Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Is Linksys Violating The GPL?

Posted by timothy on Sun Jun 08, 2003 01:18 PM
from the could-just-be-a-glitch dept.
jap writes "According to this post on LKML, Linksys is shipping firmware for (at least their) 802.11g access-points based on Linux - without any sourcecode available or mentioning of it on their site. This could be interesting: it might provide the possibility of building an ueber-cool accesspoint firmware with IPsec and native ipv6 support etc etc, using this information!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Is Linksys Violating The GPL? | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 524 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Cisco IOS ? (Score:5, Funny)

    by berkeleyjunk (250251) on Sunday June 08 2003, @01:21PM (#6144299)
    If you push too hard for publishing source code, this box will be running Cisco IOS soon, slowing down the box 4 fold.

  • I'm not sure (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CAIMLAS (41445) on Sunday June 08 2003, @01:22PM (#6144306)
    (http://forums.boiledfrog.us/ | Last Journal: Friday February 21 2003, @01:08PM)
    I'm not sure whether this is just as damaging to Open Source as the SCO thing had the potential of being, or not. On one hand, it might deter use of linux at all, and on the other it'll just be a general 'bad business practice to use linux in our commericial products' type stigma.
  • Man... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rindeee (530084) on Sunday June 08 2003, @01:22PM (#6144311)
    ...think of the number of APs they'd sell based on this fact alone. They obviously should abide by the GPL, but they should also shout it from the hilltops that their AP is Linux based and therefore a hackers delight (and the FCC's nightmare).

    ER
    • Re:Man... by LooseChanj (Score:2) Sunday June 08 2003, @01:34PM
    • Re:Man... by MisterFancypants (Score:3) Sunday June 08 2003, @02:29PM
      • Re:Man... (Score:5, Insightful)

        That's fine. If it's impossible for Linksys to release the source, they just have to stop distributing the code (and suffer potential lawsuits about copyright infringement and the like from anyone who holds the copyright on various parts of the kernel). If the GPL doesn't apply, plain copyright law does.
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Man... by shaitand (Score:2) Sunday June 08 2003, @07:48PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Does it matter ? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DumbMarketingGuy (171031) on Sunday June 08 2003, @01:23PM (#6144316)
    The GPL has no real valid legal meaning until it has been tested in a court of law. I think the fact that no GPL violation case has ever made it into a courtroom speaks volumes!
  • Better drivers? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CodeMaster (28069) on Sunday June 08 2003, @01:24PM (#6144319)
    They have been using Linux for a long time on their routers/AP's.
    Anyone who have one must have noticed it.

    The one thing to say to their defence is that they are usually "driver friendly" with their PCMCIA WiFi cards.

    I just hope that now they will wake up, straighten up the mess, and start helping the community with supporting 802.11g in Linux for their NIC's.
  • At least they're using Linux (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PirateDave -) (679653) on Sunday June 08 2003, @01:26PM (#6144331)
    What's got the higer priority: getting companies to print the GPL in their manuals, or getting companies to release high qulaity *ware with linux (for free!)
    It could be argued that GPL compliancy will make it better, but as far as I can see it's still much better than what it could potentially have been.
  • In case gets /.ed (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 08 2003, @01:26PM (#6144336)
    Hi,

    Sorry for the very lengthly posting, but I want to be as precise as possible in describing this problem.

    Awhile ago, I mentioned that the Linksys WRT54G wireless access point used several GPL projects in its firmware, but did not seem to have any of the
    source available, or acknowledge the use of the GPLed software. Four weeks ago, I spoke with an employee at Linksys who confirmed that the system did use Linux, and also mentioned that he would work with his management to ensure that the source was released. Unfortunately, my e-mails to this
    individual over the past three weeks have gone unanswered. Of course, I also tried contacting Linksys through their common public e-mail accounts (, ) to no avail.

    However, it is hard for me to know if my contact in the company has just gone on a three week vacation (and not set an auto-responder), or has been asked to not answer anymore mail on this subject. Also, I should note that I don't own this product, so I can't determine if the source is shipped with it.

