Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNU is Not Unix Software Wireless Networking Linux Hardware

Linksys and the GPL, Again 443

Posted by michael from the unclear-on-the-concept dept.
Rob Flickenger writes "While poking around on the Linksys WRT54G (one of the new Linux 2.4.5 based APs) at a SeattleWireless Hack Night session, we noticed a number of binaries in their firmware (including Zebra, PPP 2.4.1, and iptables to name three) that are released under the GPL, some of which are obviously modified. The question is, where is the source code to Linksys' modifications? Their "GPL Code Center" has the packages, but they are the pristine distributions, without any changes whatsoever. I've asked Linksys for clarification, but given Linksys' customer service reputation, I highly encourage other interested parties to ask them as well. More details are up on my weblog on oreillynet.com."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linksys and the GPL, Again More

Linksys and the GPL, Again

Comments Filter:

  • How does Cisco relate to this (Score:5, Interesting)

    by neye_eve ( 212185 ) * on Thursday July 31, 2003 @09:59AM (#6580051)
    They just bought linksys, right? So wouldn't this take an increasingly interesting turn if it's Cisco violating the GPL instead of "just" Linksys. heh, go after the deep pockets :-)

  • Troubling. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Meat Blaster ( 578650 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:01AM (#6580075)
    I'm concerned about the recent increase in GPL stories lately where companies that are embracing Linux are being carefully scrutinized. Maybe it's counterproductive to constantly play the hardline approach when Linux is finally starting to get decent drivers... I know part of the reason I switched to Linux in the first place was because I didn't like some of the tactics commercial software vendors were using.

    Is this going to chase away companies adopting Linux for use with their products?

    • Re:Troubling. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pork_spies ( 659663 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:04AM (#6580113)
      Look, I write kernel code. not much, but a little. My contact with the users of my code is that if they make something better with my code then they can let me use it too. It's not "going for" anybody to ask that they honour the deal the I (and every other kernel hacker) have struck with them.

    • Re:Troubling. (Score:3, Offtopic)

      by oPless ( 63249 )
      I don't understand these companies.

      Why use something GPL'd when you can use *BSD that has little or no encumbarance like this?

      Or am I missing something here?

      (Note: I'm a Debian bigot - not a *BSD one)

    • Re:Troubling. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by aborchers ( 471342 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:10AM (#6580168) Homepage Journal
      Is this going to chase away companies adopting Linux for use with their products?


      Companies that don't play by the rules shouldn't be using Linux, even if it costs us good driver support, etc. One of the benefits of using the GPL is that it provides a self-protection mechanism to ensure that Linux is not closed off and fragmented into opaque binary distros. If such fragmentation were allowed, you will see exactly the problems you had previously with commercial vendors appearing in Linux products, only multiplied.

      • Re:Troubling. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Otter ( 3800 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @11:36AM (#6580982) Journal
        Absolutely, companies have to play by the rules. At the same time, there is probably a better way of enforcing the rules than the usual mechanism of "somebody thinks there might be a GPL violation and immediately sends the Slashdot mob after them".

        In this case, the only evidence AFAICT that the Linksys binaries are based on modified code is that files are installed in non-standard locations, which hardly requires source modification. And, as usual, the complainant hasn't bothered to wait for a response from the company in question. (Atypically, he at least asked.) It's far from clear that we need to go to DefCon 3 over this.

        • Re:Troubling. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by dominator ( 61418 )
          There is a better way. I'm in the process of filing suit against a repeat GPL violator. The guys at the FSF are *extremely* happy and willing to help you through this. They're willing to provide legal assistance and even represent you throughout the process. Their goal is to free software, and to protect the rights of the free software that's out there.

          If you have a problem, send Bradley Kuhn a quick email. He'll probably get back to you within a day or two. If things look naughty, you'll probably have a p

    • Re:Troubling. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by keester ( 646050 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:10AM (#6580171)
      I'm concerned about the recent increase in GPL stories lately where companies that are embracing Linux are being carefully scrutinized.
      This is FUD. Companies don't support linux because they want to be community friendly. They do it because there is a demand and they want to make money. If they are going to profit from GPL code, then they should follow the terms of the license agreement. It really is that simple.

