Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Businesses Software News

Verizon Being Sued for GPL Infringement 195

Posted by Zonk from the they're-very-techy-about-that-stuff dept.
darthcamaro writes "According to the SFLC, Verizon can be added to the list of companies infringing on the GPL. They filed a lawsuit in New York yesterday (pdf) alleging that the company is handing out routers using the GPL'd software 'BusyBox' without accompanying source code. Today the SFLC spoke to the media to lay out its case: 'The legal action against Verizon come as the fourth action that the SFLC has undertaken this year on behalf of BusyBox on GPL issues. The GPL is a reciprocal license that requires users of GPL-protected technology to make their source code available to end-users. To date, the SFLC has settled with one defendant out of court. Two actions, facing Xterasys Corporation and High-Gain Antennas, are ongoing and Ravicher said he's optimistic about negotiations resulting in a resolution with each.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verizon Being Sued for GPL Infringement More

Verizon Being Sued for GPL Infringement

Comments Filter:
  • Do the users have admin rights on the router to install a new version of busybox? If not, sending them the source code seems like a pointless formality, like a map to a country you are forbidden from visiting.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 )
      Hmmm...you bring up an interesting point. If busybox were GPL 3, would Verizon then be forced to give users admin rights to the router?

      • Re:Is the router user-modifiable? (Score:4, Informative)

        by homer_ca ( 144738 ) on Friday December 07, 2007 @09:35PM (#21620285)
        It's not locked down. Verizon gave me an Actiontec router free with FIOS service. You get the password, and you can reconfigure anything you want. You don't need to change anything, since the installer will get it working with your wireless laptop if you need the help (default setup is 64bit WEP). You can also use your own router, but if you get FIOS TV, you'll have to use the Actiontec because it has a coax out for the TV set-top box. I tossed it in the closet because wireless performance sucked. Not sure if it was WPA or incompatibility with the wireless client, but it barely worked in the same room.
        • Do you actually know what you're talking about, or are you just talking about some web interface?

          There is a huge difference between being able to ssh in as root, and having the ability (with a web interface) to "reconfigure anything you want".

          Simple example: The NAS we have at work, despite being basically a hard drive in a box with an ethernet port, does allow us to ssh in as root, which lets us use it for things it was not designed for at all -- for example, we could probably run BitTorrent on the box its

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 )
      Sounds like the archos 605.
      It apparantly runs Linux but uses executables signed with their private key and people haven't yet cracked it open.

      Shame really because they are nice.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by micheas ( 231635 )
      You can do tftp firmware upgrades to the router much like the Linux based Linksys boxes.

      The uses I can foresee is modifying the ipstack and modifying snmp of the router. I am sure more creative minds than mine can come up with much more useful ideas.

    • Re:Is the router user-modifiable? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 07, 2007 @05:00PM (#21617421)
      Bullshit. Their users can't install new versions on the box, but other developers can look for changes they've made, and possibly incorporate them into their own code. You could create a replica of the hardware, and install their code on it. You can find and point out security vulnerabilities. There's plenty of reasons you'd want the source, without being able to modify the code running on the box itself.

      • You could create a replica of the hardware
        Wouldn't that possibly violate hardware patents or the FCC's monopoly on radio frequency transmissions?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by sumdumass ( 711423 )
          Depends on how you create it. If you purchased the chips, then presumably your patent obligations concerning them would be covered. If you purchased the radios pre-configured and so on, it could be the same. Think of it more like building a PC and selling it. You aren't actually building it as much as assembling it.

          Now, according to the FCC and radio frequencies. If you purchased the radio broad/chip and antenna from the same manufacture, they might have already had it certified. If they haven't, then you c

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by norton_I ( 64015 )
          You can get your hardware certified for operation in the band in question.

          You might be able to make a router that doesn't infringe on any hardware patents you can't easily license.

          You might want to port any busybox patches to openwrt and use them in a linksys box.

          Any inability to replicate the hardware due to other IP is irrelevant, the busybox people don't own that.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Ed Avis ( 5917 )
        Agreed, but most of that doesn't help the users (who could download busybox sources from the net anyway). I'm just wondering what the point is to this legal action - if there is some wrong to be righted, or if they're just enforcing compliance because they can. I doubt that Verizon or the hardware manufacturer have made any enhancements to busybox.