    However, I have gone through all the available information on the Linksys website, and can find no reference to the GPL, Linux (as it relates to this product), or the firmware source code. Also, the firmware binary (see below) is freely available from their website. There is no link from the download page to the source, or any mention of Linux or the GPL. Finally, it would be
    strange if the source was included in the physical package, as my contact at Linksys was initially unaware Linux was used in this product.

    The following steps can be used to determine the exact nature of the possible GPL violation.

    1. Go to the following URL:
    http://www.linksys.com/download/firmware.asp?fwid= 178

    2. Download the "firmware upgrade files":
    ftp://ftp.linksys.com/pub/network/WRT54G_ 1.02.1_US _code.bin
    (MD5SUM: b54475a81bc18462d3754f96c9c7cc0f)

    3. While it is downloading, confirm that there is nothing on the webpage to indicate that this binary contains GPLed software.

    4. Once the download is complete, copy the contents of the file from offset 0xC0020 onward into a new file.
    dd if=WRT54G_1.02.1_US_code.bin of=test.dump skip=24577c bs=32c

    5. Notice that this file is an image of a CramFS filesystem. Mount it.

    6. Explore the filesystem. You will notice that the system appears to be based on Linux 2.4.5. Incidentally, there is at least one other GPLed project in the firmware: the BusyBox userland component: (http://www.busybox.net/)

    7. The Linux kernel (I think) is mixed up with a bunch of other stuff in: bin/boot.bin

    You might want to know why I am interested in getting the code for the kernel used in this device.

    There's been some discussion here about Linux's lack of wireless support for a few of the newer 802.11b and (nearly?) all 802.11g chips. Incidentally, Linux has excellent support for at least one manufacturer's wireless family.
    The following Broadcom chips all appear to be supported under Linux -- if you happen to be running Linux on a MIPS processor in a Linksys router:

    Broadcom BCM4301 Wireless 802.11b Controller
    Broadcom BCM4307 Wireless 802.11b Controller
    Broadcom BCM4309 Wireless 802.11a Controller
    Broadcom BCM4309 Wireless 802.11b Controller
    Broadcom BCM4309 Wireless 802.11 Multiband Controller
    Broadcom BCM4310 Wireless 802.11b Controller
    Broadcom BCM4306 Wireless 802.11b/g Controller
    Broadcom BCM4306 Wireless 802.11a Controller
    Broadcom BCM4306 Wireless 802.11 Multiband Controller

    This list was produced by running strings on:
    lib/modules/2.4.5/kernel/drivers/net/wl/wl.o

    I am trying to determine exactly how tightly coupled these drivers are to the kernel.

    As an aside, I know that some wireless companies have been hesitant of releasing open source drivers because they are worried their radios might be pushed out of spec. However, if the drivers are alre
    • Cool. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mindstrm (20013) on Sunday June 08 2003, @02:00PM (#6144549)
      But his assumption about how kernel modules work is completely wrong.. though the INTENT might be something like he describes, it's not what Linus said.

      The Linux kernel license says you can code proprietary modules, as long as the interface is part of the stock kernel (in other words, GPL)

      So you can make a proprietary network driver, as long you don't haev to modify the main kernel to get it to work; you are under no obligation to release that source at all. If you have some way of hacking an entire realtime OS to look like a network drive to the kernel, that would comply.

      So, linksys should be redistributing the linux sources, however, if their custom work is confined to modules & userland code, they are under no obligation to release the source to those drives. And as linux already has a kernel interface for network & wireless network, there is no reason to expect them to release that code.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:In case gets /.ed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MickLinux (579158) on Sunday June 08 2003, @03:04PM (#6144919)
      (Last Journal: Thursday September 13, @12:15PM)
      I see your point. However, if I had to guess, the silent treatment is while management tries to figure out what to do.

      I could imagine quite possibly that they've signed some NDAs that won't allow them to release all their source code. Then this GPL stuff means that they have to release all their source code -- or so it seems.

      So now they've got to figure out what to do, and while they're figuring, it's legally safer to say nothing to anyone.

      Probably their best way out is either get the NDAs released [unlikely], or find out the individual authors of their modules, and work out individual licensing agreements [difficult, but possible] that keep it outside the GPL. At that point, though, you won't have your information.

      That said, I have to think about SCO, and think that one shouldn't take a "All your codebase are belong to us" approach. My feeling is that trying to knock others out to get what you want, is kindof evil. And that goes in both directions.