      • Re:Troubling. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by enjo13 ( 444114 )
        Not exactly true...

        A lot of companies support linux (and Mac OS for that matter) for many reasons.. a common one among them being Goodwill. They recgonize that a lot of IT decision makers are also Unix* users.. by supporting your product on Linux those decision makers become familiar with it and have a positive view of the product which translates to sales on other (more prominent) platforms.

        As they say in business school, 'never understimate the power of goodwill.'

    • Re:Troubling. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by femto ( 459605 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:14AM (#6580196) Homepage
      No, it's only going to chase away dishonest companies, which the community doesn't need anyway.

      If a company doesn't like the GPL, what's wrong with approaching the authors and saying 'Look, we can't live with this, can we negotiate some other license?'. Instead dishonest companies break the law, and violate the authors' copyright. If someone did it to them, they would be using words like 'theft' and 'pirate'. It's not playing hardball, it's called common courtesy.

      • Re:Troubling. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Matt Ownby ( 158633 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @11:15AM (#6580782) Homepage Journal
        However, in this case Linksys may just be careless, sloppy or ignorant of its obligations. I think it would be a mistake to assume that they are blatantly defying the GPL. I agree that Linksys ought to be reminded of its GPL obligations, but I think it is imperative that this reminder be courteous and polite. Even if Linksys recognizes that they are in the wrong, they won't be eager to continue linux support if everytime they release an update, they receive angry responses.

      • Re:Troubling. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by pavon ( 30274 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @11:19AM (#6580814)
        Yeah, but we really ought to approach this with more grace than the "guilty till proven" innocent stance that slashdoter's seem to seeth with. I mean this guy doesn't have any concrete evidence that the GPL has been violated, didn't give Linksys time to respond to his claims, but instead just posted slander about them on a large news source. Yeah, thats the way to get people to embrace the GPL.

        This should be the appropriate line of behavior when you notice a potential GPL violation.

        1) Contact the author of the software in question.

        They are the ones that have the right to persue a copyright violation, and thus should be the ones to deal with the potential violators, not an angry vigilante. Furthermore, there may be other circumstances which you are not aware of, like if the author is distributing the code in question under a second license. For all you know that "obviously modifed" version was writen by the author himself, so make some money on the side.

        2) The author should politely contact the suspect explaining that there is some concern that they might be using his software against the terms of the licence (GPL), and request more information about the situation.

        3) The author should check with the good guys at the FSF to make sure he understands all the nuances of the GPL in this situation.

        4) If the suspect is not cooperative, the author should then send a more stongly worded letter, stating that the company is in violation of the law. It would be very preferable to hire a laywer to help draft this letter and take a second look at the situation at this point.

        5) If the company is still not cooperative, then and only then the author should publicise the violation to the community in the hope that public backlash will cause the company reverse their opinion.

        6) As a last resort legal actions should be taken, if money can be had for the trial.

        Yes, Linksys has a history of things like this but that does not justify these knee-jerk reactions.
    • Who cares if hardware companies support Linux if they can't play by the rules? I would rather not have those companies around at all. Don't forget the lessons RMS strives to teach us daily.

    • Re:Troubling. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by John Hasler ( 414242 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:27AM (#6580316) Homepage
      > I'm concerned about the recent increase in GPL
      > stories lately where companies that are embracing
      > Linux are being carefully scrutinized. Maybe it's
      > counterproductive to constantly play the hardline

      If these companies were using VXWorks or Windows CE you can be damn sure that they would be required to comply with every detail of the much more complex licenses. Why should they not be required to comply with the GPL? It's not like it's difficult or expensive.

      > Is this going to chase away companies adopting
      > Linux for use with their products?

      Only the ones who think that "Free software" == "public domain".

  • DMCA... (Score:4, Offtopic)

    by perly-king-69 ( 580000 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:02AM (#6580089)

    Are you sure you're not infringing your countries' laws by fiddling around with the internals of the router

    Or is that still legal?