    • Re:Is the router user-modifiable? (Score:5, Informative)

      by itsdapead ( 734413 ) on Friday December 07, 2007 @05:19PM (#21617669)

      sending them the source code seems like a pointless formality

      (a) They don't actually have to include the source code with every router - just a written offer to supply the source code on demand. (I assume that the references to "including the source code" are journalistic imprecision or its gonna be a very short lawsuit).

      (b) Users may also be developers who wish study the source code or to use or modify the software in other systems - as is their right under the GPL.

      Anyway, most such products ship with a CD for plug-n-drool installation so how hard can it be to include a few source files?

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Ed Avis ( 5917 )
        (a) a written offer is kind of pointless, when you can download busybox source code off the net free of charge (and we can assume that anyone with this router has an Internet connection...)

        (b) again, you can study the busybox source code whenever you want, whether you have bought this router or not.

        I support the GPL and of course it should be enforceable but I wonder what makes this particular router a target for spending time and money on a lawsuit. Surely there are more pressing threats to freedom that t

        • a written offer is kind of pointless, when you can download busybox source code off the net free of charge (and we can assume that anyone with this router has an Internet connection...)

          Sure, you can download BusyBox code from BusyBox. But can you download BusyBox code as modified by Verizon? Under the GPL, shouldn't you be able to do that? It might not be the sam as the BusyBox code at BusyBox...

          ...I wonder what makes this particular router a target for spending time and money on a lawsuit...

          Of course i

        • a written offer is kind of pointless, when you can download busybox source code off the net free of charge

          Someone pays to maintain whatever website you download the source from - why should they be obliged to provide a service to "your" paying customers?

          Plus, you're missing a major strategic aim of the GPL - it guarantees that the source code of useful products is always available from a multitude of sources and can't easily be "lost".

          Get real - we're talking about Verizon sticking a .zip file on a webs

    • If the router is owned by Verizon, and merely rented or provided for use by customers, then Verizon is not under GPL obligations - regardless of whether it is on customer premises. It is only if Verizon is selling or giving away the routers that they need to meet GPL obligations. The case of DRMed media and devices is weird. While ostensibly a "sale", you can't actually do anything with the product without permission from the maker. Thus Tivo and *AA companies are lying to consumers when they offer to
      • Well, actually, I was thinking about this the other day.

        Suppose I sold something for 400 dollars. I didn't want you to modify it so I leased it instead at a cost of $100 over the expected life span and then claimed that the life span was 4 years and you were to toss it in the trash at the end of it's life.

        You would effectively have bought the thing, I can deny service is changes are made and I never actually distributed anything because you are supposed to dispose of it. If you keep it and it still works af

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Myopic ( 18616 )
        Are you saying they wouldn't have to provide the source code because by merely renting the unit instead of selling it they aren't "distributing" the code? That's an interesting interpretation of "distribute". Can anyone who knows comment on the legal definition of "distribute"? It seems to me that if I have something, and give it to you, even if I only loaned it to you I have distributed it to you; but this certainly wouldn't be the first time a word means different things to lawyers and non-lawyers.

        You're
        • Distribution means, "having a copy on your computer, whether anyone downloaded it or not". At least to the *AA
    • Pointless or not, it's the terms of the license.

  • They've got bigger problems - router is P.O.S. (Score:5, Informative)

    by kannibal_klown ( 531544 ) on Friday December 07, 2007 @04:48PM (#21617225)
    The router in question is the ActionTec MI424WR. It's very pretty, and the web admin page is quite intuitive.

    Unfortunately it has a MAJOR flaw. They're giving it out to their FIOS customers now, and the router shuts down when it gets hit too many times. This happens when using a Torrent, but also when refreshing STEAM server lists!

    It's quite annoying, and since it's used by the TV set-top-boxes in the house it's kind of necessary. It's a shame, my 20Mbit connection can't handle Steam.

    The problem was found a while back (when the casing wasn't as pretty about a year ago) but still no fix. I believe it has to do with a small NAT table.

    • That's odd... (Score:2, Funny)

      by sczimme ( 603413 )

      It's quite annoying, and since it's used by the TV set-top-boxes in the house it's kind of necessary. It's a shame, my 20Mbit connection can't handle Steam.

      That's odd: I thought Steam was supposed to travel through a series of tubes...

      Try putting a pressure gauge and valve just upstream from your router: if the Steam pressure goes up too much, you can close the valve. Easy peasy!

      PS Get a whistle, too: your router will sound like an old train.

    • Oh crap is THAT what it is? Mine ends up unresponsive on wireless even though it's still issuing IPs (no packets getting through though).

