Do Build Environments Give Companies an End Run Around the GPL?

Malvineous writes "I have two devices, from two different companies (who shall remain nameless, but both are very large and well-known) which run Linux-based firmware. The companies release all their source code to comply with the GPL, but neither includes a build environment or firmware utilities with the code. This means that if you want to alter the free software on the device, you can't — there is no way to build a firmware image or install it on the devices in question, effectively rendering the source code useless. I have approached the companies directly and while one of them acknowledges that it is not fully GPL-compliant, due to other license restrictions it cannot make the build environment public, and the company does not have the resources to rewrite it. I have approached the FSF but its limited resources are tied up pursuing more blatant violations (where no code at all is being released.) Meanwhile I am stuck with two devices that only work with Internet Explorer, and although I have the skills to rewrite each web interface, I have no way of getting my code running on the devices themselves. Have these companies found a convenient way to use GPL code, whilst preventing their customers from doing the same?"

Comments

Re:Find an author

[BitZtream]

And there is no way they (for any sane definition of 'they') really want to enforce this.

It would effectively cut off all GPLv2 and 3 distributions of Windows and Mac OS X binaries since regardless of how you look at it, there are portions of the build process which will never be open source.

So you have to draw the line some where, which neither GPLv3 or v2 define, so its effectively a worthless and unenforceable constraint.

At some point you've got to realize that GPL can not infect everything it touches.

And specifically since you didn't bother to read the summary:

I have approached the FSF but their limited resources are tied up pursuing more blatant violations (where no code at all is being released.)

I'm more inclined to believe this is something the FSF doesn't want to push as they'll most certainly loose ground on this one, regardless of the outcome of any legal battle.

They'll either lose any possibility of protection, further opening up the silliness that GPL tries to force on people OR ... they'll just make it obvious that GPL has no place anywhere near commercial software, which again, would be a huge blow for GPL software in general.

You REALLY REALLY don't want to push this one. Just ignore that clause like everyone else and everyone will be better off for it.

Re:My Linksys experience

[Kjella]

That produces not only MUCH more work for the company (build enviroments are not something that can be trivially packaged up if they are not designed to be), but also produces a horrible PR situation since, no matter how much tinkerers claim otherwise, the original company still ends up getting the blame when user modifications break the product. I got really, really sick of dealing with those support issues over time.

Wow, that changed midstride from a pretty reasonable argument to "Well, I don't LIKE them modifying the product so I'll just ignoring following my legal obligations". Can I get one of those too, like "Yeah well, I don't LIKE the company so I'll just ignore the legal obligation to pay them." to justify a piracy habit?