  • Who takes the reigns? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Doesn't_Comment_Code ( 692510 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:02AM (#6580091)
    I would really like to see some "Open source lawyers" ... or the lawyer version of open source software developers. People who go after random problems like this in their spare time. It would make the world a better place. Imagine GOOD lawyers, not bad ones - working for free for the betterment of society.

    If there were people like that around, I would like to see them follow up this case, and those like it.

    In the absence of open lawyers, I think a lot of GPL and licensing issues will not be followed up. Without someone to pursue a law or contract, it doesn't really do much.

    We've been lucky until now because all the people using GPL software have the open source spirit. But the more open source gets into a market driven economy, the more we will see this type of thing.

    Bring on the Open Lawyers!

  • obviously ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by javatips ( 66293 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:03AM (#6580099) Homepage
    we noticed a number of binaries in their firmware (including Zebra, PPP 2.4.1, and iptables to name three) that are released under the GPL, some of which are obviously modified

    What he means by obviously modified? The file size is different? Maybe they just compiled it with different parameters!

    • Re:obviously ? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Dogun ( 7502 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:55AM (#6580589) Homepage
      Download the firmware updated, dd the right section, mount it cramfs.
      Look at the busybox binary.
      run strings on it.
      There is at least 1 error message that isn't in standard busybox. That is a surefire sign that they made a modification to it.

      As for zebra, I heavily suspect it's the same deal.

  • A new bad guy? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mao che minh ( 611166 ) * on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:04AM (#6580120) Journal
    Linksys makes some really swell wireless devices based on modified code that was released under the GPL. Linksys does not release the source code, and obfuscates the process of retrieving the code when you ask for it.

    To date, many people have asked, no one has recieved.

    It looks like Linksys wants to use superior GPL code, but doesn't want to play by the rules and let competitors in on the action. If they were going to act this way, than they should have stuck to proprietary works.

    • Re:A new bad guy? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by sfire ( 175775 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:10AM (#6580172)
      And it can all be downloaded from the web here [linksys.com]

      • Re:A new bad guy? (Score:5, Informative)

        by entrager ( 567758 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:57AM (#6580610)
        Did you not read the submitter's comments? The code there is the original source of those packages, not the modified code Linksys uses.

        • Re:A new bad guy? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by sfire ( 175775 )
          And as I've been stating, I think Linksys is uses unmodified source code. Zebra uses the configure script to decide where files get stored. So all that is needed is --sysconfdir=DIR read-only single-machine data in DIR [PREFIX/etc] to place the files elsewhere, while not modifying the sourcecode.

    • Re:A new bad guy? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by JZ_Tonka ( 570336 )
      "It looks like Linksys wants to use superior GPL code, but doesn't want to play by the rules and let competitors in on the action. If they were going to act this way, than they should have stuck to proprietary works."

      Hence the reason why corporate industries shy away from the GPL and developing OSS in general. Giving competitors their superior code means they lose their competetive edge, and consequently costs them money.

      • Re:A new bad guy? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by DavidTC ( 10147 )
        Their superior code? If it's their superior code, they why don't they release it under whatever license they want?

        Meanwhile, back to the LinkSys discussion, which is about LinkSys using someone elses's superior code. (And, BTW, is a bunch of crap, the article poster has no evidence that the binaries are modified.)

      • Companies that sell a product based on the GPL code might shy from using the GPL code. Yes, maybe.

        But companies (like the one I work for) that use GPL code extensively to support their internal operations (manufacturing) and don't have to release one line of that code to anyone have no problems with the GPL.

    • Re:A new bad guy? (Score:4, Informative)

      by silas_moeckel ( 234313 ) <silas AT dsminc-corp DOT com> on Thursday July 31, 2003 @12:12PM (#6581368) Homepage
      OK first off remember Linksys realy dosent make very much of anything it got these AP's internals from Broadcom. Had a bunch of SDK warriors put there logo on everything and called it there so did a few other companies. They were told it had GPLed software so they released the GPLed software not nessicarily knowing if broadcom changed it or not realy it's broadcom that people should be putting preasure on about complying with the GPL section 3.

