Slashdot Mirror
FSF Files Suit Against Cisco For GPL Violations
Brett Smith writes "This morning the Free Software Foundation filed suit against Cisco for violations of the GPL and LGPL. There's a blog post with background about the case. The full complaint is available too." The short version, as excerpted by reader byolinux, is that "in the course of distributing various products under the Linksys brand Cisco has violated the licenses of many programs on which the FSF holds copyright, including GCC, binutils, and the GNU C Library. In doing so, Cisco has denied its users their right to share and modify the software."
They allow abusive entities such as the Free Software Foundation to go after Cisco. If only the software was distributed without cumbersome GLP and LGPL licensing restrictions, and was truly free like software wants to be, then Cisco wouldn't have been forced to violate the licenses.
For shame.
I love my Linksys router.
I was under the impression that other than the wrt54gl (the one I bought, naturally), none of them run linux anymore.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
If only there were some way to find out. It's hard to say for sure, but based on this:
I'm thinking maybe they did.
According to the blog post linked in the summary, the FSF has been working with Cisco since 2003 to resolve the issue of GPL compliance, and has received only halfhearted attempts on their part to come into compliance. We're only seeing the FSF's side of the story here, of course, but assuming that they're telling it like it is, the FSF tried many other avenues before deciding to file the lawsuit.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
I've worked at Cisco, and the general attitude among many (not all) is that they don't care about GPL violations. Linux is used as it's the fastest path to get the products out.
The reason why this will be unsettling to Cisco is because some of the products have integrated key IOS files in order to retain backwards compatibility. Which means that those files now fall under the GPL. And the only way to integrate them is to use various Linux API's. That is, key files are derived works from the GPL. From the bootstrap code on up.
But, since these files are key to IOS as well, one could take the view that IOS is now under the GPL.
One could try to maintain that those files need to be dual-licensed. However, though some hold that to be valid, I don't believe such a dual license has ever been held up in court. So that might get interesting if the FSF wanted to push it. In any case, it could be a useful bargaining chip.
In any case, those files don't have the appropriate copyrights stating how they are licensed.
The amusing part here is that this has come about mostly because of Cisco's dedication to using as much H1-B/L1 labor as possible. It's been those guys who have mostly (not entirely) done this work in order to get things done quickly. And believe me, protestations about the licensing have been ignored completely when they've been raised. Hack-it-in quickly and damn the lawyers has been the attitude.
It's very amusing to see that Cisco's use of cheap labor has come back to bite them in a way that has the potential to cost them more money than if they had done things in the right fashion originally.
By the time this lawsuit has gotten though the legal system you will have forgotten why you bought the router and/or it will have died... proceed with the boycott
You are an enabler, you enable people to avoid RTFA :D
Cisco / Linksys set themselves up for a fall here. If they wanted code they could just rip off and use whilst largely ignoring the license, why on earth didn't they just use BSD code? These are large companies, presumably they have lawyers. But they're acting like some kid who downloads an image from Google Image Search and uses it on their webpage - "I downloaded it off the web for free so I can just use it right?"
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
You guys just don't get it. The FSF protects software. Then Cisco went and muddied it all up like your sister's proprietary, tattooed boyfriend. Now every time you use GCC, it'll be thinking of Cisco.
The FSF has filed suit against Cisco for copyright violations. Cisco distributed code owned by the FSF without permission.
Yes, Cisco could easily be distributing with permission, and hence legally, if they followed the requirements of the GPL. Instead, they chose to distribute without permission, a violation of federal copyright law.
Yes, usually it is just costs + compliance.
But this time, they seem to be pissed (from the stuff they filled with the court, the URI is in the press release):
"Prayer to Relief"
[...]
(2) That the Court order Defendant to pay Plaintiff's actual and consequential damages in-curred, in an amount to be determined at trial or, in the alternative, statutory damages as set forth in 17 U.S.C. 504(c);
(3) That the Court order Defendant to account for and disgorge to Plaintiff all profits derived by Defendant from its unlawful acts;
[...]
In other words: OUCH!
If you read the article, you'll see that they did. They've been working with Cisco for the last five years on it, but according to the FSF never became fully compliant:
As we always do in violation cases, we began a process of working with Cisco to help them understand their obligations under our licenses, and how they could come into compliance. Early on it seemed likely that we could resolve the issues without any fuss.
While we were working on that case, though, new reports came in. Other Cisco products were not in full compliance either. We started talking to the company about those as wellâ"and that's how a five-years-running game of Whack-a-Mole began. New issues were regularly discovered before we could finish addressing the old ones.
