Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


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

Linksys Still In Violation of the GPL? 603

Posted by Hemos from the fess-up-and-correct dept.
A reader writes:"From a recent post to LKML: "...Clearly, the kernel source that Linksys provided cannot be used to recreate the kernel that they are shipping with their product. Therefore, they have been, and still remain in violation of the GPL." Several heavy hitters have signed this one, including Jeremy Allison and Alan Cox." There's also commentary from David Turner and Bradley Kuhn of the FSF.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linksys Still In Violation of the GPL? More

Linksys Still In Violation of the GPL?

Comments Filter:

  • GPL be damned! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Quasar1999 ( 520073 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:19AM (#7084382) Journal
    I'd be much happier if companies were forced to release good, unhindered specs/APIs... I don't care if you didn't give out your specific implementation, fine... whatever... but give me the means to create my own implementation that can function the same as theirs. Is that soo much to ask?

    • Re:GPL be damned! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dnoyeb ( 547705 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:23AM (#7084417) Homepage Journal
      That's not too much to ask. We can call it the "QPL." And when they are licensed under the QPL, they can follow the QPL's requirements. Until then, let them abide by their licensing (GPL) obligations.

      • Re:GPL be damned! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Peter Eckersley ( 66542 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:38AM (#7084580) Homepage
        That's not too much to ask. We can call it the "QPL." And when they are licensed under the QPL, they can follow the QPL's requirements.

        This might be possible. But it may be very difficult to define "good specs and APIs", in the same elegant way that the GPL twists copyright inside out.

        Oh, and "QPL [trolltech.com]" is already taken.

    • Re:GPL be damned! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by djh101010 ( 656795 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:26AM (#7084454) Homepage Journal
      Is that soo much to ask?

      Not at all. If they want to not release their source code, they're perfectly free to do that...but of course, they're then perfectly welcome to not use GPL software to build from in the first place, what with that being the deal and all.

    • Re:GPL be damned! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Horny Smurf ( 590916 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:40AM (#7084610) Journal
      Programming is like sex... make one mistake, and support it the rest of your life.

      Also, /. readers like to talk about it, but if you're posting to slashdot, you're obviously not doing it!

    • Re:GPL be damned! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rmohr02 ( 208447 )
      I think it just makes good business sense to release specs and/or APIs for hardware products--the manufacturer is making money off of the hardware, and if somebody makes a Free (or even just free) software program that works better than what the manufacturer included (or didn't include for certain operating systems), the manufacturer benefits the most. And if somebody charges for a software package they created using the API, customers still have to buy the hardware to use the software.

    • I'd be much happier if companies were forced to release good, unhindered specs/APIs... I don't care if you didn't give out your specific implementation, fine... whatever... but give me the means to create my own implementation that can function the same as theirs. Is that soo much to ask?

      This work is being distributed under the GNU General Public License so anything short of that (such as distributing specifications) it is not sufficient. Also, the GNU GPL covers patented implementations, making it pos

      • Copyright and contrasts (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @12:15PM (#7086175)
        But, given the high moderation on the parent comment, I'm guessing that many /. readers want to grant corporate copyright infringers anything they say they need to make money.

        Isn't it odd how, according to Joe Slashdot, copyright is so important when it relates to the GPL, but so irrelevant when it relates to music or movies?

        Cases like this are exactly the reason why copyright law should have teeth and be respected: copyright is, in general, a good thing and an important defence of the rights of people who create work and allow others to use it.

        However, when it's wholesale abused by large subsets of the population -- many, many of whom arrogantly proclaim their support for that abuse right here on this forum -- it's no surprise that other big companies turn around and slam it back in society's collective face. Did no-one see this coming?

        I won't be at all surprised if Linksys wriggles free of all charges on a legal technicality, just as numerous blatant copyright infringers have done when prosecuted by the big media groups. It's just a shame that we have evolved a culture where copyright lacks respect to such a degree, and now the hard workers who create good things like the Linux kernel suffer because of the prevailing greed of song-swappers and the pirate movie business.

  • Violation (Score:3, Funny)

    by mschoolbus ( 627182 ) <travisriley@@@gmail...com> on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:20AM (#7084393)
    Several heavy hitters have signed this one, including Jeremy Allison and Alan Cox.

    Yea.... Where do I sign?!