  • Reasons why this might not be true (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sfire ( 175775 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:05AM (#6580125)
    we noticed that the zebra running on the WRT54G doesn't use the standard configuration file locations. This means that it must certainly be a modified binary.

    This may just be stuff sent to the configure script, using the vanilla sources.

    binaries are compiled with a modified GCC (with a signature string of "GCC: (GNU) 3.0 20010422 (prerelease) with bcm4710a0 modifications"). That bcm4710 refers to the Broadcom chipset that this AP is actually made from.

    Did they release the modified GCC? Somehow I doubt they put gcc on the access point. Since they did not release the binary, they don't need to release the source.

    • Re:Reasons why this might not be true (Score:4, Insightful)

      by perly-king-69 ( 580000 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:09AM (#6580166)

      binaries are compiled with a modified GCC

      Could this, plus params sent to ./configure cause the obvious changes?>

    • 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.

      They don't have to release the source of the modified GCC, but they do have to release the binary. Also they have to release the configure script, and the Makefiles, and the installation scripts, and anything else they modified.

      • Re:Reasons why this might not be true (Score:5, Informative)

        by samhalliday ( 653858 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:23AM (#6580276) Homepage Journal
        They don't have to release the source of the modified GCC, but they do have to release the binary.

        i really dont think they do; read your GPL, if you release binary code, you have to supply a means of getting the source code. but to hit your argument at the base... the fact is, they don't even need to provide binaries for the modified gcc. it is being used "in house" and there is therefore no need to redistribute the changes. (remember, gcc is not provided to the end user in the router firmware)

        • the fact is, they don't even need to provide binaries for the modified gcc. it is being used "in house" and there is therefore no need to redistribute the changes.

          Well, they don't need to provide the binaries for the modified gcc under the license of gcc. But my interpretation (which could be wrong) is that gcc is a script used to perform compilation, and as such must be distributed with the source. This is open to a different interpretation, though. Certainly the Makefiles, configure files, and insta

          • But my interpretation (which could be wrong) is that gcc is a script used to perform compilation

            well, thats your interpretation, not the stance of the FSF, GCC or more importantly what is stated in the GPL.

            calling the legendary gcc "a script" is just plain offensive.

            • well, thats your interpretation, not the stance of the FSF, GCC or more importantly what is stated in the GPL.

              The stance of GCC is completely irrelevant. The other two points would be great, if you had backed them up rather than just asserting them.

              calling the legendary gcc "a script" is just plain offensive.

              Legal terminology generally is. If you're not going to consider gcc "a script," then you've opened up a huge loophole in the GPL. Anyone can create modifications to GCC which make the changes

          • You are confusing installation and configuration on the user's system with installation and configuration done at the factory.

            The GPL refers to the tools used to install the software on the user's system by the user's own hand. The software in question here is embedded, that means all the software was installed at the factory and thus any tools used to install that software are not covered by the GPL.

    • Re:Reasons why this might not be true (Score:4, Informative)

      by jared_hanson ( 514797 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:28AM (#6580318) Homepage Journal
      Did they release the modified GCC? Somehow I doubt they put gcc on the access point. Since they did not release the binary, they don't need to release the source.

      If it was LinkSys who modified GCC and used it as their own compiler (and did not distribute it), then now, they do not need to release the source.

      However, the authors speculation was that it was Broadcom who modified GCC to produce code for their own chip, the BCM4710. If Broadcom was distributing the modified compiler as part of an SDK to third-party developers using the chip, then Broadcom would have to release their changes.
    • who modded this "overrated"?? parent makes a good point... the changes can be made with configure parameters to the vanilla tree. if this kind of trivial change is the only accused modification of GPL'ed code, then whoever made the complaint ought to retract their argument and apologise to Linksys for public embarressment.

  • GPL avaiable from LINKSYS (Score:2, Interesting)

    by GdoL ( 460833 )
    The GPL clearly states that the modified source code must be avaiable on-line? Or the modified code may be only avaiable off-line?
    • Well, from the horse's mouth:

      from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
      ------

      Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?

