Slashdot Mirror
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?"
so we can vilify them, castigate them, and otherwise snark.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
It's a straight up violation. Go find the author of the software... any author of any part of the software will do.. and invite them to sue the manufacturer. Direct them to the Software Freedom Law Center.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The loophole being proposed is just a variant of Tivoization. And the GPLv3 already fixes it, and anything else that gives out source while not giving you everything you need to build it.
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3 Free Software Foundation, Section 1, "Source Code.": The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work.
The GPL does not allow authors to hide or refrain from distributing any build scripts or information required to build/install the binaries.
They cannot have a "secret" build environment, the GPL requires that they reveal all scripts and information about the build environment.
I don't understand why the FSF would not pursue this with full vigor. Obviously you cannot exercise your freedom to modify code, if the vendor does not distribute the pieces required to build and install a binary.
Have these companies found a convenient way to use GPL code, whilst preventing their customers from doing the same?
Yes - it's called "having more lawyers than you."
What are you going to do about it, sue? You can always sue...if you actually have the resources to fight it out. And even if you actually get it to stick, it could be years down the road before you actually get access.
Regarding your specific case, can you reverse-engineer a solution?
This only adds bad press to Linux.
WTF? Making a company comply with a license gives "bad press" ? I think that current way (asking, nagging, offering help, refusing to take any serious step) is worse - it promotes idea that GPL and other free licenses don't really matter - you can ignore them all you want and in worst case they can string along the community by releasing small bits and "discussing the situation" until the product becomes obsolete anyway.
OTOH an offer to cooperate with freeing up the firmware? Sign an NDA on a tool-set for the company, then release a free version.
Sure. Why not become unpaid employee. It is the company's responsibility. If they are incapable of understanding license of software they distribute, then maybe it is time to fire (and sue for damages) their lawyers.
Simply reverse-engineer it with manufacturer's cooperation, access to docs and tools, then "hack" it in a blessed way that doesn't violate the company's licenses and complies with GPL. I'm sure they would be glad if someone helped them comply with GPL instead of forcing them to do it themselves.
Well, they did not comply with the license, so it has been automatically revoked, isn't that right?
As others have pointed out, GPLs 2 and 3 both require the release of the build-prerequisites. If, as one of the unnamed companies claims, they used GPL code and proprietary build prerequisites that they cannot legally release, than their lawyer(s) fucked up big. Just because the GPL doesn't ask for money, and some of its friends have long hair, doesn't make it any less binding than whatever license governs their build environment. They've put themselves in the untenable situation of having two binding licenses that cannot both be satisfied(and losing redistribution rights for their firmware would probably hurt if they don't have the resources to re-do their build environment).
However, in practice, to uphold a right, no matter how solidly enshrined in law, generally takes time and money(particularly in civil cases, where the state won't provide you even a shitty lawyer). As long as they aren't the most blatant, the SFLC and their ilk probably won't go after them(especially if their hardware is uncommon or obscure; from a strategic standpoint, the SFLC probably cares more about improvements to OSS software flowing back to the community, and buildability on common devices than they do about buildability on obscure stuff). You might have slightly better luck if you can identify the specific authors/copyright holders of all the GPL code used in the firmware. Particularly for the company that put itself in a license bind, any of the authors could decide to sue them, possibly for real money, if they so chose.
For you personally, though, you are probably SOL. If you have to ask slashdot, you probably don't have the lawyers you need. About all you can do is make noise about the situation, naming names, ideally, and hope that somebody with firepower takes interest.
After getting the "our developers are working on it" runaround for months and months when Linksys didn't issue new drivers without the Broadcom vulnerability for my WPC54G v.4 adapter, rendering it totally useless, I decided to never, never, again buy Linksys equipment.
So you might be right that the firmware of the Linksys device I bought was upgradable, but that's useless if you have no way to make custom firmware and the vendor doesn't issue bug fixes for its original firmware.
The submitter didn't say that the scripts that control the build are missing. He said they don't provide a build environment. If I distribute GPL code that I build with Visual Studio, I don't have to distribute Visual Studio. I just have to distribute the project file (or whatever it is nowadays--haven't don't Windows in a long time).
It sounds like both companies are distributing embedded software for a hardware device. It's quite possible that the things they aren't distributing are part of some third-party expensive development environment, that they are using off the shelf. If that's the case, there's no GPL violation, as long as they distribute everything the submitter would need to build and install the software if he were to go obtain from that third party the development environment.