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
([email protected], [email protected]) 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 already written, would there
be any technical reason why they could not simply be recompiled for Intel
hardware, and released as binary-only modules?
Finally, I know that traditionally, Linux has allowed binary-only modules.
However, I was always under the impression that this required that the final
customer be allowed to remove them at will. That is to say, you couldn't
choose to implement a portion of the kernel critical to the system's
operation in a module, and then not release that module under the GPL. In
this particular case, I would argue that the wireless drivers are critical to
this device's operation (after all, it is a wireless access point). In
addition, the final user in this case really can't just "rmmod" the wireless
driver.
The Broadcom driver, kernel, and really everything else in the firmware, are
(IMHO anyways) being used to form a discrete package -- the WRT54Gs firmware.
Does/should this have any implication on whether the Broadcom wireless module
must be covered by the GPL?
I would be very interested in knowing if I am mistaken in any of my claims or
conclusions, and if not, how I should proceed in getting this issue resolved.
-- Andrew Miklas
Mr. Miklas,
I find your discourse on this subject very interesting -- it would
seem you have successfully outlined a double standard that, to me,
does appear to violate the GPL (IANAL).
The question now becomes: Why is Linksys and/or Broadcom doing this?
Brad CHapman
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
On Sat Jun 07 2003 - 21:41:23 EST, Andrew Miklas wrote:
> 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
[--------snip-----------]
> Incidentally, there is at least one other GPLed project in the
> firmware:
> the BusyBox userland component: (http://www.busybox.net/)
<BusyBox maintainer hat on>
I went through a similar exercise several weeks ago when I saw
the thread on the l-k mailing list. It took just a fix minutes
to extract the linux kernel and cramfs filesystem from their
firmware. Linksys is indeed shipping BusyBox and the Linux
kernel without releasing source in violation of the GPL. I had
my lawyer (it helps to have a lawyer for a Dad) send them a
rather polite but firm letter about 3 weeks ago. No response.
So he has now sent them a second letter... Assuming we again get
no response, Linksys is going to find themselves in court in the
very near future.
I like Linksys and I have several of their products. Nobody
forced them to use Linux. Nobody forced them to use BusyBox.
But when they made the choice to use them, they committed
themselves to abiding by the law. And the law says then when
companies violate software licenses and don't take care of the
problem when asked politely, they have to pay my Dad lots of
money for the legal time it takes him to sue their pants off...
:-)
-Erik
--
Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
Erik Andersen <[email protected]> writes:
>So he has now sent them a second letter... Assuming we again get
>no response, Linksys is going to find themselves in court in the
>very near future.
Go for it. This might be the acid test to see whether the GPL holds up
in court...
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
[email protected] +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/
Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire
On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 10:41:23PM -0400, Andrew Miklas wrote:
> 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
Curiously, the Belkin products (http://networking.belkin.com) also seem
to be based upon the same source. Looks like they could just be
rebranded firmware images with some features disabled.
Additionally, strings(1) output of firmware image may be interesting
to users of their 54g WAPs. Seems it has a lot more html pages inside
than what is documented. The 'low-end' version I bought doesn't mention
anything about firewall, dhcp, dns configuration, or parental controls,
however it's all in there if you know the right URLs. Fun.
Dave
* Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Erik Andersen <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>So he has now sent them a second letter... Assuming we again get
>>no response, Linksys is going to find themselves in court in the
>>very near future.
>
> Go for it. This might be the acid test to see whether the GPL
> holds up in court...
And be sure to tell the FSF. Look here:
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html>. The FSF does not
hold copyright to busybox, but I think they will find ways of
supporting you.
--
Christian Ullrich Registered Linux User #125183
"Remember: 'I am a person. I have a right to the ball.'"
I suggest taking this slowly; just like no one here would like a bunch
of lawyers breathing down their necks for something I'm sure their guys
won't either - and that should probably be a last resort after people
have tried a few friendlier contacts.
In the case of busybox I guess they are just using a standard unmodified
one; so in principal all they really missing is an acknowledgment
pointing to its home page.
In the case of the kernel do we know they've actually made any
modifications at all? Or is it just a standard distribution from
someone else? Perhaps they've contributed changes back?
