Verizon is distributing the hardware boxes (and thus the embedded software).
Verizon could then turn around and sue the hardware manufacturer as well, but they themselves are still liable under coypright law.
Also, the GPL is quite clear as to when you are allowed to post a link to a website, and when you have to ship the actual source with the product.
SFLC is the Software Freedom Law Center. You can think of it as the militant arm of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), though one does not directly control the other. Its founder and main figure is Prof. Eben Moglen, formerly general counsel and board member of the FSF.
That exemption is only available for non-commercial distribution.
In Liberty, Rene
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.
If the router is owned by Verizon, and merely rented or provided for use by customers, then Verizon is not under GPL obligations - regardless of whether it is on customer premises. It is only if Verizon is selling or giving away the routers that they need to meet GPL obligations. The case of DRMed media and devices is weird. While ostensibly a "sale", you can't actually do anything with the product without permission from the maker. Thus Tivo and *AA companies are lying to consumers when they offer to "sell" DRMed media and devices. The media/device is still effectively owned and controlled by the maker. The best way for such companies to avoid GPL 3, stop lying to their customers, and still maintain the desired control, is to call a spade a spade and rent DRMed media and equipment. Call it a "long term rental" if you want. When I go to the theatre, I don't expect to be able to do what I want with their equipment.
The fact of the matter is that if you're distributing GPL'd code in a manner that would violate copyright if no license were given (e.g. copying it), then you must distribute the source code (either directly or via a written offer).
Of course, if you're not distributing GPL'd code in a manner that would otherwise violate copyright (e.g. you don't make copies of it yourself, you buy devices with the GPL'd code already in place), then you don't have to do anything. TFA doesn't make it clear whether this is in fact the case with Verizon.
~ roscivs