      The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

      But if you

  • How do we tell? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BenjyD ( 316700 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:15AM (#6580201)
    With no real threat of serious (ie costly) legal action for violating the GPL, what's to stop this happening again and again? How many other companies have stolen GPL code and are distributing it without our knowing about it?

    Then again, if someone did sue for copyright infringement, what kind of damages could you claim?
    • In the UK, Copyright infringment is a criminal offence. This means you do not ahve to sue, you can walk in to your local police station with evidence that a crime has been committed and they will investigate it.

      As to what damages you can claim, being a criminal offence we can look at what penalties could be enforced by the courts. These are determined by the copyright act 2002, amending the Copyright Design and Patents Act 1988.

      The 2002 Act raises the maximum penalty for conviction on indictment for the o

  • Why is it "obvious"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aridhol ( 112307 ) <ka_lac@hotmail.com> on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:16AM (#6580222) Homepage Journal
    The "obvious" change is that the configuration files are in a different-than-standard location for Zebra. However, there are two problems with this:
    • Zebra has a commercial port [zebos.org] by the primary developers, which may be modified by license
    • ./configure --prefix=whatever --sysconfdir=xxx allows you to change file locations before compiling, without changing the source.

    The article also states that LinkSys is using a modified GCC. So what? They aren't distributing a modified GCC, so they are not bound to distribute sources.

    • GPL loophole? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Migrant Programmer ( 19727 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @11:07AM (#6580714) Journal
      What if you modify GCC for use with a particular project (based on GPL program Foo) in the following way:

      When your new GCC reads in the code for Foo, it compiles it incorrectly so that it convenently produces a program with your desired changes. This could be done by constructing a lookup table with original Foo code lines corresponding to modified code lines.

      The result: from the original GPL Foo source, you have your own custom binary. Upon distribution of this binary, you are bound by the GPL to give access to the source, i.e. the original GPL Foo source. Since you're not distributing your custom GCC binary, you don't need to give access to its source either.

      I'm sorry if I just broke Linux. Tell me if I'm wrong!

      • Re:GPL loophole? (Score:3, Informative)

        by Vicegrip ( 82853 )
        Basically you are saying this:
        If I modify a GPL project so that it contains my none-standard code that can only be compiled by a modified version of gcc I am not distributing, am I in compliance with the GPL as long as I distribute my none-standard modified code?

        The GPL states that:
        The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface de

      • Not a GPL loophole. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ChrisDolan ( 24101 ) <chris+slashdot.chrisdolan@net> on Thursday July 31, 2003 @05:44PM (#6583698) Homepage
        From the GPL [gnu.org]:
        "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it"

        My interpretation is that if you routinely need to change pieces of GCC to change your code, then the GCC source *is* your source and the GPL requires you to release it.

  • Details of issue (Score:5, Informative)

    by Selanit ( 192811 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:17AM (#6580226)
    For those who have not read the linked weblog entry, here are the reasons he believes it to be a GPL violation:

    1) "One perfect example of this is Zebra, the advanced dynamic routing software package. By opening the firmware file directly, as well as by making queries through the makeshift ping interface mentioned earlier, we noticed that the zebra running on the WRT54G doesn't use the standard configuration file locations. This means that it must certainly be a modified binary." He also mentions that Linksys seems to have used a modified GCC to compile their software, "with a signature string of "GCC: (GNU) 3.0 20010422 (prerelease) with bcm4710a0 modifications"). That bcm4710 refers to the Broadcom chipset that this AP is actually made from."

    2) Yes, the author DID email Linksys asking for the source code. You can read that message here. [nocat.net] According to the update at the bottom of the weblog entry, he got a response shortly before midnight on 29 July, but it just said that the issue was being directed to second level support.

  • GPL compliance re: GCC (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hankaholic ( 32239 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:17AM (#6580227)
    Unless they provided you with a license to run the compiler which they have, they aren't required to furnish source code.