Dave
---------------- Have a happy GNU millennium! ----------------------
/ Dr. David Alan Gilbert | Running GNU/Linux on Alpha,68K| Happy \
\ gro.gilbert @ treblig.org | MIPS,x86,ARM,SPARC,PPC & HPPA | In Hex /
\ _________________________|_____ http://www.treblig.org |_______/
Dr. David Alan Gilbert writes:
> I suggest taking this slowly; just like no one here would like a bunch
> of lawyers breathing down their necks for something I'm sure their guys
> won't either - and that should probably be a last resort after people
> have tried a few friendlier contacts.
>
> In the case of busybox I guess they are just using a standard unmodified
> one; so in principal all they really missing is an acknowledgment
> pointing to its home page.
>
> In the case of the kernel do we know they've actually made any
> modifications at all? Or is it just a standard distribution from
> someone else? Perhaps they've contributed changes back?
>
Well, there should be a driver for the 802.11g (or is it a) card in
there. The question is whether they did it as a module or not.
It would be nice if the contributed that in any case.
Marcus
--
/--------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Dr. Marcus O.C. Metzler | |
|--------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| [email protected] | http://www.metzlerbros.de/ |
\--------------------------------------------------------------------/
On Sul, 2003-06-08 at 12:54, Dave Jones wrote:
> Curiously, the Belkin products (http://networking.belkin.com) also seem
> to be based upon the same source. Looks like they could just be
> rebranded firmware images with some features disabled.
If Belkin are shipping the same code and apparently got it from Linksys
someone migth also care to write to Belkin and inform them about this.
They may not even know about their rather large potential liability.
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003, Brad Chapman wrote:
> Mr. Miklas,
>
> I find your discourse on this subject very interesting -- it would
> seem you have successfully outlined a double standard that, to me,
> does appear to violate the GPL (IANAL).
>
> The question now becomes: Why is Linksys and/or Broadcom doing this?
These guys, not only they make money using GNU/Linux inside their products
but they do even refuse to support the GNU/Linux community when it comes
to drivers. In many cases even a mere binary driver is not available. This
is as lame as it gets.
- Davide
On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 02:52:12PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>...
> In the case of busybox I guess they are just using a standard unmodified
> one; so in principal all they really missing is an acknowledgment
> pointing to its home page.
This is wrong.
Setion 3 of the GPL clearly states they have to accompany their
product either with the complete source code or with a written offer,
valid for at least three years, to give any third party the complete
source code.
> In the case of the kernel do we know they've actually made any
> modifications at all? Or is it just a standard distribution from
> someone else? Perhaps they've contributed changes back?
See above, they must offer the complete source code (except for the
source for non-GPL'd drivers) with their products.
> Dave
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
* Adrian Bunk ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 02:52:12PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> >...
> > In the case of busybox I guess they are just using a standard unmodified
> > one; so in principal all they really missing is an acknowledgment
> > pointing to its home page.
>
> This is wrong.
>
> Setion 3 of the GPL clearly states they have to accompany their
> product either with the complete source code or with a written offer,
> valid for at least three years, to give any third party the complete
> source code.
While probably true, if someone acknowledged the GPL'd code,
had contributed changes back and pointed you at the sites main
distribution site you wouldn't really get too fussy about them actually
physically supplying a copy would you? (And anyway that was all written
before everyone had net access and could go and get their own copy).
Dave
---------------- Have a happy GNU millennium! ----------------------
/ Dr. David Alan Gilbert | Running GNU/Linux on Alpha,68K| Happy \
\ gro.gilbert @ treblig.org | MIPS,x86,ARM,SPARC,PPC & HPPA | In Hex /
\ _________________________|_____ http://www.treblig.org |_______/
On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 12:54:02PM +0100, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 10:41:23PM -0400, Andrew Miklas wrote:
> > 1. Go to the following URL:
> > http://www.linksys.com/download/firmware.asp?fwid=178
[...]
> Curiously, the Belkin products (http://networking.belkin.com) also seem
just for curious, anybody run nmap against these devices?
Ulisses
Debian GNU/Linux: a dream come true
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Computers are useless. They can only give answers." Pablo Picasso
---> Visita http://www.valux.org/ para saber acerca de la <---
---> Asociaci?n Valenciana de Usuarios de Linux <---
[general note: please cc, I'm not on lkml]
Andrew,
I was involved in a similar such action with Dell, though I had somewhat
different approach, but nevertheless I'm going to recount my experiences
as it may be useful for the purposes of comparison. Others: mark as read
now if you don't like long mails.