      So I think persistance is key, here, but if they made a mistake, (1) don't gloat -- rather, be meek (2) still be persistent, and try to get FSF's help pursuing this (3) hopefully get the FSF to offer them help in finding for themselves a legally sound position.

      P.S. Good hacking job [and yes, that's hacking not cracking, though I hope that they don't just decide 'hit him with the DMCA -- he's too small to fight it.' Ugh. This DMCA gives all the power to big criminals, it seems to me, and takes power away from little law abiders.

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:In case gets /.ed (Score:5, Interesting)

        by 73939133 (676561) on Sunday June 08 2003, @04:44PM (#6145421)
        Probably their best way out is either get the NDAs released [unlikely], or find out the individual authors of their modules, and work out individual licensing agreements [difficult, but possible] that keep it outside the GPL.

        It's too late for that: whether they do or do not release the source code at this point, they have already lost their right to release the binary. And their GPL violation is not that they haven't put up the source code for FTP somewhere, the GPL violation is that they didn't identify the product as using GPL'ed code in the first place, accompanied by an offer to make the source code available.

        That said, I have to think about SCO, and think that one shouldn't take a "All your codebase are belong to us" approach. My feeling is that trying to knock others out to get what you want, is kindof evil. And that goes in both directions.

        If someone has violated SCO's copyright in the way they claim, they should be punished severely: copyright violations like those claimed by SCO threaten not only companies, they threaten the very existence of open source software. (However, I believe that SCO's claims are bogus, so I don't see much danger of that happening.)

        Likewise, if Linksys has violated the terms of the GPL, they should be punished severely. Linksys's behavior, shipping GPL'ed code without identifying it as such, is a fundamental violation of the GPL, and if the only consequence is that companies have their wrists slapped when found out (and it has taken years to find this out about Linksys), it undermines the whole idea of the GPL.
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:In case gets /.ed by stiggle (Score:1) Monday June 09 2003, @07:06AM
    • Re:In case gets /.ed by baitisj2 (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @04:05PM
    • Re:In case gets /.ed by baitisj2 (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @04:34PM
    • Re:a clue to the puzzle! by neobrew (Score:1) Monday June 09 2003, @07:28AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Requirements (Score:5, Informative)

    by TWX (665546) on Sunday June 08 2003, @01:26PM (#6144338)
    If they're not rewriting the source code, using it in a form that they themselves obtained it in (pre-compiling), they might not have to provide source if they disclose their source location. Also, if they were smart enough to create independent kernel modules for the rest of the device, they wouldn't have to release those anyway.

    It would be nice if they included at least a copy of the GPL and a linux installation CD in the back of their manual though, since that would be a way of distributing the code, if not more than the code, and would probably make them in compliance.

    Hell, TurboLinux install CDs came with hardware that Linux couldn't even use, for a while...
  • More From the Kernel List (Score:5, Interesting)

    by OctaneZ (73357) <ben-slashdot2@ u m a.litech.org> on Sunday June 08 2003, @01:27PM (#6144345)
    (Last Journal: Tuesday September 11, @01:41PM)
    A couple follow ups on the kernel mailing list:

    A very interesting bit from the busybox maintainer, who has evidently already sent linksys two letters [lkml.org]

    A post outlinging the possibility that Belkin is also shipping GPL'd code [lkml.org]

    A few other people are throwing their two cents in, but those were the most interesting, code be an interesting test of corporate policey, and the ability of the GPL to withstand a court battle.
  • Alternate browser support (Score:5, Funny)

    by kien (571074) <.kien. .at. .member.fsf.org.> on Sunday June 08 2003, @01:27PM (#6144347)
    (Last Journal: Sunday June 29 2003, @08:38PM)
    I sent an email asking Linksys why IE was required to use their web-based admin tool for my BEFSR41.

    Here's their reply:
    Again, thank you for contacting Linksys Customer Support. Unfortunately, we do not have an advice yet when will Linksys support other operating systems. Rest assure that your message will reach the right department. If you have further questions, please contact us at (800) 326-7114 or send us an email at support@linksys.com so that we may further assist you. Please use this phone number given as reference for future support calls. Thank you and have a nice day.