  • What's the big deal, anyway? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pig Hogger ( 10379 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .reggoh.gip.> on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:21AM (#7084395) Journal
    What's the big deal anyway? The thing uses proprietary hardware, so in order to reproduce it, you'd also have to have the masks to make the chips anyways. So they stand to lose nothing by not publishing the source.

    • Could no one port it? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by siskbc ( 598067 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:31AM (#7084509) Homepage
      What's the big deal anyway? The thing uses proprietary hardware, so in order to reproduce it, you'd also have to have the masks to make the chips anyways. So they stand to lose nothing by not publishing the source.

      I expect someone clever enough could rip out the interesting bits, or port the whole damned thing to another card if interested enough. The philosophy, I believe, is that the community should be able to decide whether it's worth it.

      Or, look at it this way - if no one could conceivably do anything with their source, then they have nothing to RISK by releasing it, huh?

    • Re:What's the big deal, anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by frenetic3 ( 166950 ) <houston&alum,mit,edu> on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:33AM (#7084534) Homepage Journal
      well, the whole rationale and underlying spirit of the gpl is that the whole community should benefit from their modifications/improvements since they benefited from the preexisting gpl'ed code, and then we should be able to turn around and integrate our own improvements and do whatever we want with the new source. (hence 'open' source)

      and secondly, the thing is probably flashable by software, so you could theoretically add new features to the firmware by taking their source, modifying it, compiling it, and flashing it to the device.

      -fren
    • RTFLKML

      It explains the "big deal" as one would expect. And naturally it has nothing to do with making money by ripping off Linksys but other side projects from Seattlewireless and others. Lots of people buy these products and would like the ability to further develop them. By way of GPL, they also have the right to do so.
    • CISCO owns Linksys. Inside CISCO people have the option of using a Linux desktop! We should give CISCO some good karma just for that.

    • Re:What's the big deal, anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cduffy ( 652 ) <charles+slashdot@dyfis.net> on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:49AM (#7084699)
      What's the big deal anyway? The thing uses proprietary hardware, so in order to reproduce it, you'd also have to have the masks to make the chips anyways

      Err, well, no.

      It actually uses, for instance, a set of chips manufactured by Broadcom. Anyone else building an embedded system and looking to use those chips -- or writing drivers for PC hardware based on those chips -- would have a great deal of use for these drivers.

    • Re:What's the big deal, anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pavon ( 30274 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @10:08AM (#7084901)
      The big deal is that kernal developers wrote this code and they have the (copy)right to determine how it is being used. Linksys has broken the terms of the copyright licence. Just because the kernal developers have a more permissive license than proprietary software does not give people the right to do whatever they want with the sofware. Just because the copyright is not held by a large corporation, does not mean that they can get away with breaking the licence. Just because the license demands source code instead of money in exchange for the right to modify the software, does not make it any less valid. A licence is a licence and what Linksys is doing is illegal - no different than if someone were to ship with copies of Windows in their hardware without paying for licences.

      The main point is that we need to inforce the GPL and out of principle and fairness. It wouldn't be good to crack down on licence violations in cases where we have something to gain and then willingly turn a blind eye to others. We don't want to be seen playing a bait and charge game like what happened with GIF and MP3. We need to be diligent and fair in this manner, find out what source is not being released, and who is holding it back (be it Linksys themselves, or one of their partners), and see to it that they obey the terms of our licence. If we don't, then people will get the impression that we don't care if they violate our license.

      Now, if availability of this code helps someone, then great - that's why the GPL is written the way it is. And at the very least there are people that would enjoy having the code. But even if no one ever used the source, we would be setting a very bad precident not to press this issue.

  • Sick of this type of thing (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So they are in violation. Who the fawk is actually going to DO anything other then sign statements and generally complain. WE NEED SOMEONE TO TAKE THEM TO COURT!

    I am sick of all the complaining and no action. Put up or SHUT UP!.

    • Re:Sick of this type of thing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FattMattP ( 86246 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @10:00AM (#7084805) Homepage
      So they are in violation. Who the fawk is actually going to DO anything other then sign statements and generally complain. WE NEED SOMEONE TO TAKE THEM TO COURT!
      It's not wise to rush to court. The courts don't look favourably on people who do that. Instead, the LK & Samba teams are doing the right thing by trying to resolve this matter directly with Linksys. At some point if this does go to court, the fact that several attempts at resolution were made before filing suit will work in our favour.
    • I commonly note this kind of attitude these days. Is there any need to be so harsh? Certainly, if they are non-compliant, a solid stand should be taken. However, it appears at the moment that this can be resolved without the court system being involved.

