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.
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.
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.
Probably more like "Docs out of date with production code, film at 11".
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.
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.
They're either grossly inept, or knew damned well what they were doing.
NB, these options are not mutually exclusive.
Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
I used to work for a company that was meant to be a partner of Ubiquiti -- from the first meeting with Robert, one could tell this was not going to be a "share and share alike" partnership -- more likely it was going to be a one party gives, the other takes partnership. We as partners needed access to some parts of the code, and in meetings said we'd like to get the source, and given that it was built on GPL'd code, we figured it would be a non-issue. How wrong we were. Basically told that was never gonna happen, not for us, nor anyone else that wanted it, it was their IP. Robert's one of Forbe's 10 youngest billionaires. He's gotten stinking rich off others, and refuses to give back. It certainly douses your faith in the human spirit somewhat. Anyway, not that it's much better, but you can always buy from MikroTik (ducks! ;-) )
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
Yet another brand of router to avoid.
At least unless there's DD-WRT or something for the hardware, I won't buy one that isn't supported by real open-source software (even if I stick with their router SW).
DD-WRT is hardly a posterchild of open router software, they extensively use binary drivers in their releases, especially on the BCM platform.
OpenWRT is what you want as a baseline.
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?
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'
It can't be rape; the router has ways of shutting itself down when that happens.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.