    --K.
  • Only if they changed something... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pla (258480) on Sunday June 08 2003, @01:28PM (#6144352)
    (Last Journal: Monday April 03 2006, @07:23PM)
    Why does everyone always assume that any embedded device running Linux must have, in some way, violated the GPL?

    I worked eight years as a firmware engineer. In the last three, I dealt almost exclusively with Linux.

    And I can assure you that we didn't need to change any GPL'd code to get what we wanted. Even on fairly custom hardware, we could find preexisting GPL'd code to do 99% of what we needed (and wrote user-space drivers where possible, and modules where not). No need to release anything if you don't change anything, to comply with the GPL.

    Whether ethical or not, plenty of legal ways of circumventing the intent of the GPL exist. And, like it or not, eliminating those loopholes (which would basically require forcing any program that runs under linux to use the GPL) would kill Linux in the business world.
    • Re:Only if they changed something... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by runderwo (609077) <runderwo@maiTIGERl.win.org minus cat> on Sunday June 08 2003, @01:50PM (#6144474)
      No need to release anything if you don't change anything, to comply with the GPL.
      Erm, take a look at Section 3 of the GPL [gnu.org] -- it quite clearly states that if the program is redistributed in binary form, it must be accompanied by the source code or a written offer for the source code.

      You may be thinking of the LGPL [gnu.org] instead, which relaxes redistribution requirements.

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Only if they changed something... by BJH (Score:2) Sunday June 08 2003, @01:53PM
    • Agreed. (Score:5, Informative)

      by mindstrm (20013) on Sunday June 08 2003, @01:54PM (#6144507)
      However, the GPL still requires that they provide source, even if they have not modified it. If you redistribute, you must provide source, or at least a written offer for the source.

      You can (section c) simply pass along the written offer YOU received, if you are simply redistributing, and not modifying, but only if it's NON-COMMERCIAL, and only if you yourself received the written offer. IF they are using stock linux kernels, there is no written offer, so .. they are obligated to provide a copy of the source (sans their changes, if they are not within the scope of the gpl)

      3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of 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,

      * b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

      * c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
      [ Parent ]
      • frankly, this seems stupid by Trepidity (Score:2) Sunday June 08 2003, @05:09PM
        • Re:frankly, this seems stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Fnkmaster (89084) on Sunday June 08 2003, @06:17PM (#6145902)
          Because it allows the community to get any of their changes back into the mainline codebase. If there are no changes, then they should be willing to provide the source. If that's the real source, it should be demonstrably equivalent to the binaries on the box. If it's not, then they are probably not releasing their real codebase.


          Think of this as a check on honesty of GPL adherents. If you don't make the offer or even admit that there is GPLed code in your product, you are probably doing it for a reason (i.e. you are hiding something). If they really aren't hiding anything, and it was a simple oversight, then why don't they reply to emails about it and just point out that no modifications were made, and stick a source mirror up on their FTP site? The cost is practically nil to them to adhere to the license, assuming they are playing by the rules, so what's the big deal?

          [ Parent ]
          • No by mindstrm (Score:1) Monday June 09 2003, @07:56PM
        • Simple. by mindstrm (Score:1) Monday June 09 2003, @08:00PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Thanks for the post by bill_mcgonigle (Score:1) Monday June 09 2003, @09:45AM
    • Distribution, also. by J. T. MacLeod (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @01:57PM
    • Re:Only if they changed something... by irc.goatse.cx troll (Score:2) Sunday June 08 2003, @02:09PM
    • Re:Only if they changed something... by trueaveragejoe (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @02:11PM
    • Re:Only if they changed something... by Alsee (Score:2) Monday June 09 2003, @02:19AM
    • Re:Only if they changed something... by pla (Score:2) Sunday June 08 2003, @11:23PM
    • Re:Only if they changed something... (they did) by pla (Score:2) Monday June 09 2003, @12:52PM
    • 4 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • It might be available (Score:5, Informative)

    by FattMattP (86246) on Sunday June 08 2003, @01:31PM (#6144373)
    (http://spf.pobox.com/)
    The source might be available but only mentioned in the documentation. He states in his message that he doesn't own one of these units so he doesn't have access to all the information that an owner of the unit would. The GPL doesn't require that the source be distributed with the binaries only that it be available. That doesn't mean downloadable. It's possible that people who have purchased the unit have instructions contained within on how to download or order a CD with the source code.
  • How did this work for the Tivo? by DonWallace (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @01:34PM
    • Oh, wait, I'm such a jerk... by DonWallace (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @01:37PM
    • Re:How did this work for the Tivo? (Score:4, Informative)

      by dsgrntlxmply (610492) on Sunday June 08 2003, @01:51PM (#6144481)
      Tivo have made source code available since approximately day one of their product.