Early in the year, I purchased a nice new Dell Laptop, for running Linux
on, of course. Since it saved me money, I bought a Dell TrueMobile 1184
Access Point/Router at the same time.
http://tinyurl.com/ds6i (accessories.us.dell.com)
http://tinyurl.com/ds6d (support.ap.dell.com)
Give an impression of the product. Being a Network Engineer, I felt
compelled to fingerprint the device, very quickly finding that it
ran telnet on port 333, and after loging in (using the root username,
and the admin password), found that it was running armlinux:
# cat /proc/version
Linux version 2.2.14-v1.9 ([email protected]) (gcc version
2.9-vLinux-armtool-0523) #5357 Sat Jan 25 17:39:42 CST 2003
# cat /proc/cpuinfo
Processor : S3C4510/SEC arm7tdmi rev 0
BogoMips : 44.24
Hardware : <NULL>
Other GPL software was abundant, including ipchains, busybox .. and
other things you would expect. Running Linux of course pleased me,
because it meant I put it to some real use (currently it's also
my house print server for example) as I had a self-built router
I wasnt going to stop using (I mean how could anyone live without
IPv6?).
After some discussion on ILUG (http://www.linux.ie), I researched it further,
I double-checked, and none of the documentation Dell sent me, nor the
software CD, nor the website indicated it was using GPL software, and
did provide me with a copy of the license, or a written offer with a
means to obtain the source. I'm not a licensing hack, and I almost
would have been prepared to just leave it be had the Documentation not
said:
"Requirements:
You must have at least one computer that has the following:
1. Running Microsoft(R) Windows(R) 98, 98SE, Windows Me,
Windows 2000, Windows XP Home or XP Professional (
Windows 2000 or XP require you to have administrator
privileges on your computer in order to configure the
router - see the computers users' guide for more information)
2. A CD drive
3. An active Internet connection"
Which supremely annoyed me, as of course all you need is *any*
IP capable system for the router to work, it just uses plain NAT,
nothing Windows specific, and you can use any browser to configure
it's luser interface. So after some grepping:
# cat /etc/hosts
127.0.0.1 vLinux/Vitals_System_Inc.
They appear to have a website at:
http://www.vitalsystem.com/
Though
http://www.onsoftwarei.com/
seem to be the people who license support vlinux:
http://www.onsoftwarei.com/product/prod_vlinux.htm
I'm sure there are people on-list with much more in-depth knowlege of
these companies.
Anyway, since in my case, Dell were the direct vendor, I contacted them
first. After some number chasing, I was passed to Dell Ireland's Legal
Director, who got on to the Dell US guys.
I have to say that allthough it took some time for the issue to be
resolved, Dell were abosulutely brilliant about it, and kept me
informed, they were extremely friendly and helpful about the request.
The original mail I sent Dell is available at:
http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~colmmacc/TrueMobile-1184/dell.letter
But after that, most of the action happened on phone. 6 weeks
later, Seamus (Dell Legal) was able to respond positively to my
request, and I got a CD including the source free of Charge, and
a nice letter:
http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~colmmacc/TrueMobile-1184/dell.jpg
The contents are available online, and if anyone wants it, mails
me and I'll give you the URL, but to save me bandwidth - it's
vanilla Linux 2.2.14 with the 2.2.14-rmk4 patch, nothing bespoke.
But now that I had the configuration, I could actually build
a replacement IPv6 capable kernel.
Dell have also reviewed their procedures to ensure that this kind
of thing does not happen again, and from talking to Dell Legal I
got the impression that it was the result of suppliers not fully
informing Dell about Licensing provisions.
Dell now ship a copy of the source and the license on the CD that
comes with the TrueMobile kit. I really have to make clear here,
Dell did amazingly well, they researched it, kept me informed,
responded positively, and rectified procedures. It's a great example
of how to do it right.
So, I don't know what the linksys situation is fully, but I do hope
that this report may help you in that it gives an example of a
near-identical situation having been resolved successfully in the past.
I also know from Dell Legal, that my request generated a lot of
e-mail internal to Dell legal, so I'm sure they researched it very
well. If Dell Legal come to the conclusion that this is what they
must do, that certainly might be a useful example to point Linksys
at.
On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 10:41:23PM -0400, Andrew Miklas wrote:
> 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
> ([email protected], [email protected]) 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 already written, would there
> be any technical reason why they could not simply be recompiled for Intel
> hardware, and released as binary-only modules?