    If they were provided with a modified version of GCC, they themselves do have a right to the modified source. The GPL provides you with the freedom to make and distribute modifications to a program which is licensed to you.

    However, it doesn't say that you have to provide the program itself to anyone.

    I use GPM for mouse handling. The software was made available by the author(s). I can make modifications to it all I want, but unless I provide someone else with a binary based upon my modified source, I don't have to provide source code to anything.

    Know your rights well. Know where they stop even better -- you don't want to come off as a maniac claiming rights to that which isn't yours, but be sure that you know what rights are provided to you.

    I'd like to know RMS' take on GPL'd apps being distributed as part of an "embedded" device. Google, here I come...
    • Know your rights well. Know where they stop even better -- you don't want to come off as a maniac claiming rights to that which isn't yours, but be sure that you know what rights are provided to you.

      Wait, wait. If I claim rights that I don't have, won't that make it easier for me to get a job with the RIAA?

  • Sick SCO on 'em! (Score:4, Funny)

    by fuqqer ( 545069 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:17AM (#6580230) Homepage
    1. Maybe someone could tell SCO that the Access Point uses unauthorized derivatives of SYS V unix containing hundreds of thousands of lines of code.

    2. Then SCO could sue Linksys to release their code so they could see if it contains their "IP". Then the Slashdotters could see the code.

    3. PROFIT!!!

    Take this sig and shove it.
  • ..what about the others.

    There are a few other hardware vendors that use Linux and, to my knowledge do not release the source. The first that comes to mind is Watchguard [watchguard.com]. They make the Firebox firewall which uses the 2.2x kernel and a whole bunch of other highly modified stuff including Watchguard specific modules that almost certainly need to be LGPLed at the least. I have not formally requested the source from the but, I don't see it on their site and it doesn't come with thier software CD-ROM.

  • Duplicity (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WindowsTroll ( 243509 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:30AM (#6580340) Homepage
    From the article

    "I believe the GPL is an important document that is intended to prevent exactly this sort of theft of code. Any company that incorporates GPL software into a commercial product and attempts to skirt the licensing terms is nothing short of a thief, building on the stolen effort of countless contributors. "

    Let me make sure that I have this right - it is not OK to "steal" copyrighted software that is "freely" distributed, but it is OK to "steal" other copyrighted materials (mp3s) that were never "freely" distributed?

  • When on the opposite side of the fence.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sean80 ( 567340 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:33AM (#6580369)
    Uh oh, here I go. I honestly don't understand how the claims in this post are any different from those claimed by SCO.

    I just presume that, given the audience that visits Slashdot, people will at least be smart enough to realise that they're now on the other side of the fence. Sure, maybe SCO are wrong. But maybe, just maybe, they believe they're in exactly this same position.

    • Since you can't be bothered to read the articles:

      "One perfect example of this is Zebra, the advanced dynamic routing software package. By opening the firmware file directly, as well as by making queries through the makeshift ping interface mentioned earlier, we noticed that the zebra running on the WRT54G doesn't use the standard configuration file locations. This means that it must certainly be a modified binary." He also mentions that Linksys seems to have used a modified GCC to compile their software

  • Does any of this help with a Linux driver for the Linksys WPC54G PCMCIA card (or for that matter, the PCI card)? It's one of the reasons I still need Windows on my laptop.

    Are there any good resources for the general strategy needed to make drivers for a card where the manufacturer isn't giving out any good information? I might be willing to work on some project to get this card working under Linux.

  • like with SCO -- prove it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hankaholic ( 32239 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:48AM (#6580510)
    It's cool to bash Linksys because some idiot with posting rights to O'Reillynet.com doesn't know enough to download the source code and check out the configure options, but SCO makes accusations and everybody flips out.

    In both cases, I say, prove it. Prove that Linksys didn't build the source using their compiler (which they haven't given you a binary to, and so don't owe you source) and the original source code which the author of the article admitted was available for download, using configure flags to specify an alternate configuration file location.

    Guess what? It's totally possible that Linksys is in full compliance with the GPL. This guy didn't bother to make sure that the code was in violation before crying foul and putting up a "Linksys sucks -- email them and ask for the modified source!" page.