      Of course, if they drag their feet again, that's another matter. As someone pointed out on the list, this was likely outsourced, and this may have been an honest mistake.

      Be nice, give them a week. Rushing to court and suing people left and right is what mak

  • Let's be thankful (Score:5, Funny)

    by overbyj ( 696078 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:22AM (#7084411)
    that they aren't charging us $699 to use their stuff!

  • Samba abused too? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Davak ( 526912 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:23AM (#7084420) Homepage
    The article references that Samba has also been abused in this matter. Has this been resolved? [ksmith.com]

    Davak

  • Something I've always wondered (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nusuth ( 520833 ) <oooo_0000us@NoSpAm.yahoo.com> on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:28AM (#7084461) Homepage
    If someone released source code under GPL, do they also need to make sure that others can compile it? These guys use "we can't compile it" argument just to prove that the source code is incomplete but suppose that linksys ported linux to INTERCAL++ and released full source code but did not provide the compiler they made in-house. Would that still violate GPL?

    • Re:Something I've always wondered (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Well, maybe it's me but I would think that if Alan Cox can't compile it, then it can't be compiled.
    • Well, the GPL does say the following:

      a) Accompany it with the
      complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,


      If a compiler isn't available to the recipient, than it isn't machine readable, and should be a GPL violation.

    • Re:Something I've always wondered (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      No, they use the "attempt to compile it and referrences to files not provided appear" argument. If you port to INTERCAL++ and ALL the files are provided then you have provided the full source. But if in the process of porting you add five new files to the derived work and only provide two of the five in source then you have failed to provide the full source.

      Regardless of how you want to twist their argument, Linksys is not providing the full source code.
    • They only have to release their code if it is part of a derivative work based on the GPLed code. A port of the Linux kernel to INTERCAL++ would probably be a derivative work, but the compiler might well be a separate work, so they would not need to release its source. But if the reason that it won't compile is that part of the source of the program is missing, then that's a sign that they have not published part of the derivative work.

    • Re:Something I've always wondered (Score:5, Informative)

      by michael_cain ( 66650 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @10:13AM (#7084935) Journal
      I know of no way other than being able to compile and run the resulting binary to verify that the source code provided is indeed the correct, working source code. Your point about the custom compiler may be valid -- that is, I'll give you my source code changes, but they are specific to a particular compiler you do not have. Given full source code, you can presumably port it to whatever compiler you do have. However, there would certainly be lines across which said custom compiler could not step (IMO) and have the whole thing remain GPL-compliant.

      For example, one of the Bell Labs' UNIX gods (I forget which) demonstrated how a C compiler could (a) insert backdoor binary code into applications it was compiling and (b) recognize when it was compiling itself and insert the backdoor-inserting code. Thus none of the source files, for either the compiler or the application, showed that there was a backdoor. They were making the point that the system is not secure if you're initially dependent on some chunk of binary code (or at least you have to analyze that binary, which is much more difficult).

      In this GPL example, if the custom compiler inserted binary code needed to build a working program, and no other compiler working strictly from the source could produce a working program, there's pretty clearly a violation.

    • Quoth the GPL:

      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 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 (c

      • 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.

        If it's a custom compiler, it can't be normally distributed with the operating system on which the executable runs, so they have to provide it according to the above part of the GPL.

    • These guys use "we can't compile it" argument just to prove that the source code is incomplete

      That summary is incomplete:

      1. They also show with great detail that the downloadable binary contains symbol names not contained in the published source.

      2. They don't say "we can't compile it", but "compiling the network gives errors about missing files."

      3. Since the distributed binary comes with network support, yes, "2." alone would already be enough to show that the GPLv2 has been violated (see section 3, t

  • "Linksco"? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Lodragandraoidh ( 639696 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:30AM (#7084488) Journal
    The merging of Linksys and Cisco was seen by some to be a good thing.

    However it appears that culture of 'security through obscurity', as seen in Cisco router firmware apps has found its way into the Linksys product line, to the detriment of the GPL contract.

    What Cisco is doing is wrong - plain and simple. If Cisco chooses to use copyrighted material under the GPL, they need to live up to their responsibilities under that license. I urge Cisco/Linksys to fix the problem before things get out of hand. You can't participate in the free/opensource software community half way.