During this entire time, Cisco has never been in full compliance with our licenses. At first glance, the situation might look good. It's not difficult to find "source code" on the Linksys site. But you only have to dig a little deeper to find the problems. Those source code downloads are often incomplete or out-of-date. Cisco also provides written offers for source, but we regularly hear about requests going unfulfilled.
Despite our best efforts, Cisco seems unwilling to take the steps that are necessary to come into compliance and stay in compliance. We asked them to notify customers about previous violations and inform them about how they can now obtain complete source code; they have refused to do this, along with the other reasonable demands we have made to consider this case settled. The FSF has put in too many hours helping the company fix the numerous mistakes it's made over the years. Cisco needs to take responsibility for its own license compliance.
No no no.
Cisco has violated copyright law by distributing GPLed FSF code under terms other than specified in the only available license. The ownership and licensing of IOS code is not affected by this in any way. This is the past.
Now for the future. If Cisco wants to keep distributing IOS code mixed with FSF code, there is only one way of doing it. That is to release the code under the GPL, because the FSF doesn't offer any other licenses. Only the IOS code which is mixed with FSF code needs to be released under the GPL. This has no effect on any other IOS code (older or in other products or whatever).
Exactly! You'd almost think there are several people writing comments!
WRT54GL boxes use broadcom ('blobcom') chipsets with non-Free binary only drivers for the 2.4 kernels. No 2.6 / ipv6 for me. :(
I love my WRT54GL--but I'm ready for something better supported.
Since the user doesn't get the code.
Or when are MS going to release the BSD code in Windows, including all enhancements?
So they can't change the BSD code in Windows, can they.
The user doesn't have to be a developer either. They can PAY a developer to do it. They are still the user. And, since the BSD allows the new developer to give the binary closed, the developer the user has paid can take the freedom to get someone else to do more work from the user who paid for it.
Don't be an idiot.
This is not exactly "put some code on the web for download."
If you mean that Linksys/Cisco could have avoided this at any time in the past five years by releasing the code, you are probably right. The FSF is easy to get along with. It is anybody's guess what they need to offer the FSF now to make it go away.
Don't worry about it, Buffalo is allowed to sell wireless routers in the states again.
http://www.buffalotech.com/press/releases/buffalos-wireless-injunction-stayed/
WRT54GL is done for now.
The existence of this kind of discussion (regardless who has the reason) is what scares a lot to many managers that are not interested (or are not able) to get the correct-freedom-flavor philosophy, so they end avoiding free software as a whole....
In their minds, everything, if free, has a catch... well, the catch is that legalese with the freedom concept, that after a long time can return and "destroy" (that is, force to open your code) the competitive advantage secrets or whatever is called.
I'm really not sure at the end what approach will provide more benefits to the users, the developers, the proprietary software enterprises (yes, they pay the checks for a lot of people), or humanity as a whole.
This is why free licenses such as BSD should be adopted for any commercial project.
Cisco didn't "adopt" the GPL; quite the opposite, they're trying to avoid it. However, they put *themselves* in a position where they'll either be forced to or be guilty of breaking the license terms.
Avoid viral licenses such as *GPL.
Who should? The people who wrote the original code? Maybe they don't want companies like Cisco using it if it means closing the code off and not returning anything. That's their choice.
Cisco? They knew- or should have known- the implications of the GPL and had- as you imply- the choice of using BSD-licensed software instead.
Perhaps there wasn't a BSD-licensed version of what they were looking for? If so, tough shit! No-one's under any obligation to provide them with that for free. Cisco could of course pay someone to write it (and release it under the BSD license if they so wish). Or they're free to use the GPLed code and adhere to the terms it was released under.
But they thought they could get away with using the no-cost GPL code without honouring the obligations. They knew what they were doing.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Don't buy a linksys, but do buy one of the ones with similar hardware.
When I bought my Asus WL-500g Premium it shipped with the complete modified linux source in a folder on the CD that contained the usual windows-crapware you seem to get with every product these days (you know, the outdated copy of acrobat reader, some documentation wrapped in a shiny executable and such).
I did install OpenWRT on it, and I'm very happy with the result. I'm also happy with Asus for actually shipping the source, but I never did write them a line and told them. Maybe I should.
c++;
Yes, it could be a misunderstanding. Especially when FSF has spent five years communicating with Cisco trying to resolve the issue peacefully. If there's a misunderstanding, the people at Cisco need to get some working brains...
The reason why this will be unsettling to Cisco is because some of the products have integrated key IOS files in order to retain backwards compatibility. Which means that those files now fall under the GPL.
This is false. Releasing GPL code can never automatically force other code to be licensed under the GPL. What it does mean is that someone was distributing code without a license, and may be liable for copyright infringement damages. If they *had* licensed their other code under the GPL, they wouldn't have been liable.