    I took two minutes to "apt-get source zebra", and look at this:
    chet@bunny:~/tmp/zebra-0.93b$ ./configure --help | grep dir
    --srcdir=DIR find the sources in DIR [configure dir or `..']
    Installation directories:
    Fine tuning of the installation directories:
    --bindir=DIR user executables [EPREFIX/bin]
    --sbindir=DIR system admin executables [EPREFIX/sbin]
    --libexecdir=DIR program executables [EPREFIX/libexec]
    --datadir=DIR read-only architecture-independent data [PREFIX/share]
    --sysconfdir=DIR read-only single-machine data [PREFIX/etc]
    --sharedstatedir=DIR modifiable architecture-independent data [PREFIX/com]
    --localstatedir=DIR modifiable single-machine data [PREFIX/var]
    --libdir=DIR object code libraries [EPREFIX/lib]
    --includedir=DIR C header files [PREFIX/include]
    --oldincludedir=DIR C header files for non-gcc [/usr/include]
    --infodir=DIR info documentation [PREFIX/info]
    --mandir=DIR man documentation [PREFIX/man]
    LDFLAGS linker flags, e.g. -L<lib dir> if you have libraries in a
    nonstandard directory <lib dir>
    CPPFLAGS C/C++ preprocessor flags, e.g. -I<include dir> if you have
    headers in a nonstandard directory <include dir>
    chet@bunny:~/tmp/zebra-0.93b$
    There's nothing to see here, folks. There's no story here, because just like with the SCO stories, there is absolutely no substantiated evidence.

    Congratulations, Michael. You have been trolled. Maybe if you'd read the article before posting it to the front page you'd have spared Linksys some bad publicity.

  • GPL loophole? No way! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Sardonis ( 596687 ) <(gro.sndnyd.ebuc) (ta) (lensr)> on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:51AM (#6580547) Homepage
    So Linksys thinks that it can hide their proprietary sourcecode in a modified compiler? They are clearly wrong, quoteth the GPL:

    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. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

    Their modified GCC is not 'normally distributed with the major components of the operating system'. So according to this clause it needs to be distributed (in source or binary form). But, since GCC is under the GPL the source of the modified GCC must be released.

    QED.

  • Modified GCC issues (Score:5, Interesting)

    by signe ( 64498 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @10:59AM (#6580626) Homepage
    OK, so Linksys used a modified gcc to compile some of the GPL'd software on their AP. As noted, unless they put the modified gcc binaries on their AP as well, they don't have to distribute the source. But this raises an interesting point.

    Say I create a modified compiler that recognizes some piece of code, or tag and replaces it with an "improved" piece of code. For example, it recognizes the code for a particular driver, like the tg3 driver in the Linux kernel, for one example, and inserts optimized compiled code in place of the actual code in the output binary, where this optimized code is actually a completely new driver, derived from the original GPL driver.

    Now technically, I haven't broken the GPL if I distribute the output binary in a product but don't distribute the source for the optimized driver. The optimizations are present in gcc, not the source code, and I'm not distributing gcc. The changes in the output binary are just the way that the compiler I used "interprets" the code that was compiled. It does, of course, break the spirit of the GPL. Is there a way to address this, or is it a giant glaring loophole in the GNU Public License?

    -Todd

  • I don't know.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Eminor ( 455350 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @08:10PM (#6584522)
    They only have to release the source code if they are distributing the software. In this case, it is embedded in a product (firmware). I don't know how the GPL would be interpretted in this case (are they distibuting this software).

    I would say that in this case a company should not have to release their source. I think it is quite petty to be making this into a big deal. They've adopted linux in their firmware. It's been modified to work with their hardware, so how are these modifications going to be useful to people who haven't bought their router?

    I do agree that in most that when you distribute modified GPL software you should release the source, but in this case the software is hidden inside a product. The only thing obvious to the user is the FUNCTION of the firmware, not the architecture of the firmware. So are they really distributing GPL'd software? Not in the traditional way.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close