      Even before they had an FTP site, they would ship promptly and for a very reasonable fee, source on CD-R.

      The real guts of the product, including all substantial video-related drivers, are in loadable modules. The kernel and provided source have just enough hardware-specific code to calm the hardware down enough to allow the kernel to get started.

      As far as I can tell, Tivo have done everything they need to under GPL.

      [Disclosure of interests: I own a small amount of Tivo stock. When I ordered the source code way back when, they included a nice Tivo hat along with the CD.]

      [ Parent ]
  • Would source be interesting? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by harlows_monkeys (106428) on Sunday June 08 2003, @01:37PM (#6144417)
    (http://www.tzs.net/)
    It looks like what people want is the driver source, so that certain wireless chips can be supported under Linux.

    If Linksys did things right, however, those drivers will be compiled as modules, which they don't have to release source for (well...unless they started from GPL'ed driver source, of course).

    Aside from the drivers, everything else interesting should be implemented as applications, which can be closed source on Linux.

    So, don't get too excited: becoming fully GPL-compliant might consist of them simply putting up source for a stock kernel, and putting something about the GPL in their documentation.

  • I thought the kernel was LGPLed by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @01:37PM
  • No they're *not* violating the GPL by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Sunday June 08 2003, @01:40PM
  • by mindstrm (20013) on Sunday June 08 2003, @01:43PM (#6144441)
    Two points. I always have two points.

    First, as someone else already said, just becuase it uses a linux kernel doesn't mean they modified anything, it could be a stock kernel. If they wrote userspace drivers and/or kernel modules using existing interfaces for their custom hardware, they are not obligated to release anything.

    Secondly, if they weren't abiding by terms they had to according to the GPL, it would be COPYRIGHT violation, not license violation, as if you don't comply with the license, copyright law says they can't redistribute it. I know it seems like a silly point, but it's not.

    People talk about the GPL being "tested in court" and whatnot.. but the fact is: If you don't accept the GPL as valid, then copyright law still stands, and says you can't redistribute, or make derivitive works. A judge can rule the GPL as invalid, but that would mean that nobody had any rights to redistribute anything.

    It's not a license you had to accept and agree to in order to use the product.. so you can't "violate" it.

    Linus, or any other kernel developer could go to linksys, and say "I have not granted you permission to use my copyrighted work, please demonstrate why you think you are allowed to do this". They can then either cite how the GPL allows them to do what they do, or concede that they have no right to distribute.

    So as unclear as I can be.. it's not a GPL violation... and people are not forced to release code because of a nonexistant GPL violation... although that might be an acceptable remedy to all parties in most cases. They could also be forced to simply stop doing it.

  • über by Citizen of Earth (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @01:49PM
    • Re:über by CableModemSniper (Score:2) Sunday June 08 2003, @02:11PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Just be happy... by ByTor-2112 (Score:2) Sunday June 08 2003, @01:50PM
    • Yes, and by vadim_t (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @03:41PM
      • Re:Yes, and by kliment (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @04:10PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 5 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Most interesting fact by lkaos (Score:2) Sunday June 08 2003, @02:00PM
  • Time to sue? by baywulf (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @02:05PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • umm by dtfinch (Score:2) Sunday June 08 2003, @02:20PM
    • Re:umm by Fluffy the Cat (Score:3) Sunday June 08 2003, @03:04PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • What will this become? by bobthemuse (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @02:22PM
  • which is also GPL'd [zebra.org]. If you do strings /mnt/usr/sbin/zebra, you see:

    Usage : %s [OPTION...]
    Daemon which manages kernel routing table management and redistribution between
    different routing protocols.
    -b, --batch Runs in batch mode
    -d, --daemon Runs in daemon mode
    -f, --config_file Set configuration file name
    -k, --keep_kernel Don't delete old routes which installed by zebra.
    -l, --log_mode Set verbose log mode flag
    -P, --vty_port Set vty's port number
    -r, --retain When program terminates, retain added route by zebra.
    -v, --version Print program version
    -h, --help Display this help and exit
    Report bugs to %s
    bug-zebra@gnu.org

    ObGPLQuote:

    3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of 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,

    * b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    * c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

  • you think that's bad? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Trailer Trash (60756) on Sunday June 08 2003, @02:25PM (#6144681)
    (http://www.michaelchaney.com/)
    Not only are they in violation of the GPL, they are literally costing SCO BILLIONS OF DOLLARS by violating SCO's copyrights, patents, or some contract with IBM by releasing a Linux based product! Quick, someone alert McBride!
  • cramfs by DHR (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @02:27PM
  • Belkin 54g WAP/Router (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 08 2003, @02:27PM (#6144699)
    Just been hacking around a Belkin 54k WAP/Router box I bought a few weeks back. NMap identifies it as Linux 2.4.0-2.4.5.

    The Belkin Networking downloads page gives an updated firmware for this. Sure enough, at offset 790393 there's a CRAM Filesystem. Mounting that shows a stock 2.4.5 kernel with three custom modules (one for the wireless card, one for the ethernet card, one for the front panel LEDs). These three modules aside it looks like non-modified GPL stuff.

    However, reading any of the binary files shows the string : "GCC: (GNU) 3.0 20010422 (prerelease) with bcm4710a0 modifications" - Modifications you say? Oh dear, I don't remember seeing a Broadcom patch submitted to GCC ...
  • Re:Belkin 54g WAP/Router by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @11:12PM
  • Linksys Wireless AP/4port Switch not running Linux by lkaos (Score:2) Sunday June 08 2003, @03:02PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • This raises an interesting question: penalties by fudgefactor7 (Score:2) Sunday June 08 2003, @03:05PM
  • We are inconsistent by demiurg (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @03:18PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by RunzWithScissors (567704) on Sunday June 08 2003, @03:28PM (#6145035)
    Unfortunatly there are many, many misconceptions when it comes to the GPL. One of the previous comments stated that Tivo used Linux but had not released their source code. The reason is that they don't have to! I would be surprised if Linksys would be required to release their source code under the GPL.

    The misconception that I see the most is that because a product runs on top of Linux, or uses the Linux kernel then the product is also GPL'd, not so. If the product has changed the sourcecode for Linux, those changes are covered under the GPL. This is why companies like Tivo are not required to release their source. The Tivo software was written without using any existing GPL'd code as it's base, therefore it can be covered under any licensing agreement the author sees fit.

    As for Linksys, I'm willing to wager that they implemented all of their code as kernel modules. So if ask for the source code under the name of the GPL, all they are obligated to give you is the source code for the Linux kernel, sin any kernel modules they've written themselves. Kernel modules can be licensed any way the author sees fit.

    -Runz
  • BusyBox GPL violation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by andersen (10283) on Sunday June 08 2003, @03:36PM (#6145076)
    (http://codepoet.org/)
    <BusyBox maintainer hat on>

    This is what I did to verify that the Linksys firmware was violating the GPL....

    #!/bin/sh
    wget ftp://ftp.linksys.com/pub/network/WRT54G_1.02.1_US _code.bin
    # I noticed a GZIP signature for a file name "piggy" at offset
    # 60 bytes from the start, suggesting we have a compressed Linux
    # kernel
    dd if=WRT54G_1.02.1_US_code.bin bs=60 skip=1 | zcat > kernel

    # Noticed there was a cramfs magic signature at offset 786464
    dd if=WRT54G_1.02.1_US_code.bin of=cramfs.image bs=786464 skip=1
    file cramfs.image

    sudo mount -o loop,ro -t cramfs ./cramfs.image /mnt
    ls -la /mnt/bin
    file /mnt/bin/busybox
    strings /mnt/bin/busybox | grep BusyBox
    /usr/i386-linux-uclibc/bin/i386-uclibc-ld d /mnt/bin/busybox

  • GPL uses... by MrWa (Score:2) Sunday June 08 2003, @04:01PM
    • Re:GPL uses... by darqchild (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @10:42PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • I just left a message for the CEO of Linksys by killmode (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @04:04PM
  • Why Linksys? by Evro (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @04:15PM
  • by deego (587575) on Sunday June 08 2003, @04:25PM (#6145349)
    (http://gnufans.net/)
    Even if Linksys complies after some cajoling, this demonstrates the practical "loophole" we have been witnessing for the past 2 years:

    companies use GPL'ed stuff, and if they get caught, they (often) comply. For each violation that gets caught, there might be several that get away.