  • The price of freedom... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EvilTwinSkippy ( 112490 ) <yoda@NosPAM.etoyoc.com> on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:32AM (#7084518) Homepage Journal
    The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

    It may look to the outside like knitpicking. But rights have to defended or they lack all meaning. And we seldom get to pick and choose our adversaries, or the time of battle.

  • Couldn't have happened at a worse time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Snowspinner ( 627098 ) <philsand AT ufl DOT edu> on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:40AM (#7084604) Homepage
    Really, this couldn't be a worse time to go after Linksys. With the SCO case looming over everything, GPL software already looks like a risky investment to people. Now the GPL folks are going to go after Linksys?

    Great. So now the perspective of someone who doesn't know the details of either case (Which probably makes up a large share of bosses who would have to sign off on any adoptions of GPL software) will look at GPL software, and see that using it gets you sued from the outside and the inside.

    This is going to be bad.
  • In the most part I like the GPL. But problems like this make it hard for companies to adopt GPL products. When they are required to release their own IP code. This makes it very hard to convince your Boss who has been for years working to keep the IP code their IP, To prevent cheap ripoffs of their products. Now that there are people strongly enforcing the GPL a lot of companies will be afraid to use it. Good job guys at magnifying Microsoft Concerns on the GPL.
    • Then why use the GPL code? It's not public domain. It's someone's copyrighted code that they gave to Linksys in exchange for publicly available copies of all modifications and additions that they may make to it. If Linksys didn't like the terms, they should have written their own software instead of stealing somone else's.

      I say that they are stealing because to legally copy it they had to agree to the GPL. The GPL requires them to do certain things which they have not done. They have not fulfilled their ob

    • That's the point. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 3Suns ( 250606 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @10:05AM (#7084872) Homepage
      You've just noticed the point of the GPL in the first place. Congratulations.

      People license their code under the GPL because it protects their code from being commercialized. Nobody sells GPL code, and therefore anybody who uses it, must use it per the license. The GPL provides a way to ensure that if you give your copyrighted code away, then nobody will take advantage of that trust. In short, nobody can improve on your property and use those improvements to their exclusive benefit. Any improvements must necessarily benefit everybody. period.

      And if companies don't like that idea, then they shouldn't use GPL code. tough.
    • The obvious solution for Linksys is to pull an NVidia - link the binary driver to the kernel with a GPLed stub of some sort. Cheap and sleazy to be sure, but still a valid way out if they'd have Broadcom taking them to court.

      That would satisfy most everyone's concerns, except the die-hard GPL zealots. Linus is tolerant of such things, IIRC, so the rest will likely be as well. Besides, there's no one on that post screaming for legal blood - they want it solved amicably.

      Companies like Linksys do need to get

    • Re:This is the scarry part. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dissy ( 172727 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @10:13AM (#7084938)
      > Now that there are people strongly enforcing the GPL a lot of companies will be
      > afraid to use it. Good job guys at magnifying Microsoft Concerns on the GPL.

      Good.

      Let Cisco/Linksys take WinCE and use it and not pay MS a dime and ignore that licence. Then you can go pitch your same exact complaint to MS when they sue for piracy and demand money for it.

      GPL software does have a cost. Its not money, its to have the changes given back.

      If you dont pay the cost of the licence of the software, you are pirating software and voilating copyright. (Or as the less bright of slashdot call it in RIAA/MPAA articles, you are stealing.)

  • It kinda amaze me that these guy are only complaining.

    I'm pretty sure that if they really wanted to do something about it, they would create a fund (given they big shot status, it should not be that difficult) to sue Linksys/Cisco for the violation. Why does the FSF do nothing about that matter?

    They should also publish their correspondance with Linksys (if they had any) about the issue. What we are earing is just one side of the story!
  • Did Linksys add their own code and exclude it, or did they modify existing code and exclude it?

    If they merely excluded stuff that they wrote, without wanting it to be GPLed, then is there a problem? Are we to really know that they didn't just yank these peices of code in favor of their own non-GPL stuff?

    Can someone familiar with these peices of missing code do a better job of explaining their purpose?

    There is no "drivers/net/hnd/Config.in" in my 2.4.18 kernel source.