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by darkmeridian ( 119044 )
      Do you think a new firmware issued by OSS source code hackers can address the problem? I mean, Verizon should be jumping on this possibility of reducing costs.
    • Are you sure? Because if that is true, then Action tech could be the one responsible for the GPLed code.

      A quick search of their site seems to indicate that they have a download [actiontec.com] for it.

      Now, Verizon could be protected from having to distribute the code by either of two ways that I can think of. The first might be in that they don't actually sell it but lease it and keep control of it. This sounds like something Verizon might do but I have replaces My ADSL2+ modem after their got hit by lightning. Their tech s
      • Now, Verizon could be protected from having to distribute the code by either of two ways that I can think of. The first might be in that they don't actually sell it but lease it and keep control of it.

        No, you "purchase" the router. Actually, you get it free. But, if it dies after the 1-year warranty period, you must buy another.

        There is an exception: if you are also a FIOS TV subscriber, they will replace it -- because it is used to download program guide information and pay-per-view videos into the

        • Well that's true in some cases...they way they wired my house, they fed coax into my house for the WAN connection......haven't seen too many routers @ newegg that can take a coax wan connection.
      • I'm confused by this too. Verizon is distributing, more or less, an off-the-shelf embedded product. Yes, it's somewhat customized because of FIOS TV, but Actiontec is the manufacturer. Is a retailer like Best Buy liable for copyright infringement in any embedded devices they sell?
        • I read the filings and found that they aren't complaining about the router itself, but Verizon is hosting the firmware file for it on their website with no source. The FSF is claiming that file contains Busy box and it is covered by the GPL.

          So it wasn't the router itself, just connected to it by the firmware.
    • I just read the filing. Evidently, the fact of the router is secondary. They posted a link to the firmware for the product and the complaint references that. http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp [verizon.net]

      I was surprised too. I though verizon might be covered by the right of first sale. But unless they are redirecting the firmware from the ActionTech site, they are probably in violation.
    • I didn't get as far as the Torrent and Steam problem, but I struggled for a week with poor wireless performance before giving up and using my $15 Airlink router from Fry's. It sure did suck. At first I thought it was weak signal and interference, but when I couldn't get a good connection with a laptop 6 feet away in the room I knew it was time to give up.
    • Specifically, is it impossible to do Linksys -> ActionTec -> Set top -> TV?

      Or maybe some Linux box which fools the router into thinking it's on the Internet, if it won't work behind a NAT.
    • I put my own router in place of the crappy Actiontec one for my FIOS Internet. However, they are saying they *require* their router if I want to use FIOS TV. No sale. Unfortunately that means I'll be sticking with Comcast for my TV.

  • I have this router (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EMIce ( 30092 ) on Friday December 07, 2007 @05:09PM (#21617537) Homepage
    They are handing it out these Actiontec routers with fiber optic service. It has a coaxial port which is WAN/LAN port (different frequencies for each), WAN ethernet port, and a few LAN ethernet ports. The coaxial LAN and cat5 LAN are bridged.

    The TV set top boxes get IP addresses on the LAN via their coaxial connections. So these Verizon controlled boxes actually sit on my LAN in the same subnet as my PCs. They start at 192.168.1.100 while the PCs start at 192.168.1.2. Well I pinged then port scanned these Motorola set top boxes, and at least the HDTV DVR model of the box had it's VxWorks debug port left open. Interesting...

    With the right tools I could imagine full access to the drive and the running software. So what does it take to work with this VxWorks debug port?

    Some people may want to copy recordings out or enable the USB/Firewire to allow more than the 80GB internal storage included, but I am more curious if this untrusted box is doing anything I don't want on my home network. Few have the special equipment to tap these MOCA (multi-media over coax) wires between the router and the STBs, so this debug port might be a good way to check.

  • Uh-oh... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by idontgno ( 624372 ) on Friday December 07, 2007 @05:19PM (#21617681) Journal

    I wonder if Verizon is the right place to be looking for the source code?

    If the "infringing product" is, indeed, the Actiontec MI424WR, wouldn't the correct place to look be the manufacturer of the hardware and integrator of the firmware, Actiontec?

    Looking on Actiontec's "Support: Open Source" website (http://opensource.actiontec.com/index.html [actiontec.com]), I see the following:

    GPL Code Download is available for the following Actiontec products: Wireless Broadband Router Model MI424WR

    The following is the portion of the Actiontec source code for the MI424WR Products.