    In other words, there's no punishment for them when they get caught, except to finally fess up and do what they were required to do in the first place. So, it makes sense for those who think this way, to try to get away with it for as many things as they can. Very sad.
  • Afraid of GPL by wilddur (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @04:32PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • American Megatrends use uClinux [uclinux.org] (also GPL licensed) as a core part of their firmware for the AMI MegaRAC G2 Remote Processor (http://www.ami.com/megarac/ [ami.com]).

    I only discovered this by running 'strings' on the firmware and found references to uClinux and a variety of other GPL stuff.

    There is NO mention of the GPL in the product manual or on the packaging which contains the CD with a backup copy of the firmware.

    I asked for copies of any GPL sources (and associated changes) which the MegaRAC G2 used - to their credit, I received a very nice diff which only covered changes to files which already exist in the uClinux distribution.

    Unfortunately, those changes include the addition of header files which the modified kernel relies on - header files which I wasn't given and further requests for them have been ignored. So, even with the 'source' which I was given, I can't use it to produce an identical binary as to that contained in the firmware image which was supplied to me.

    For those readers who are interested in purchasing one or more MegaRAC G2s, I suggest you ask your AMI dealer why it took them over eight weeks to patch a vulnerability [ami.com] which allowed *any* remote user to gain full access to the system console and also why the product is prone to frequent hangs which are not recoverable unless you unplug all power from the server and card until the onboard battery drains.

    The vulnerability is so simple to exploit - start up the GTK+ remote console utility that came on the CD and point it to the IP address of any MegaRAC G2 card.... that's it. No prompt for a username or password. Nothing. Instant console access.

    ... then again, I suppose it just goes to show the quality of the code which their engineers are kicking out to the end-users :-(

  • Linksys uses Linux but won't support it ? Hmmm.... by Proudrooster (Score:2) Sunday June 08 2003, @04:44PM
  • DVD players running Linux... by Taurim (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @04:51PM
  • The solution is clear. by ethnocidal (Score:2) Sunday June 08 2003, @05:31PM
  • Embedded Linux by SkewlD00d (Score:2) Sunday June 08 2003, @05:36PM
  • BETTER CALL SCO! by Newer Guy (Score:2) Sunday June 08 2003, @05:40PM
  • by UncleSocks (243734) on Sunday June 08 2003, @06:14PM (#6145881)
    (http://www.geeksville.com/~kevinh)
    Hi,

    A few months ago I was poking around their "network file server in a box" - I forget the model number, but it is shoebox sized and purple.

    I can say for a fact that they used Linux and a number of other GPL bits in this box. I almost sounded the alarm, but I was way too busy with other things.

    What I found:
    1) Open case
    2) Remove small compact flash card that contains the software for this product
    3) Install compact flash card into my notebook
    4) Use cfdisk, notice that there are three ext2 filesystems
    5) Mount ext2 filesystem
    6) See that they are using a 2.4.x kernel
    7) See that they are using GPL print spooling software (I forget which)
    8) Try to find _any_ notice about the GPL in the docs or via the debug serial port _NO NOTICE_.
    9) Visit linksys website to find GPL required sources, not there.

    If anyone wants more details please message me off list.

