Is the iToaster a Linux Box? Will there be Source?

Allright so several people have noted that the iToaster from Microworkz runs a "BeOS/Linux Hybrid". Sounds kinda crazy, but it was confirmd by (quoted on MSNBC and CNNfn as well as confirmed in an email from their sales dept.) So the question is when can we download their changes to the Linux kernel? Hit the link below to read more explanation on why the answer is never.

I was given several different answers from different people. Here is a reply to an email asking about the code I sent to (sales@microworkz.com)

• Mr. Malda,

  Thank you for your interest in Microworkz.com. The iToaster operating system is a hybrid between BeOs and Linux and is licensed and patented by Microworkz.com, Inc. The source code is therefore proprietary and not available for download.

  The Linux pure source code is however at www.linux.com.

  If you have any other questions or if you would like to place an order, please give our Sales Team a call at (888) 306-2044 from 7am - 8pm Monday through Friday and 10am - 5pm Saturday and Sunday PST. Or simply check out our web sites at www.microworkz.com.

So I called them and asked more. I talked to a very nice gentleman who put me on hold for awhile while he found answers. According to him, the iToaster does not run Linux (although according to the email posted above from the sales department, it runs "A Hybrid between BeOS and Linux". This is sorta what the MSNBC article said ("The way it was explained to me, BeOS handles the file system, while Linux does just about everything else.")

So I guess there are 2 possibilities here:

1. Microworkz messed up by using the word "Linux" when dealing with CNNfn and MSNBC, as their machine does not run Linux at all. This seems to be what I was told on the phone.
2. Microworkz is violating the GPL by making modifications to the Linux kernel and not releasing them.

At this point there really isn't much we can do about it since the iToaster isn't really out so we can't do any pounding on it to determine if their is something questionable going on.

Thanks to the many of you who wrote in to give us the heads up on this. We'll keep you posted if we figure out more.

Comments

There is legal infringement in -either- event.

[Anonymous Coward]

[sorry about the AC post]

It seems to me that the sales rep has described a situation difficult to wriggle out of:

1) If it is truly a linux/BeOS hybrid (which the rep appears to distinguish from "pure" linux) then there is a violation of the GPL. The sales rep needs an education in the term "derived work".

2) If what most people have been saying is true - i.e. that it is only BeOS, and they are just using the Linux moniker to be 'buzzword compliant', then what people seem to be missing is that this is a misrepresentation of their product, and an infringement of a registered trademark.

There is simply -no- way to interpret their marketing without this product, or the marketing thereof, being a legal infringement. It either violates the GPL, or violates Linus' trademark rights. There is no in-between.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. I am, however, a law student. Take the above with whatever dose of salt you deem appropriate.

Re:There is legal infringement in -either- event.

[remande]

Agreed. In most cases, the law is supposed to be the last resort, not the first. A civilized solution is likely to work and will be less expensive than a civil solution.

If the iToaster has no Linux within it, and they stated that it does, then we (and especially Linus) should write to their marketing (not legal) department, noting the problem and asking them to retract the word "Linux". A smart, professional marketing department will at least stop using the word "Linux", if not post an apology and a retraction. It saves them a lot of face to handle the situation that way, and marketing is all about face.

If this doesn't work, the next step is to send a similar message to their legal department. A smart, professional lawyer will realize that it is a lot cheaper to retract the statement then to go to court over it--corporate lawyers are hired to keep their clients out of court.

If these first two steps don't work, then you have to bring in the lawyers and sue for trademark infringement. This is the last resort, and the expensive solution. You likely won't get here, unless the company is being nonprofessional and deserves to be shown up in court anyhow.

That's not quite right

[Gleef]

luge wrote:

Not quite... while you are correct about the download issue, source must be available to anyone for whom binaries are available, in the same medium. I.E., if [GPL] binaries are *publicly* available on CDs, [GPL] source must also be *publicly* available on CDs- not just to those who pay for binaries, but also to others in the general public. If binaries are only available to your co-workers or people within your corporation, then you need only make source available within your corporation.

The GPL says no such thing. To summarize section 3, you can distribute binaries, provided you either:
* include source in the distribution
* include a written offer to send any third party the source in machine readable format for no more than the costs incurred in supplying the source
* pass on the above written offer from the person whom you got the GPL code from
It says later in the section that if you get the source by copying it from somewhere, you can "distribute" the source by giving them the same information and access to copy it that you have.

You do not need to make GPL source publically available, you can limit your distribution to just the people you do business with by shipping the source on the same CD as the binaries. If you do offer to ship source, you have to accept requests from anyone, but you don't need to tell everyone about it, merely the people you ship binaries to. Clearly the easiest way to comply is to make it publically available from a Web or FTP site, but it is by no means a requirement of the GPL.