>
>
>
> Finally, I know that traditionally, Linux has allowed binary-only modules.
> However, I was always under the impression that this required that the final
> customer be allowed to remove them at will. That is to say, you couldn't
> choose to implement a portion of the kernel critical to the system's
> operation in a module, and then not release that module under the GPL. In
> this particular case, I would argue that the wireless drivers are critical to
> this device's operation (after all, it is a wireless access point). In
> addition, the final user in this case really can't just "rmmod" the wireless
> driver.
>
> The Broadcom driver, kernel, and really everything else in the firmware, are
> (IMHO anyways) being used to form a discrete package -- the WRT54Gs firmware.
> Does/should this have any implication on whether the Broadcom wireless module
> must be covered by the GPL?
>
>
>
> I would be very interested in knowing if I am mistaken in any of my claims or
> conclusions, and if not, how I should proceed in getting this issue resolved.
>
>
> -- Andrew Miklas
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
--
Colm MacC?rthaigh Public Key: [email protected]
[email protected] http://www.stdlib.net/
On Sun, 8 June 2003 20:44:22 +0100, Colm MacC?rthaigh wrote:
>
> Early in the year, I purchased a nice new Dell Laptop, for running Linux
> on, of course. Since it saved me money, I bought a Dell TrueMobile 1184
> Access Point/Router at the same time.
>
> [six weeks later]
>
> Dell now ship a copy of the source and the license on the CD that
> comes with the TrueMobile kit. I really have to make clear here,
> Dell did amazingly well, they researched it, kept me informed,
> responded positively, and rectified procedures. It's a great example
> of how to do it right.
Nice. This looks like the first hardware router that could really
fancy my wishes. And if I buy this piece of hardware, Dell can
attribute that directly to the software running on it and the kind of
control it offers to me.
Should be a great thing for companies as well. Unknown software
without support or updates and a direct internet connection is a
nightmare for security. And that was what most "hardware" routers
boiled down to and still do.
J?rn
--
A surrounded army must be given a way out.
-- Sun Tzu
Hey All,
A quick few comments regarding this situation.
First, we shouldn't rush into anything before we gather some facts.
Linksys may not be the ones developing the software for the WRT54G. In
fact, many of these router "companies" don't do much besides branding
at all. I have spoken to a few friends at netgear and d-link and they
confirmed that all hardware and software that is used in their router
products is manufactured and developed in asia-pacific somewhere. They
just license everything from the manufacturer. Proof of this is that if
you cracked open many different models of vendors' routers you would
see that the hardware is almost always the same board just in a
different case with a different name on it. Someone should look into
this and confirm what Linksys does. It may be nothing more than the
management @ Linksys not knowing what the product runs and what
licensing restrictions apply.
Second, Linksys is no longer its own entity since it was purchased by
Cisco. We all know that Cisco is very committed to GNU/OSS. If anything
comes to a dead end with Linksys we should be able to find some
engineers at Cisco that can take care of the situation.
IMHO, it looks like some very crafty developers somewhere in
Asia-Pacific are hacking this hardware and software and doing really
neat things. We should first try to contact these people and explain
to them our philosophy and try and get them to join the kernel
development activities. After all they are already doing some kernel
hacking and maybe based somewhere in a non-democratic country and are
therefore afraid to open source their work for fear of political
repercussion. Please Consider.
Lets try to help before we harm, we might make a few friends.
Thanks,
Jack Aboutboul
Hi All,
In a similar vein to the Linksys router. I have a Buffalo (Melco) WBR-G54.
Looking through the latest firmware update available :
http://www.buffalo-technology.com/support/firmware.htm
It does appear to be similar to the Linksys firmware and contain linux and
possibly busybox
No mention here or anywhere on there site of the GPL or the source code to
what they are distributing!
Unfortunately an nmap scan only shows the following ports open:
Starting nmap V. 3.00 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap )
Interesting ports on (192.168.0.1):
(The 1597 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed)
Port State Service
53/tcp open domain
80/tcp open http
2601/tcp open zebra
2602/tcp open ripd
Remote operating system guess: Linux Kernel 2.4.0 - 2.5.20
Uptime 1.252 days (since Sat Jun 07 15:51:52 2003)
Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 13 seconds
No telnet or ssh for me to try to discover more.
