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."
Is it just me? (Score:2, Interesting)
I own an Asus EEE PC (Score:3, Interesting)
BTW the Asus Eee PC is a great little machine although like most Linux dists the UI is a little rough around the edges.
Half and Half (Score:2, Interesting)
On the GPL issue I like that the poster actually purchased the PC. Give them a few weeks to respond to a request for the sources. Seems easy enough. The GPL is pretty clearcut.
On the upgrades/breaking seals void warranty, that seems completely understandable. If you've tested hardware in one configuration with a specific set of components, that is obviously what you'll warranty.
I don't understand why people think companies should warranty things if you add random, $15 no-name memory or an overclocked, overheating PCI-E card etc. They have no control. Odds are you won't have a problem of course. But anyone who has used computers will realize that even a small change can throw things off. And is a super pain to track down, especially if you weren't the one making the change. This even I have experienced. A good first question is to ask what has changed recently on this system when there are problems.
I did a very short and small stint doing embedded systems programming. Pretty standard small parts under the hood. But that didn't mean if you unscrewed the housing and "upgraded" things we'd feel obligated to warranty it. Especially because there were safety of life implications.
Secondly, there is a simple route to take here. Have someone who actually owns copyright on code make a complaint, or take your complaint to the company, and failing that forward to the FSF/SFLC or whomever....
Re:more than the spirit (Score:2, Interesting)
It sounds, though, like there isn't an attributable author.
Is there anybody to sue??
Can second, third, and fourth-hand distribution of unattributed but non-compliant formerly GPL'd work be prohibited?
Re:Source code is fair enough.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Is it just me? (Score:4, Interesting)
To exemplify: I released a piece of software, (all original c:a 6000 loc) under the GPL. Some people started bitching to me that I had to include build files, or that my copyright text wasn't right and so on. This caused me to have to go and look it up in the license (which is not trivial because as an original author, not all conditions apply) just to be able to respond.
By the third time this happened, I said screw it, and withdrew my software.
License nit picking can sap developer enthusiasm like a scifi death ray. If MS really wanted to slow down the progress of free software, I'd say that this is a viable attack vector.
Re:It's not the Linux GPL (Score:1, Interesting)
Yes, a lot of those are references to the GNU GPL without mentioning the word "GNU", and there are some mentions of the Affero licence too, but there are still quite a few "General Public Licenses" that have nothing to do with the FSF.
Re:What the hell is this weak story? (Score:3, Interesting)
Purists vs. pragmatists (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:more than the spirit (Score:2, Interesting)
Ok, I can see that. Thanks for the clarification.
Madwifi (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:more than the spirit (Score:2, Interesting)
and click on "Source Code"
Regards, Stu
linux-self.footshoot() (Score:2, Interesting)