Are Linksys and Broadcom in violation of the GPL?
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a comment.

Showing messages 1 through 42 of 42.

• WET54G
  2003-10-28 10:12:14  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Will it work with Air Port card equipped iBook?

• What about section 2 of the GPL?
  2003-07-31 23:50:31  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Couple of points people have missed in this debate:
  
  1) Froom the GPL:
  
  "...The "Program", below,
  refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
  means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
  that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it..."
  
  Clearly, the firmware image on the Linksys router is a "work" containing the "Program"
  
  2) From the GPL:
  
  "...But when you
  distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
  on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
  this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
  entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it...."
  
  This is in Section 2, under it, ALL files that make up the Linksys firmware are automatically GPLed because they are "part of a whole"
  
  In summary, if the Linksys firmware was easily taken apart and the individual pieces easily modified, then the entire firmware would not be GPL. But because it isn't, the firmware, and all drivers and such in it, are under GPL.
  
  - Ted Mittelstaedt
  - Author, FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide
  
  
  It is a single unified file, it cannot be eas

• All of this shows the danger of GPLed software to programmers and innovators
  2003-07-31 23:10:05  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  This whole affair demonstrates the true nature of the GPL. It's designed to sabotage businesses. In particular, it's intended to strip them of the ability to add unique value to their products -- which, in turn, is an essential element of success. VA Linux had to drop out of the hardware business because they couldn't get a competitive edge -- which happened, in turn, because they embraced GPLed code. Linksys, if the GPL zealots have their way, will go the same route.
  
  Linksys was foolish indeed to use GPLed code at all. Instead, they should have used BSD-licensed code, which is friendly to programmers and to the businesses which issue their paychecks. The BSD and MIT licenses, as well as other truly free licenses, promote innovation and allow programmers to be rewarded for innovating. The viral, spiteful, anti-business, anti-programmer GPL does the opposite.
  
  --Brett Glass
• All of this shows the danger of GPLed software to programmers and innovators
  2003-11-27 06:24:06  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Your initials as well as your views are the same as that of another
  B.G.
  just a coincidence?
• All of this shows the danger of GPLed software to programmers and innovators
  2003-08-01 05:34:52  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Brett --
  
  there are also many, many successful companies out there who write GPL'd code, and many sucessful end-users of that code, which is something that cannot be denied. As usual, your remarks are pretty inflammatory, and reveals your lack of insight about the GPL and the companies that use it, and futhers the terrible (and incorrect) stereotype of veteran BSD users' rhetoric.
  
  The common misconception (one that you fall prey to quite a bit) is that companies who write GPL'd code don't place all of their value of their business into just the code...they also hold value (and quite alot of it) in support and consultancy, something that the BSD community does not have in such a large scale. But that's ok, because BSD'd code and its commuities have other good points. Here are the apples, there are the oranges.
  
  There are great things about BSD-licensed code. But there is also great things about companies who use GPL'd code. You're just not seeing them, because you have some blinders on. I would argue that the programmers who work for IBM, RedHat, Suse, etc. feel as though their paycheck is quite friendly.
  
  Like I have said elsewhere, for every "viral" pro-GPL zealout out there, there is an equally zealous veteran pro-BSD person who may or may not be upset that their favorite OS isn't getting quite as much attention as Linux.
  
  My unsolicited advice to you is: don't worry so much about it, and try to realize that the goals and characteristics of both licenses have their good and bad points.

• Other GPL Violations...
  2003-07-31 20:10:52  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  I had the priviledge of hearing Tim speak this past weekend. It's interesting he commented tangentally to this. He stated that Google, YahooMaps, PayPal, and eBay are all running linux, yet we've got no source from them. Does anyone believe they have not modified?
  
  I'm not saying that they should turn over all thier assests, or even reveal what they have done, but it does provide some contrast to this story in that these are held as icons of the OSS movement, and not disected.
• Other GPL Violations...
  2003-07-31 20:28:44  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  If these companies are not distributing binaries of the GPL software they modified, they are under no obligation to provide you with source. The obligation to provide source is triggered only by distribution, not by use, which is explicitly *not* covered by the GPL (IIRC it explicitly says usage licenses are improper if not illegal).
• Other GPL Violations...
  2003-07-31 20:26:41  rflicken [Reply | View]
  
  
  Well, the major difference is that sites that use Linux (like Google, Yahoo, PayPal, etc.) aren't bound by the GPL because they aren't redistributing binary copies of GPL software.
  