    List of modules:

    busybox-0.50
    Release Date Filename
    11/27/2007 actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr.tar.gz

    Hmmm... looks like Actiontec is at least attempting to honor the license. I haven't researched what's in the tarball, but at least it's there.

    So, again, why is SFLC suing Verizon? I'm sure Verizon would argue that (A) they're just retailing and installing off-the-shelf hardware, and (B) any license liability is the hardware manufacturer's.

    BTW: to the 4 anonymous cowards that I upmodded earlier in this article, sorry you lost my moderation bump. I hate wasting modpoints, but this seemed relevant and important.

    • They're suing Verizon because Verizon is distributing the hardware boxes (and thus the embedded software).

      Verizon could then turn around and sue the hardware manufacturer as well, but they themselves are still liable under coypright law.

      Also, the GPL is quite clear as to when you are allowed to post a link to a website, and when you have to ship the actual source with the product.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by idontgno ( 624372 )

        They're suing Verizon because Verizon is distributing the hardware boxes (and thus the embedded software).
        Verizon could then turn around and sue the hardware manufacturer as well, but they themselves are still liable under coypright law.

        I'm not sure if I buy that. At least, I don't think it's that simple. If I sell hardware with GPL firmware, and I don't do firmware support myself, I can't imagine that simply retailing the hardware incurs any kind of source code requirement.

        I'm not considering whether Ve

        • I'm not sure if I buy that. At least, I don't think it's that simple. If I sell hardware with GPL firmware, and I don't do firmware support myself, I can't imagine that simply retailing the hardware incurs any kind of source code requirement.

          Forget about the terms of the GPL. If someone sells you a product, and you sell it on, and the product contains parts that are protected by copyright and you don't have permission from the copyright holder, you are responsible. If I produce 1000 illegal copies of MS Vista, sell them to you, and you sell them on, you can't deny responsibility. Microsoft can and will sue you. You may be able to sue me in turn, depending on circumstances.

          Same here. When Verizon gives the product to the end user, they are

    • Re:Uh-oh... (Score:5, Informative)

      by strredwolf ( 532 ) on Friday December 07, 2007 @05:28PM (#21617835) Homepage Journal
      Verizon modded the firmware to at least display the Verizon logo on the router's admin pages. They usually supply the modded firmware themselves, so it's not Actiontec who's at fault (they are in GPL compliance). It's Verizon (with the modded firmware).

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by idontgno ( 624372 )

        Now that's the answer which makes the most sense. If it's not stock firmware, and the altered firmware is in the scope of the original open source (i.e., not just simple aggregation), then yes, Verizon is obligated to honor source redistribution requirements.

        But remember: not everything in the firmware image is necessarily open source. (Again, the "simple aggregation" criterion.) Therefore, not everything would trigger an obligation to share source.

        TFA is a fine piece of press-releasemanship, but awfully li

      • It doesn't matter if they modified the firmware, as long as they didn't modify BusyBox. I guess they must have detected some changes in the binary and went after Verizon.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by nmx ( 63250 )

          It doesn't matter if they modified the firmware, as long as they didn't modify BusyBox. I guess they must have detected some changes in the binary and went after Verizon.

          The GPL covers distribution of copyrighted work, even if it hasn't been modified. (You don't have *any* rights to distribute copyrighted work without some sort of license, such as the GPL.) Simply the act of distributing BusyBox in binary form requires that you also distribute the source used to compile it (or a written offer for said so

      • Terminology (Score:2, Informative)

        by Akaihiryuu ( 786040 )
        Ok, this is nit-picking, but it comes up every time there's a "GPL violation" in the courts/news. Verizon is not being sued for a "GPL violation". The GPL is NOT an EULA, it is a copyright license. They ONLY have the rights to distribute the GPL'd software in question if they abide by the terms of the GPL. If they are not abiding by the terms of the GPL, they don't have the rights to distribute the software *at all*, and since they continue to distribute it, they are distributing it in violation of copy
        • It's bad nitpicking, for several reasons, not the least of which being that GPL violation is copyright infringement, among other things, so you're in distinction-without-a-difference land. Breach of license is a means of infringing on a copyright, and frankly is more useful as a term that "he violated my copyright!" which urges the followup question, "How?" This takes care of both in one fell swoop.

          Further, what you claim has never been established or held to be true in a US court. The GNU Public License

          • It's bad nitpicking, for several reasons, not the least of which being that GPL violation is copyright infringement, among other things, so you're in distinction-without-a-difference land. Breach of license is a means of infringing on a copyright, and frankly is more useful as a term that "he violated my copyright!" which urges the followup question, "How?" This takes care of both in one fell swoop.

