Slashdot Mirror
How Ubiquiti Networks Is Creatively Violating the GPL
New submitter futuristicrabbit writes: Networking company Ubiquiti Networks violates the GPL, but not in the way you'd expect. Not only did the kernel shipped in their router firmware not correspond to the sources given, but their failure to provide the source led to a vulnerability they created being unpatched long after its disclosure. They're maintaining the appearance of compliance without actually complying with the GPL.
The GPL is designed to avoid the "What's yours is mine and what's mine is mine" scenario where someone uses the code +their changes to always stay one step ahead of the free version and so the GPL requires that they hand over the full source with any changes they made that were used to build whatever product they shipped. If they made changes to the GPL code that were included in the shipped product, they must publish those changes. On the other hand, if they made changes they did not ship with any product(internal releases etc), they are under no obligation to release those changes.
In this case, they are not shipping all of the changes they made to their source code that was used to build their firmware so that is a clear violation of the GPL.
The GPL is rape in license form. Viral infection of the GPL sounds like an STD left behind by a rapist.
The GPL may be viral, but to correct your metaphor, the only way to catch it is via consensual intercourse with GPL source. There's no rape going on.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
The GPL is just the terms and conditions that you have to agree to in order to have permission to copy the work, and in particular, to create derivative works from it. The GPL can do this because stuff put under it is copyrighted, and you need the copyright holder's permission to make copies of copyrighted works outside of what would have ordinarily been considered fair use in the first place.... all the GPL does is outline the terms you have to agree to in order to receive such permission. If you don't want to comply, there's no permission given in the first place, so there's actually no unwanted viral aspect to it at all. If the terms are simply disagreeable to you, you may, at your option, try and contact the copyright holder to obtain alternate licensing arrangements for your special case, but the copyright holder is no more obligated to give anyone such permission than Paramount is obligated to give anyone permission to make their own for-profit Star Trek film.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'