Stalwarts Claim Asus eeePC Violates GPL 247
WirePosted writes "Members of the Linux community have complained that the hot new sub-notebook from Asus, the eeePC, may have violated the spirit of the Linux General Public License (GPL). Some Linux advocates claim the eeePC has not included required source code with the installed Xandros Linux distribution and does not easily enable users to install another distro. However, there are indications that eeePC fans probably don't care."
more than the spirit (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It's not the Linux GPL (Score:5, Informative)
Note that this is totally unrelated to the Linux vs. GNU/Linux debate. The name of the license is "GNU General Public License", or "GNU GPL" for short. It's not the only GPL in existence (there's also the Affero GPL), so it's important to correctly qualify it.
Source code is fair enough.. (Score:4, Informative)
However I don't understand this business about not being easily able to install another OS?
I've wiped it a few times and installed Ubuntu.
It has no CD/DVD drive, obviously that means you need a USB CD/DVD drive.
Re:It's not the Linux GPL (Score:3, Informative)
Re:more than the spirit (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Source code is fair enough.. (Score:2, Informative)
The GPL puts the requirement on the distributer to provide the source for all binaries they distribute, not just modified ones.
Re:more than the spirit (Score:5, Informative)
Regarding the first part of your statement, it doesn't matter how many iterations of distribution there are. The *only* license that Asus has for distribution is the GPL. If Asus violates the GPL, they lose their right to distribute.
As for the second part of your statement, what makes you think this code is not attributed? In the kernel tree on my current machine (using kernel 2.6.23) the file drivers/acpi/asus_acpi.c has the following as the first 10 lines of code:
* asus_acpi.c - Asus Laptop ACPI Extras
*
*
* Copyright (C) 2002-2005 Julien Lerouge, 2003-2006 Karol Kozimor
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
* (at your option) any later version.
As far as compliance goes... compliance to what?
And lastly, and probably most importantly, how did you come to the conclusion that the code was "formerly" licensed under the GPL? That is the *only* license Asus has granting them the permission to redistribute.
I don't know if you honestly did not know this or if you are trolling. This really smells of troll to me though.
Re:Remember the benefit of the doubt (Score:1, Informative)
"But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL."
Re:The source code is available on Asus's site (Score:2, Informative)
As Mr Biffle says: "ASUS has posted a 1.8GB ZIP file on their website that they claim is the sources, but it's not -- it contains a few
Re:Run Forrest, RUN.... (Score:2, Informative)
It was never compressed with bzip2.
It's not called vmlinux.gz because it's not a
proper gzip file - it's more complicated than
that (vmlinuz include a boot sector, a gzip
decompresser and then the compressed image of the
kernel itself, everything packed like hell)
Some clarifications are in order. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not accusing ASUS of malice, specifically, just incompetence. They included the GPL in their manual and posted a source tarball, it's just the wrong one. The outside of the retail box even cites the GPL. They've tried to cover their ass and simply screwed it up.
As for the "OMG eee fans don't care!!11", that probably comes from the note I posted which states that I'm not planning to sue ASUS. In fact, what that means is that I've done the lawsuit thing before and simply don't have the time or energy. If I didn't care, I wouldn't have posted my evidence.
I also don't know where that nonsense about making it hard to install another distro comes from, since I posted the info amidst a discussion of installing Ubuntu 7.10 (which I'm using to write this comment).
And finally, I'm not a "Linux stalwart," I'm a "Mac bigot." It says that on my blog.
Re:Source code is fair enough.. (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing to see here. Move along.
]{
Re:Is it just me? (Score:4, Informative)
As the original author, no conditions of the GPL apply to you (except that you can't keep people from distributing a GPL version of your software even if you decide not to anymore) because you already have the rights to copy it. In general, the correct response to any such trolls is "kiss my butt".
Re:more than the spirit (Score:3, Informative)
Re:more than the spirit (Score:3, Informative)
So when you refer to "the whole concept of the GPL" becoming a "jumbled mess," I think you actually mean that enforcing copyright internationally is actually the "jumbled mess." This problem is not GPL-specific, and many companies and organisations deal with it all the time.