Advocacy / flaming

[Erich]

Please, people, let's not flame these people for violating the GPL before we even see the product. It could be that they switched form one pure system to another, or it could be that they've ported GNU software to BeOS -- both of which are legal.

Don't flame these people, and read the Linux-Advocacy HOWTO.

Re:Advocacy / flaming

[aqua]

One other angle -- granted, based on everything else here, plus CNNfn's update, etc., the marketroids were probably mistaken about the extent of Linux' involvement. The toaster product may contain GNU utils in an unmodified state -- no reason not to use them, since POSIX compliance makes it easy to do, and GNU did such a thorough job. All that said, the OSS community in general and the Linux people in particular are on a cusp with commercial adoption, and embedded systems are one of the bigger niches we'd like to delve into. If we give the toaster manufacturer a hard time about violating the GPL before it's confirmed (and that's a long way off, when we can get one and take it apart), we run the risk of scaring off manufacturers, especially since this applies to their most crucial concern -- the GPL.

The GPL is a hard thing for the established corporations to figure out already; extensive /. flammage, whether factually warranted or not, could tip the (currently precarious) balance in adoption against us. Wait 'till the OSS community disassembles them to see if they've modified any GPL code; if so, we can politely request the code, and go through the proper motions.

Re:Advocacy / flaming

[luge]

First, absolutely correct about the flaming part- it is my understanding that most POSIX compliant code will compile right out of the box on Be, which would mean that a lot of their backend stuff could be completely standard and available elsewhere.

However, it would still be nice if a) they released a complete list of GPL programs they use, and b) if they allowed some independent code auditor to assure they had not modified the code in any way. Microworkz has not been known for their wonderful management practices in the past, and this might be another example of their corner cutting. While I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, they should provide a mechanism by which we can check if that trust has been earned or not.

Second, what about Be? I can't imagine them letting these folks use any of their work without paying some nice licensing fees. This type of box is not going to help the high-end image Be wants to project, so I can't imagine them giving it away (as they promised/threatened to do in exchange for OEM share.) How, then, can Microworkz make it so cheap? Hmm...

my two cents-
~luge

All BeOS. Or so I was told.

[dougman]

I was told at the Be booth at PC Expo Tuesday that the iToaster is 100% BeOS with some modifications (custom desktop, etc). I specifically asked if there was any Linux code and was told "No, although marketing has led people to believe that there is (followed by a heavy sigh)".

I tried the iToaster proto at their booth. It was REALLY, really nice. It DID boot in less than 20 seconds. I would say, the prototype set-top Be demo'ed next to it (kinda going a step beyond into delivery of all kinds of multimedia content channels) really blew me away.

-DougMan, CEO tomorrowsounds Inc.
www.tomorrowsounds.com

No kernel involved

[Sourdough]

I highly doubt that any part of the Linux kernel is involved with the iToaster. I'm admittedly not an expert, but BeOS and Linux kernels have *completely* different architechtures. Mixing the two would be all but impossible technically. Also, what would be the benifit? BeOS does a fine job at everything they need. It's perfectly capable of memory management, filsystems, networking, graphics and multimedia. There really is no reason for them to touch Linux if they've got BeOS.

Possibilities

[substrate]

Everybody is jumping on the conspiracy theory band wagon. Remember that marketing releases are generated by, well, marketing people. So for instance a statement from engineering such as: The iToaster runs the BeOS operating system and a core system of GPL'd utilities familiar to anybody who has used the Linux operating sytem. The marketing interpretation of the same statement: The iToaster runs a BeOS/Linux hybrid. It makes marketing people warm and fuzzy inside, its fully buzzword complient. It uses the word hybrid and thats a cool word.

Give the iToaster people the benefit of the doubt. If it turns out that they are violating GPL then voice your righteous indignation, but do it politely. Remember that the Open Source community is trying to gain acceptance. If you're a member of the mob mentality you're just another anchor around the neck of Open Source.

It's a cheap machine, 300 bucks, I'll buy one. If I find any code derived from Open Source code I'll make it known. I'm sure others will do the same.

GPL misunderstanding

[Ray Dassen]

So the question is when can we download their changes to the Linux kernel?

The GPL does not require someone using GPLed code to make their changes available for download. The GPL only requires that someone who distributes binaries built from GPLed code to make the source code available to those who received the binaries, upon their request under reasonable terms (only a copying fee).

Thus, the only way to determine whether there is an actual violation of the GPL in this case is to buy the product and check whether it is accompanied by the source or an offer for the source.

Great idea, but...

[Quinn]

This sounds like an awesome idea, but my old $10 toaster works just fine, and how are they going to deal with the heat, and the crumbs?

I don't know about you, but if I forget about my pop tarts one morning, I don't want my whole web server going down in flames.

It had better be secure out of the box, or we'll have a lot of newbies screaming "L3gg0 my 3gg0!"

Thanks, but no thanks. I think this stuff is getting a bit out of hand.

--