  • Someone cross compile telnet and login by zin (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @06:56PM
  • How to deal with this... by geoskd (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @07:07PM
  • Obfuscation to throw people off? by Abalamahalamatandra (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @09:41PM
  • Interesting url by zoobab (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @09:42PM
  • looking further by Dogun (Score:2) Monday June 09 2003, @02:23AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • BEFSRs as well by lobsterturd (Score:1) Monday June 09 2003, @04:57AM
  • The GPL has you by CCRancor (Score:1) Monday June 09 2003, @07:20AM
  • Came across this a while ago... by jonsb (Score:1) Monday June 09 2003, @07:20AM
  • Might not need to give out the source. by LWATCDR (Score:2) Monday June 09 2003, @08:34AM
  • Whistleblower? by rulethirty (Score:1) Monday June 09 2003, @10:10AM
  • no mention != no source by ironfroggy (Score:1) Monday June 09 2003, @12:38PM
  • Reasonable Force by ajs318 (Score:1) Tuesday June 10 2003, @04:26AM
  • Secret file found in file system! by morcheeba (Score:2) Wednesday June 11 2003, @10:13AM
  • SETI by TeddyR (Score:1) Friday June 13 2003, @08:34AM
  • I guess... by black mariah (Score:2) Friday June 13 2003, @09:45AM
  • Dell TrueMobile 1184 by Yonder Way (Score:1) Sunday June 22 2003, @12:56PM
  • Re:GPL (Score:5, Informative)

    by psychosis (2579) on Sunday June 08 2003, @01:25PM (#6144325)
    Sorry - not true.
    http://www.tivo.com/linux/index.html [tivo.com]
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:GPL (Score:3, Informative)

    by FattMattP (86246) on Sunday June 08 2003, @01:26PM (#6144329)
    (http://spf.pobox.com/)
    Tivo uses linux and has not released source code either.
    Yes they have. [tivo.com]
    However, the GPL is in the appendix of the manual.
    With the source code notice and URL on the page right before it.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:GPL (Score:5, Informative)

    by PhuCknuT (1703) on Sunday June 08 2003, @01:34PM (#6144403)
    (http://slashdot.org/)
    And I'm sure you know this, but they are not required to release all of their source code, only the code for gpl parts of tivo. Just because the OS is linux doesn't mean they have to release code for everything running on it.
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:GPL by LiquidCoooled (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @11:01PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:ueber? by JPRelph (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @01:41PM
    • Re:ueber? by MCZapf (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @01:56PM
  • Re:D-Link, too? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PhoenixK7 (244984) on Sunday June 08 2003, @01:53PM (#6144496)
    Hmm, denied access for me, but when I nmap it and try and fingerprint my DI-614+:

    Starting nmap V. 3.00 ( www.insecure.org/nmap/ )
    Interesting ports on (192.168.0.1):
    (The 1600 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed)
    Port State Service
    80/tcp open http
    Remote operating system guess: LinkSys WAP11 wireless AP firmware ver. 2.2

    Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 8 seconds

    hmm..
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:And in an office in Redmond... by WereTiger (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @01:53PM
  • Re:And in an office in Redmond... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by be-fan (61476) on Sunday June 08 2003, @02:00PM (#6144554)
    Yet, if Linksys had stolen Windows code and used it in their routers, Balmer would be calling the lawyers on them. You can use GPL'ed code all you want, but you can't abuse GPL'ed code, just like you can't abuse proprietory code. At least the FSF tends to be nicer about working with potential violaters than most commercial entities are.
    [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Is Checkpoint violating the GPL? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @02:31PM
  • Re:GPL (Score:5, Informative)

    by Cramer (69040) on Sunday June 08 2003, @02:33PM (#6144747)
    (http://www.troz.com/)
    To be accurate, TiVo has not (and never will) released the source to the non-GPL'd stuff that makes the Tivo what it is... the kernel modules and "tivoapp". The source to all the GPL components and the entire linux kernel running on the tivo are available.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:D-Link, too? by xYoni69x (Score:2) Sunday June 08 2003, @03:08PM
  • Re:Can you imagine... by mnemonic_ (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @03:34PM
  • Re:ueber? by nietsch (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @03:53PM
  • Re:Is Checkpoint violating the GPL? by LiteForce (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @04:48PM
  • Re:And in an office in Redmond... by zcat_NZ (Score:2) Sunday June 08 2003, @05:19PM
  • Re:Maybe the GPL is flawed by Little Brother (Score:2) Sunday June 08 2003, @08:23PM
  • Re:the big deal by Zed2K (Score:1) Sunday June 08 2003, @09:42PM
  • Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA by connorbd (Score:2) Sunday June 08 2003, @10:12PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 25 replies beneath your current threshold.