  • So Sue Them - And a question (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kombat ( 93720 ) <kevin@swanweddingphotography.com> on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:51AM (#7084709)
    Wow, the letter linked certainly is informative and damning, and you are correct, there are some big signatures at the bottom, but in the corporate world, it all means nothing. If you're so sure about it, and want to stick up for the GPL, then sue them. Us ranting about it here won't do anything at all. Even a letter to some mailing list, signed by some big names in Linux, means absolutely nothing to them, because there are no consequences to LinkSys for ignoring them. And that's the bottom line.

    Responding to the accusations would cost money. Ignoring them, at this point, won't cost them a cent, because it's just a bunch of guys bitching and moaning on a mailing list, and here on Slashdot. Until someone with the stones (and the coin to back it up) steps up to the plate with some legal papers, absolutely nothing is going to happen.

    That said, I have a question ... what if a company contacts out some aspects of their firmware design to a third party, but the parent company themselves uses GPL'd software. Say I hire AcmeSoft to write a driver for me for a router I'm making. AcmeSoft delivers some statically-linked binaries to me (but no source code), which I statically link into the GPL'd source code and in-house source code that my guys have written. Now, I make all that GPL software and my in-house software freely available, but I can't make the source for that driver from AcmeSoft available, because I don't have it. While technically, I'm in violation of the GPL, but if I've done all I can (short of pressuring AcmeSoft for source (which they won't give me) or ditching Linux altogether), am I really such a bad guy?

  • Kernel modules need not be GPL'd (Score:4, Interesting)

    by RunzWithScissors ( 567704 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:51AM (#7084712)
    If Linksys is implementing a bunch of extra functionality through kernel modules, they would not have to release that source because of the GPL. A module developer can cover the module under any license that they see fit.

    However, if Linksys is using an existing GPL'd module that they have tweaked, then they would be in violation of the GPL. My thinking is that they are employing the former rather than the latter.

    -Runz
  • OK, fine. They're not really doing what they should be doing (from a legal sense I mean). They are, however, using our favorite "OS" to get out to the masses (OK, I really hate the default to 192.168.1.x for the DHCP daemon, but that's a personal thing, I guess...).

    OK, so there's a kinda big name company handing out "Linux"... and people are complaining about that...

    /me shakes his head.
    • ... why you want Linux to "get out to the masses". If it's just because you hate Microsoft (and who doesn't), or if it's just like your favourite football team, then maybe you won't care. But if the reason you want Linux to succeed is that you want to promote free software, then a non-free derivative is worse than useless. After all, if you didn't want to ban non-free derivatives, why didn't you use a different licence such as the BSD licence?
  • I have always thought that the GPL was at least a little unfair -- having to release ALL the code for any piece that includes a previously GPL'ed portion. However, what better way could be devised? If it said, "only the module using GPL needs to be released", then companies would just put the GPL'ed part in it's own module. I like that the GPL makes all source more open, but I dislike the fact that people are scared to use it, for fear of revealing competitive advantages or other "really cool" source cod
    • There's a GPL variant called the LGPL exactly for people who feel this way. If you feel the GPL is too harsh, then don't use it - find an LGPL, or BSD, or whatever licensed project to build off of instead. Or build it from scratch. This ain't a hard concept, and I wonder why people get so worked up about it.

  • GPL scares me. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Eisenfaust ( 231128 )
    As a software developer the GPL scares me. Personally I try to stay far away from using any GPL code because I am affraid I will not properly credit it or in some other way infringe on the licence agreement. For instance, I don't have a clue whether or not its ok to use a dynamically linked GPL library with a closed source app. Honestly I don't even really know how I would find answers to this short of posting here or hiring a lawyer.

    As a result I probably end up writing a lot more code from scratch than I

    • Re:GPL scares me. (Score:3, Informative)

      by Fnkmaster ( 89084 )
      If you are writing software for a closed source product, you shouldn't incorporate any GPLed source code into your product, period. Pretty much any other Open Source license usually has some mechanism to make it permissible to use with a closed source product. Even the LGPL generally lets you use it (by building the LGPLed code into dynamically linked libraries, and calling them from your closed source binary code using a well-defined interface).

      Then again, if you are just building websites or business

    • Re:GPL scares me. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by swordgeek ( 112599 )
      I'm with you.

      I noticed that there are three 'definitive' replies to your hypothetical query, and they all disagree with each other to some extent. If a careful reading of the license doesn't clear matters up (and doesn't even give a consistent answer from three self proclaimed knowledgable sorts), then avoid it.