In general, a number of GPL-using authors tend to be okay with someone who has infringed doing a subsequent GPL-based release as a way to clear the air (and often then forgive previous damage caused by earlier infringements), but (a) they need not forgive the damages in such a case, (b) the infringer need never do a GPL-based release of their own code, instead simply paying damages.
*sigh* Cueing the millionth identical replay of the exact same longwinded "BSD is freer because...." "No, GPL is freer because...." discussion subthread, in which the contributors get to restate the established position using the same old arguments to make the same old points, and neither side changes the other's mind.
:)
Nothing wrong with that, but we don't need to hear it over and over and over again. Can't we just find an old subthread on the subject and link to that instead?
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
"You are an enabler, you enable people to avoid RTFA :D"
For which we thank you
This could send the wrong message. If you Use bootleg proprietary software and make a lot of money from it you will get Sued. Details of the reasons will fade just the face the proprietary software is considered to Risky for a corporate environment. You better off getting a License from GPL as you can choose to agree to the terms before hand, then going with a product which wile may be backed by a big company will have a bunch of people ready to pounce on you if you make this code successful.
The really weird thing is that the WRT54G, with Linux, cost $50 years ago. The new WRT54G, with less hardware, cost -- guess what -- $50 today! Or, alternatively, the WRT54GL costs more than $50. Isn't hardware supposed to get cheaper and better over time, rather than worse or more expensive?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
There are plenty of other routers that support dd-wrt. My ASUS wl-520gu is excellent.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Cisco is being REALLY REALLY stupid here and I just don't understand why.
I've done a lot of commercial software that uses LGPL and GPL code, and its not rocket science. RMS himself even says that "mere aggregation" is not a problem.
Here are the rules:
if its LGPL, link to it, but don't modify it. If you need to modify it, make the modification in the form of a generic API extension and call it from the application. Make your extensions public.
If it is GPL, make it a service and call it through a socket.
If it is a kernel module, there seems to be some wiggle room there, otherwise make a public mini-driver and a proprietary user space app.
How hard is that? Jeez, if you screw up GPL compliance, you are not paying attention.
There's a lot of posts accusing of Cisco of intentionally violating the GPL; even an alleged ex-employee saying that Cisco "didn't care".
It could be a misunderstanding of the GPL or bad advice from an expert. Why, if I asked a question about the GPL, I would get dozens of posts each having their own and differing "expert" opinion of what is meant.
...Generally prefixed with "IANAL"...
Well, Cisco has to consult some people who do not anal... Those people should have a much less ambiguous view of the GPL.
Bow-ties are cool.
(3) That the Court order Defendant to account for and disgorge to Plaintiff all profits derived by Defendant from its unlawful acts; [...]
So am I the only one who thinks disgorge is an awesomely awkward word. All I can see is something like "2 Routers 1 Port!"
"Slashdotters" want the software to be freely distributed, freely used, and freely modified. Corporations use copyright to prevent that, so Slashdotters are against them. The FSF uses copyright to promote that, so Slashdotters support it. That's not hypocritical at all: in all cases Slashdotters are trying to work towards the same goal. You only thought it was hypocritical because you weren't looking at the whole issue.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Seriously. Microsoft wouldn't spend 5 years talking with you in an attempt to get you to comply with their license. They'd just send in the lawyers and sue for millions in damagaes.
It's a funny thing, but my experience with BSD in a corporate environment is that it doesn't end up as much of a success. There are some exceptions, but even in the case of OS-X, Apple seems to have completely failed to build the community they wanted at the beginning. Most other cases, starting with BSD/OS (BSD 386) and going through IPSO, Ipsilon's home grown BSD based OS, and many others you haven't heard of (AlchemyOS etc.) end up completely dead. Even Microsoft's TCP stack seems to have been rewritten with little BSD left behind.
I think the reason the BSD code dies is precisely because of it's non copyleft license. The companies mostly know that the best way to handle maintenance is to contribute back to the original developer. However, that's not a requirement of the license and so needs to be agreed to by the corporate lawyers. Separately for each contribution. The always want a justification and it just isn't worth any programmer's effort. With GPL code, the fact you have to give back makes the justification very easy to provide. That puts the corporate developers easily in touch with the "community" of other developers on that software and makes the development end up more successful. I'd love to hear other explanations for this. The main data point I have is that across a bunch of different projects I have seen, it always seems that the GPL ones have an active process for contributing back and have developers who are active and known in the original development community. On the other hand the BSD ones, even though they've included a number of former BSD developers don't seem to and those developers seem to give up on making contributions back to the original system.
