Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Ubiquiti Networks Is Creatively Violating the GPL

Posted by Soulskill on from the violating-it-in-the-normal-way-is-passe dept.

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.

9 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. It's rape Jim, but not as we know it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The GPL was violated. Doesn't matter how they did it.

    1. Re:It's rape Jim, but not as we know it by Coren22 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, their stuff is lightyears ahead of most of the 802.11 stuff you can buy for home use (as it is enterprise grade) while being in the same price range.

      That however does not give them an excuse to violate the GPL and just ignore the terms of the agreement.

      I hope they realize the error of their ways and fix the issue before they have to be sued into oblivion.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re:It's rape Jim, but not as we know it by khellendros1984 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Wait. Are you talking about software or hardware? A laptop, tablet, smartphone, activity tracker, or smartwatch is a piece of hardware. All of those things can, and often *do* have a core of open-source software that they're built around. Hardware is much more difficult to manufacture than software is. If someone sends me the appropriate source code, I can get a working product by typing a few things in on my keyboard. If someone sends me hardware design files, I suppose that I'd either have to buy a FPGA of the appropriate size and speed for the hardware or I'd have to start talking to chipfabs about the 1-device manufacture run that I'd like them to undertake.

      Hardware and software are apples and oranges. Although it would be convenient if open hardware were as easy to make as open software, it's not.

      Fact is restrictive open source isnt producing innovation

      I've never felt restricted by open-source software. The problem has always been closed systems, for me. Although, I suppose that the licensing issues go to the back of your mind anyhow when you've got a system that won't do what you want, and there is no way for you or anyone else but the vendor to fix it.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  2. Re:edgerouter.. by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, this makes me wonder if they are sort of stuck between stupid hardware companies and the GPL. They may not be able to publish changes to the open source products without violating their NDAs with the manufactures of assorted chips/etc they use.

    You know, that's a self-inflicted problem, and not deserving of sympathy.

    Either you run closed source stuff and write your own stuff, or you comply with the GPL.

    It's a bummer if a small company got themselves into a predicament. But, nobody cares.

    I know you're not defending them, but honestly if a company decided it wanted to steal someone else's code and not play by the rules of the GPL, that's their own damned problem.

    From the sounds of it, they knew damned well they were not compliant.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  3. Get your axe out by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

    Never attribute to stupidity when it's a habitual offender.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  4. Re:Official build systems ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dude, this isn't binaries which have different checksums. This is binaries which don't in any way correspond to the code they provided.

    This is a case of any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

    They're either grossly inept, or knew damned well what they were doing.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  5. Re:What? by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Probably more like "Docs out of date with production code, film at 11".

  6. Re:And this is why corporations don't trust the GP by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sad, but true.

    Sorry, but what?

    Nobody forced the company to use GPL stuff. Nobody forced them to build a product around it.

    That they failed to comply with their obligations under the license is their own damned problem.

    Use the GPL stuff, don't use the GPL stuff .. it's your choice. But if you choose to use the GPL stuff, you don't get to piss and moan that you don't want to live by the license.

    Corporations aren't entitled to use GPL code and not adhere to the license. It's not a situation in which you can just decide how you'll interpret releasing the code.

    These corporations which don't trust the GPL are entirely free to piss off and write their own code, or start with something like BSD which says "go ahead, do whatever you want with it".

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  7. Author asks for your help by emailing by monkeyzoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you can spare a minute, please do any or all of the following so that we can retain the GPL's power to help the community:
    - Raise awareness - upvote it, send it to friends or write a blog post about it
    - Write to Ubiquiti requesting the source - their email addresses are support@ubnt.com and info@ubnt.com. You should try both.
    - Send me an email telling me what you've done. My email address is riley@openmailbox.org