  
  On the other hand, manufacturers that include Linux in a product (like Linksys, and from what I'm told, the WG-2100 BlueSocket for example) are responsible for making their source code available to their customers, or anyone who they distribute binary packages to. I believe it is perfectly permissible under the GPL for a company to incorporate software into an "in-house" solution. Things only get tricky once code starts changing hands.

• actually...
  2003-07-31 11:21:05  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  "(I'd post the email, but their disclaimer asks me not to.)"
  
  IMBw, but I think that's just tough cookies for them - they can *ask* you not to all they like, but they can't stop you unless you signed an NDA...
• actually...
  2003-07-31 20:27:49  rflicken [Reply | View]
  
  
  Don't worry, it's not that exciting. The paraphrase says it all. That and that they are sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused me.

• What proof?
  2003-07-31 10:41:46  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  What proof is there that they've modified Zebra, except the different locations of configuration files?
  
  Surely the changes to the source code made by autoconf don't count as vendor modifications.

• Noted on linux-kernel too
  2003-07-31 10:25:24  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Might want to contact
  Andrew Miklas as well, he's noted the same thing and was also chugging through Linksys support.
  
  Note that Dell did something similar, and resolved it admirably when Colm MacCárthaigh asked -- the source for the GPLed components of their Dell Truemobile 1184 is now up on the web, details here.
  Take note Linksys! ;)
  

• Others
  2003-07-31 08:46:16  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  What about other vendors? I know that Watchguard uses Linux and a bunch of other utilities but, I don't see any mention of the source anywhere.
  
  Further more, I believe that some of the Watchguard specific modules require GPL licensing or LGPL at the least because of their tie in to the kernel and the other GPL utilities. Where are they?

• Provable GPL violation only by Linksys
  2003-07-31 08:45:29  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Linksys has definitely violated the GPL by not making their source changes available to you, the consumer, after purchasing their GPL-enhanced product.
  
  Broadcom, on the other hand, should they have provided Linksys with a modified gcc, MAY have violated the GPL, but no one (but Linksys) can prove that.
  
  The GPL is a one-step process from distributor to distributee. After Broadcom got their copy of gcc, they can alter it all they want. As long as they don't plan on distributing this new gcc, then they're fine with not releasing the source. And if they DO plan on distributing their gcc, they can also limit distribution as much or as little as possible. It's their prerogative as distributor. GPL doesn't say that you have to give your code to EVERYONE yourself.
  
  However, once they distribute their gcc, it is distributed under GPL, and Linksys can re-distribute it freely. Broadcom cannot make Linksys sign any additional agreements which infringe on the rights the GPL provides.

• what other Linksys products use linux...
  2003-07-31 08:42:50  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  I've wondered if my BEFW11S4 uses linux under the covers... All the articles and code released seems to concentrate just on WRT54G...
  what about all the other linksys routers out there?
  Where's the source?
  Anyone know?

• what other Linksys products use linux...
  2003-07-31 08:41:45  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  I've wondered if my BEFW11S4 uses linux under the covers... All the articles and code released seems to concentrate just on WRT54G...
  what about all the other linksys routers out there?
  Where's the source?
  Anyone know?
• what other Linksys products use linux...
  2003-07-31 11:27:15  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Their NAS appliances run linux

• autoconf and an itchy trigger finger
  2003-07-31 08:39:32  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Let's all bash SHO for yelling about an unproven violation of rights, then start bitching Linksys out when someone doesn't know how to use an autoconf'd package.
  
  I hope this posts clearly -- Damned O'Reilly not having a preview option makes this a gamble...
  
  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$
• autoconf and an itchy trigger finger
  2003-07-31 08:40:20  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Make that SCO. I'm retarded.
  
  ...but not retarded enough to publicly bash Linksys without more than a slight hunch.
  
  On O'Reilly's website, no less.
  
  I guess that's why O'Reilly probably had editors look over your books before publishing them -- so they could filter out unfounded crap such as this.
• autoconf and an itchy trigger finger
  2003-07-31 11:34:47  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Well, with respect to Zebra you may be correct. However, we over at the "The Linux Broadcom 4301 Driver Project" (http://linux-bcom4301.sourceforge.net) were the ones that exposed Linksys initially. Their released "source" is bogus. The Broadcom driver that ships with the router relies upon specific routines that Linksys put into their modified kernel. The source of the kernel released by Linksys DOES NOT contain these routines. Basically, Linksys is shipping a modified kernel -- which definitely isn't in "user space" and a cannot be claimed to be exempt from GPL -- and yet the kernel source they posted is a generic kernel missing all of these modifications.
  