      Furthermore, there's no telling if the GPL has any validity whatsoever in court. A few partisan lawyers have decided that it does, but that's far from a legal ruling.
  • The actual hardware and core software wasn't designed by Linksys. Linksys however make the web frontend and do make some changes to the core platform.

    I've got a Buffalo access point and it's got nearly identical firmware and hardware. Even the firmware file format is the same. The only differences are that the front end was written by Melco (parent company of Buffalo) and the Linksys one was by Linksys.

    Featurewise it's roughly similar as well. I'd guess that most of these "cheap" all-in-one Broadcom

  • Are we sure Linksys is in violation? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tuxlove ( 316502 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @10:47AM (#7085222)
    I'm not sure I understand why everyone's so sure they're violating the GPL. If the missing kernel modules are entirely original, why are they required to release them under the GPL? AFAIK, you are only required to release source that contains GPL-ed code, or that is based on GPL-ed code. If you write a kernel module from scratch, it is not bound by the GPL - Linux API compatibility notwithstanding.

    Agreed we don't know if their code is original without seeing it. But if it's original they're not obliged to show it. That's the catch-22 of the GPL I've always found interesting.

  • FSF Response: Cool Down (Score:5, Informative)

    by Royster ( 16042 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @01:57PM (#7087238) Homepage
    Found on the LKML list [alaska.edu].


    Subject: Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations
    From: David Turner (novalis@fsf.org)
    Date: Mon Sep 29 2003 - 10:22:47 AKDT

    To Linux Developers Concerned about the Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations:

    We are in ongoing negotiating with Linksys/Cisco about this issue. Information from Andrew Miklas and others has been very helpful to us in our negotiations, and we encourage others to share with us any technical information about this or any other GPL violation.

    This isn't the first GPL violation we have dealt with; we've been actively enforcing the GPL for over ten years. Our usual practice is not to publicly announce details of ongoing violation negotiations, because we find that private negotiation yields quicker and better cooperation. By building a relationship with violators where we are helping them to come into compliance, we avoid having to fight in court, and are able to spend less resources per violation. Our number one goal in any GPL violation case is to get proper and full compliance with the license; everything
    else is secondary.

    GPL violations sometimes take time to resolve. We wish that we could force resolution quicker, but we haven't found a way to do that. We have, however, discovered a variant of Brooks's Law: adding more lawyers to a GPL violation usually makes it take longer. Lawyers are reluctant to admit to mistakes, because they fear it could be used against them. Engineers and product managers are typically interested in fixing mistakes, so we try our best to work with them first before escalating to legal teams on both sides. Such escalation has happened on this violation, so it will take additional time to resolve the matter.

    In addition, we are leading a coalition of many copyright holders in the WRT54G, as Linux is only one part of a large body of GPL'ed software in the product. We formed this coalition because, having done enforcement cases for a product with a broad range of copyright holders before, we have found that separate enforcement actions and/or law suits from individual copyright holders make attainment of compliance more difficult.

    We will continue to do everything necessary to obtain full compliance on this and any other products where violations can be confirmed. On this particular violation, we will keep the community informed when issues come up that impact the rights of everyone whose work is being distributed by Cisco or any of its subsidiaries.

    If you are a copyright holder on software in the WRT54G, or any other Cisco product, you are welcome join this coalition. Please email for details.

    Sincerely,

    David Turner, GPL Compliance Engineer, FSF
    Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, FSF

  • Linksys Could Learn Something From Actiontec (Score:3, Informative)

    by Damin ( 135893 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @03:42PM (#7088346) Homepage
    Several weeks ago, I submitted an article to my Local LUG on the Actiontec Dual PC modem and the fact that it ran uClinux. It worked it's way up the chain until it got Slashdotted [myturl.com]. Since that time, Actiontec has embraced the community and opted to take part in the process. They are not only releasing all source code, but the tool chain, recovery utilities and daughterboards to allow additional development on their platform. They have also hired a consultant to help ensure the Open Source community gets solid documentation and has someone to represent them that understands our needs. The Actionhack mailing list archives can be viewed here [express.org]. What they will be releasing can be viewed here [express.org]. Linksys could do well to realize that their actions are pointing the way for other more nimble competition to take advantage of their ill advised behavior.

Slashdot Top Deals

To the landlord belongs the doorknobs.

Close