            You are wrong. GPL violation is _not_ copyright infringement. Distributing software without permission of the copyright holder is copyright infringement. Not meeting the terms of the GPL just invalidates any claims that you might have permission of the copyright holder. That is an important distinction, because it means the copyright infringement has happened, and distributing the source code now doesn't help anymore.

            You cannot sue anyone for breach of the GPL. You can only sue for copyright infringemen

            • You are wrong. GPL violation is _not_ copyright infringement. Distributing software without permission of the copyright holder is copyright infringement.

              Wow. You were SO close. GPL violation sparks what action? Termination of license. Distributing without a license is what? Distribution without permission. Distribution without permission is what? Copyright infringement.

              That is an important distinction, because it means the copyright infringement has happened, and distributing the source code now doesn't help anymore.

              It's not a distinction at all! You're living a fiction totally unsupported by the law. There is no mechanism--let me repeat--there is NO mechanism, for perpetually terminating a GPL user's license. You can seek an injunction requiring a company to stop sales until they comply with

        • The subject should read "Verizon being sued for copyright infringement".

          And since we are told to DEATH that "copyright infringement" == "stealing" == "piracy" we could have it read "Verizon being sued for software theft and piracy".

          Even harder and more important than the editors and media understanding the subtlety here -- do the lawyers and the courts understand it? If Verizon WINS this case would it set legal precedent to relax judgment on other forms of copyright infringement?

          • What should be important is that Slashdot understands it, and you've handedly demonstrated that you don't.

            If Verizon wins this case, it sets no precedent whatsoever. If it evolves to a precedential ruling, at best it will simply cause damage to the notion of suing for any kind of open source infringement, by invalidating restrictions that can't be enforced (granting distributions rights without a contract) or that never legally existed (requires no notice or assent--users are not so much as presented with
    • If you distribute the software you must accept the GPL. Read the GPL. They can't say "I got this from X nd X offers source code." NO, each distributer must also distribute source. The GPL says you do not have to agree to this but agreeing is the only way you can distribute the software

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by v1 ( 525388 )
      I have a GT701-WG and it runs busybox. I just recently updated the firmware too. This is a Qwest DSL modem with wireless capacity.

      Strange that you can telnet into it and login, but you can't ssh in. Fortunately the telnet is only listening to machines on its lan ports, since there's no way to turn it off that I know of.

      BusyBox v0.61.pre (2006.07.03-16:17+0000) Built-in shell (ash)

      ifconfig sure does list a lot of ports. It must be a very generically written os to work easily on a wide variety of their bo

  • Competition (Score:3, Funny)

    by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 ) on Friday December 07, 2007 @05:25PM (#21617763) Homepage Journal
    Soon, the *AA will be forced to deal with a strange new concept...competition.

    Soon, they will find that they are not the only ones prosecuting copyright violators...

    Soon, they will be struggling to keep ahead of the organizations that prosecute GPL violations! ... and yes, these organizations _will_ take on the *AA, and there _will_ be a film at 11!
  • I'm happy to see this suit being filed against Verizon. They're the same Verizon who patented RFC's and then went after VoIP provider Vonage if you recall.

    I hope their FIOS is a complete failure.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Nullav ( 1053766 )

      I hope their FIOS is a complete failure.
      Nose, face, spite, etc.

      So they're patent trolls, at least they provide something useful on the side. I, for one, would rather have a cheap, high-bandwidth connection than cheap VoIP. (Don't we have Skype for that anyway?) 15Mbps upstream is just too good to pass up, compared to the 512Kbps-1Mbps the cable companies provide.
      • I get a verifiable 1.5mb up from Cox. It's fine, I'm not serving out much anyhow as my devel environment doesn't require it.

        I realize that clashes with torrents and things like that, but just watch and see what Verizon does. They're famous for luring you in then jacking up the price. The only reason there's any buzz about it is because people have the memory span of a gnat.
  • Sometimes I think BusyBox was created just so people could bitch about embedded manufacturers.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nmx ( 63250 )

      Sometimes I think BusyBox was created just so people could bitch about embedded manufacturers.

      I laughed at this. But the truth is, the manufacturers could have written their own BusyBox-like toolkit. They wisely chose to use someone else's work instead, and have to pay only the small price of providing the same source that they were given. It's not too much to ask.

Slashdot Top Deals

The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.

Close