  Brett Wooldridge
  "The Linux Broadcom 4301 Driver Project"
• autoconf and an itchy trigger finger
  2003-08-01 04:32:52  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  since when was it a violation of the GPL to release closed-source kernel modules? ever heard of nvidia? ati? surely any part of the kernel which contained these "routines" (care to share them with us so we have some information to go on?) could be modularized and modified or rewritten.
• autoconf and an itchy trigger finger
  2003-08-18 13:26:58  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  The point of the GPL is that I could modify the Linux kernel 2.4.5 to suit my needs, recompile it (if I have the proper compiler, that's another story), and still link with the closed-source modules. For instance if I want better IPv6 support with USAGI. Currently I can't. It's a violation of the spirit and letter of the GPL.
  

• File Locations?
  2003-07-31 07:21:08  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Are you sure that the file locations aren't just configurable with a configure script? Perhaps they were using --prefix and --sysconfdir as well as other standard configure flags? This would not be a source modification.

• GCC and GPL
  2003-07-31 06:55:03  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  The author mentioned Linksys using GCC for the WAP software develpment, and suggested that if they were distributing the modified GCC to their developers, then they were obligated to make the source available publicly.
  
  I do not believe this is correct, as I believe the GPL obligates companies to make the source code for GPL code they *sell* (perhaps distribute) available to those to whom they sell binaries.
  
  So I agree that Linksysshould be making the modified zebra code available becuse they distribute the binary with their product, but I disagree that theya re obligated to distribute source forthe modified GCC which they kept internal to their company to compile that zebra software.
  
  In other works a company could use a modified GCC to compile thousands of different proprietary programs for a radical new CPU, and be under no obligation to distribute the source for the modified GCC just because they used it to compile their software. They would have to give the GCC source if they also included the GCC binaries in what they sold so customers could compile programs for the radical new CPU.
  
  My $0.02.

• GPL and GCC
  2003-07-31 06:50:38  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  You asked
  "If Broadcom is using a modified GCC for their reference design, and are making this available to their developers, aren't they bound by the GPL to make the source code to those modifications available as well?"
  
  No,the are not bound at all to release any changes to the gpl that the use internally, only if the release the binaries of that modified GCC do they have to publish the Source.
  
  They can use thier own copy of the compiler to produce all the binaries that they want. That is why you can gpl source code that can only be compiled by a non-free compiler.
  
  mike

• Contact copyright holder
  2003-07-31 03:21:15  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  You should notify the copyright holder(s) of the GPL package that is seemingly being misused. He (she, they) is certainly in the position of asking Linksys for clarification, and possibly threatening legal action.
  
• Contact copyright holder
  2003-07-31 08:46:52  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  yeah, that's the ticket! The owner can threaten legal action! And a threat is alll you have because any real attempt to put the GPL in front of a judge would be disterous.
  
  Where ya gonna get the money to hire a lawyer? What lawyer would be foolish enough to take the case? The GPL is a joke - people on this forum and on slashdot and elsewhere cannot even agree on what the license say, and it's written in plain english! One poster described it as a freshman high school philosophical diatribe. The first time this gets in front of a judge the whole house of cards that is the GPL license will come crashing down.
• Contact copyright holder
  2003-07-31 10:37:13  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Yeah, that IS the ticket. That is precisely what people and companies do when there is a dispute. It's why we have laws and licenses and legal process.
  
  People in the same organization disagree on what licenses say on many things. GPL is no exception. People in GPL are just more open to discuss it on public forums than in private meeting rooms. What's your point?
  
  "The whole house of cards that is the GPL license will come crashing down." - That's quite a poetic prophecy. Tell me, do you charge by the hour or can I hire you for the whole day on my nephews birthday next week?
  
• Contact copyright holder
  2003-07-31 08:55:51  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  If that's the only way you can go to bed at night and sleep soundly, then more power to you. Don't worry about the fact that you're very, very wrong.
  
  The GPL has been brought up in only a couple court cases, and one in particular (MySQL vs. whoever, can't remember). In all instances the judge in the case never, ever questioned the legality of the GPL document itself, the train of thought in the court room went straight to "are they complying?"

• Linksys support
  2003-07-30 10:42:15  Kevin Bingham | [Reply | View]
  
  
  Rob,
  
  Good luck with Linksys support. Last time I emailed them for support I received an unclear response. "Is Linksys farming their support overseas?", I inanely thought. I looked at the response's header, and yes, they do.
  
