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.'"
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.
Bullshit. Their users can't install new versions on the box, but other developers can look for changes they've made, and possibly incorporate them into their own code. You could create a replica of the hardware, and install their code on it. You can find and point out security vulnerabilities. There's plenty of reasons you'd want the source, without being able to modify the code running on the box itself.
(a) They don't actually have to include the source code with every router - just a written offer to supply the source code on demand. (I assume that the references to "including the source code" are journalistic imprecision or its gonna be a very short lawsuit).
(b) Users may also be developers who wish study the source code or to use or modify the software in other systems - as is their right under the GPL.
Anyway, most such products ship with a CD for plug-n-drool installation so how hard can it be to include a few source files?
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
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.