I know that's CISCO, in this case is probably not really getting as much benefit from this as they could if they followed the GPL, but I think there gets to be a general perception that Linux leads to success and BSD leads to dead ends. People select software based on that perception
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Now try that with a Siemens router... clearly running Linux, yet they go to even less effort than Linksys to comply with the license (which is to say, getting source is impossible). Why is Linksys in trouble while Siemens gets ignored?
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
It's not about "the law," though. Laws are reflection of society, not the other way around -- you don't avoid doing something because it's against the law, you make it against the law because it was a bad thing to do in the first place. But because of this, laws don't always get it right. It used to be illegal to aid an escaping slave, for example. But does that make such an action wrong? Of course not (unless you're a KKK member)! Laws should be followed when they are just, but when they are unjust they should be broken.
By your logic, ambulance drivers should lose their driver's licenses and soldiers should be jailed for murder.
Wanna bet? Here's "what we say:"
Copyright holders of proprietary information (like the RIAA) try to prevent it from being free to modify and share without restriction, so we oppose them. "What we do" is completely consistent with "what we say" in this case.
Copyright holders of Free information (like the FSF) try to force it to be free to modify and share without restriction, so we support them. "What we do" is also completely consistent with "what we say" in this case too!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Get the name right. It's Gnu/Cisco.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
If you mean that Linksys/Cisco could have avoided this at any time in the past five years by releasing the code, you are probably right.
If you read the complaint, the FSF acknowledges that Linksys* has already released most of the code they are required to release. The big problem is that Linksys has a habit of releasing the binary versions first, then neglecting to release the source until the FSF complains and dragging their feet even then.
The bottom line is that the FSF wants Linksys to be more proactive about releasing source files (by appointing a Free Software Compliance Officer) and to pay them for past abuse.
* The complaint specifically and exclusively references Linksys products. It says nothing about IOS or any Cisco-branded products.
They allow abusive entities such as the Free Software Foundation to go after Cisco.
I know you're just trying to be funny, but what's worth noticing is that this is the FSF's first lawsuit:
[...] Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF. "In the fifteen years we've spent enforcing our licenses, we've never gone to court before. We have always managed to get the companies we have worked with to take their obligations seriously.
Isn't that interesting? I'm not sure whether Cisco decided to call the FSF's bluff or whether they have some other thinking behind their decisions; but I know that this is going to be interesting to watch.
IIRC, the GPL has been upheld in court before, so (depending on the details of Cisco's actions) the FSF is probably in a good position to win.
The title of the article is erroneous.
Not if "GPL violation" is a common shorthand for "infringement of copyright in a work ordinarily distributed under the GNU General Public License".
They went back to VxWorks. Their claim is it's smaller, so they can put smaller (cheaper) flash chips, and less RAM in the systems. But I seriously doubt the cost savings amounts to what they have to pay Wind River in licensing.
Both OpenWRT and DD-WRT produce fully opensource firmwares for a number of systems, including the crippled 54g v5+. All of my linksys toys run dd-wrt (well, except the uber-ancient WAP11, but it's just an atmel microcontroller with a PCMCIA wireless card bolted to it.)
If FSF forces them into compliance without cisco feeling some pain or regret then i suspect they wont hesitate to repeat their deeds.
I understand FSF wants to be the good guys,they have principles and ethics, but Cisco is fighting from a different rulebook, one where the winner is the one with the most money, not the highest morals.
The only way Cisco and other similar companies will accept defeat is you beat them on their own turf, playing by their own rules. That means take their money, as much as you can get.
Hitler is evil. Microsoft is evil. Microsoft uses software licenses. That makes software licenses tools of evil.
Therefore software licenses are tools of Hitler and must be destroyed!
There.. can we be done with this now?
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
1. They only copied, NOT STOLE OR VIOLATED ANYTHING, a couple of bits.
The right to copy is the problem copyright seeks to address. To copy without permission is a copright violation. FSF hasnt claimed that cisco stole something ?
2. They wouldn't have bought it anyway.
The yhad to buy it or an equivalent product, if not they wouldnt have been able to sell their product.
3. The FSF is not going to give an type of damages to the people who origianlly created the works.
Copyleft has never been about protecting the people who created the works, its about protecting people who USE the works.
4. The FSF and it's failing business model...blah blah blah.
Sharing is not a business model, nobody claimed it was.
Now think...
These are not the droids your looking for.
FSF has very different goals to the music and video distribution corporations, you shouldnt get them confused.
detrolled
But just enough to pay for the litigation hassle. Judges (usually) pay close attention to the level of courtesy and maturity shown by the litigants prior to filing the suit. By bending over backwards being nice and trying to work things out, FSF has set themselves on the moral high ground, which (usually) pays back big time in the judge's decision.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.