  Keep up the good work!
• Linksys support
  2003-09-18 00:11:49  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  yes, I think linksys support has a big problem. I called for support so many time to solve a problem with my linksys router, and I got no where.
• Linksys support
  2003-07-31 09:01:58  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hehe, I was on the phone to Linksys support for 2 1/2 hours one time. Got to know the nice young lady real well, as she lived in Manila. As I hung up the phone I thought to myself, "I just made Linksys spend more money on the phone call to tech. support than I paid for this router..." Smiling, I chucked the router in the trash. :)
• Linksys support
  2003-07-31 23:40:36  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Think again, fool, it actually DOES "work
  like that" - sometimes.
  
  Companies that purchase circuits like T1's do not overbuy. If for example they know that the average simultaneous calls is 200, and the peak is 500, and the peak lasts for 15 minutes ONCE a day, they will buy around 10 T1's, carrying 240 calls total.
  
  They then program the phone systems at both ends so that if all the leased circuits are full, the phone systems dial through LD carrier for the excess calls. Since this only happens quite briefly, the LD charges are much less than another 10 T1s would cost.
  
  Besides the cost savings, they have to do this in case there's a fiber cut and all 10 of their T1's fall down.
  
  So you don't know if this guy's call was carried on private line or not. If it was, which is most likely, then yes the call didn't cost anything. But there is a chance it wasn't.
  
  Furthermore Linksys does have to pay money to the support company to pay the salary of the girl sitting in Manilla.
  
  To suggest that outsourced tech support is "free" for the hiring company is preposterous.
• Linksys support
  2003-07-31 09:44:35  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  hate to burst your bubble, but it does not work like that. You know what a T1 is right? Do you know why the phone company sells these? Its NOT an internet connection, its a "leased line." Companies can rent T1, etc. to far destinations, and no longer pay per call. You are familiar with the "dial 9" to get out stuff? Do you know I can call Spain From Detroit without "getting out." That makes it not even register on the phone companies bill. All they know is they sold a few T1s...
• Linksys support
  2003-07-31 09:43:30  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  hate to burst your bubble, but it does not work like that. You know what a T1 is right? Do you know why the phone company sells these? Its NOT an internet connection, its a "leased line." Companies can rent T1, etc. to far destinations, and no longer pay per call. You are familiar with the "dial 9" to get out stuff? Do you know I can call Spain From Detroit without "getting out." That makes it not even register on the phone companies bill. All they know is they sold a few T1s...

• GCC Issues
  2003-07-30 06:03:20  jbeimler [Reply | View]
  
  
  I don't think you have much chance of getting the GCC patches. Linksys isn't shipping GCC, just code compiled with it. Whomever made the bcm4710 modifications is required to give Linksys the code if it is requested, but I can't see how an end user could get the code for gcc without getting the compiler directly from the distributor.
• GCC Issues
  2003-07-30 11:06:33  rflicken [Reply | View]
  
  
  You're probably right there. It would make more sense to go bug Broadcom. But it can't hurt to ask, can it?
  
  I'm also encouraged by the fact that the chap who got a shell running on it did so using code I compiled using a standard GCC on a Cobalt Qube. There might still be a licensing question, but if code from the standard compiler runs on the WRT54G, that's a relief.
• GCC Issues
  2003-07-31 04:20:19  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Broadcom's under no obligation to release the mods to gcc except to their downstream users. According to RMS, use within a company does not constitute "distribution" in a sense that triggers the GPL. Linksys is also under no obligation to actually ask Broadcom for the source.
• GCC Issues
  2003-07-31 08:12:04  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  No, Linksys IS in a position to ask them for the source if Broadcom gave them a modified GCC binary to use. You and I, having no modified GCC binary in our possession, have no right to the source, either.
• GCC Issues
  2003-07-31 09:17:03  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Read again, he said "not under obligation" not "have no right". They may not CARE what mods were made to the source.
  
  I agree with a previous poster, changing the config file dirs is a simple matter of messin' with the Makefile. To prove they actually made changes to the source itself, you would have to prove that the binary does something different. Comparing MD5's with a known clean GPL copy (proabably) won't work either, as they used a modified compiler. You would have to prove that the program(s) in question do something in a basicly different way than a clean version of the sources with an unmodified compiler. Good luck with that, could take a LOT of testing.
• How I'd cheat
  2003-07-31 10:45:04  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  First, I'd hack on GCC to accept a table of line numbers, file names, line text, and "foreign text files". Next when I invoke GCC to read a GPL'ed source file, When GCC sees a matching line number and text, it sees an implied #include, and fetches whatever mods I want to make but not publish. So this way, I've modified the GCC (which mods I may keep private), but have not touched the source. Distribute new binary, Profit!
  Sincerely (somewhat), phred.
  
• How I'd cheat
  2003-07-31 22:02:33  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  You still then would be releasing a modified binary. What does it matter how you modified it?