--
Peter
On Sun, 8 Jun 2003, greendisease wrote:
> First, we shouldn't rush into anything before we gather some facts.
> Linksys may not be the ones developing the software for the WRT54G. In
> fact, many of these router "companies" don't do much besides branding
> at all. I have spoken to a few friends at netgear and d-link and they
> confirmed that all hardware and software that is used in their router
> products is manufactured and developed in asia-pacific somewhere. They
> just license everything from the manufacturer. Proof of this is that if
> you cracked open many different models of vendors' routers you would
> see that the hardware is almost always the same board just in a
> different case with a different name on it. Someone should look into
> this and confirm what Linksys does. It may be nothing more than the
> management @ Linksys not knowing what the product runs and what
> licensing restrictions apply.
IANAL, but in many coutries the fact that you didn't know is not an
excuse. When you integrate alien parts in your products you become
responsible and you have to be sure about all aspects that arise.
> Second, Linksys is no longer its own entity since it was purchased by
> Cisco. We all know that Cisco is very committed to GNU/OSS. If anything
> comes to a dead end with Linksys we should be able to find some
> engineers at Cisco that can take care of the situation.
No doubt about that.
> IMHO, it looks like some very crafty developers somewhere in
> Asia-Pacific are hacking this hardware and software and doing really
> neat things. We should first try to contact these people and explain
> to them our philosophy and try and get them to join the kernel
> development activities. After all they are already doing some kernel
> hacking and maybe based somewhere in a non-democratic country and are
> therefore afraid to open source their work for fear of political
> repercussion. Please Consider.
What's so neat in grabbing a bunch GPL protected software and stoking it
inside a ROM, clearly breaking the license ? Maybe they got only half part
of the communism thingy, "What is your is also mine and what is mine is
just mine".
- Davide
On Sunday, Jun 8, 2003, at 17:08 America/New_York, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> IANAL, but in many coutries the fact that you didn't know is not an
> excuse. When you integrate alien parts in your products you become
> responsible and you have to be sure about all aspects that arise.
>
This is 100% true. I wasn't trying to justify their actions at all,
just trying to develop some insight into the situation. If they did in
fact, violate the GPL, they should be forced to pay a penalty and
disclose their source.
>
> What's so neat in grabbing a bunch GPL protected software and stoking
> it
> inside a ROM, clearly breaking the license ? Maybe they got only half
> part
> of the communism thingy, "What is your is also mine and what is mine is
> just mine."
Thats pretty funny :-). What I meant was that they must be developing
drivers for these chipsets and we could really use them integrated into
the kernel. We need all the talent we can get!
Thanks,
Jack
On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 08:44:22PM +0100, Colm MacC?rthaigh wrote:
> # cat /etc/hosts
> 127.0.0.1 vLinux/Vitals_System_Inc.
>
> They appear to have a website at:
>
> http://www.vitalsystem.com/
and http://www.armlinux.net. Linus has already been informed of this situation,
and we came to the conclusion that, at the time, there was no way to
enforce the copyright due to their location in the world. This may have
changed recently.
Since this is the case, it may be arguable that the users of vLinux from
Vitals are unkowningly breaking the GPL due to the apparant licensing
which Vitals Systems Inc are re-distributing the code to their customers.
--
Russell King ([email protected]) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 02:08:39PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> IANAL, but in many coutries the fact that you didn't know is not an
> excuse. When you integrate alien parts in your products you become
> responsible and you have to be sure about all aspects that arise.
What if, when you obtained said parts, it came with a license which
appeared to be genuine, but in fact was illegally changed in a country
which has not signed up to the copyright treaty? (I believe this may
be part of the story here.) I believe that you'd need a good copyright
lawyer, and it may depend upon local law.
--
Russell King ([email protected]) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 09:57:04PM +0100, Peter Westwood wrote:
> 2601/tcp open zebra
> 2602/tcp open ripd
> Remote operating system guess: Linux Kernel 2.4.0 - 2.5.20
> Uptime 1.252 days (since Sat Jun 07 15:51:52 2003)
> Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 13 seconds
zebra accepts telnet connections, and displays its version number on
connect.
--
Russell King ([email protected]) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
On Sun, 8 Jun 2003, Russell King wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 02:08:39PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > IANAL, but in many coutries the fact that you didn't know is not an
> > excuse. When you integrate alien parts in your products you become
> > responsible and you have to be sure about all aspects that arise.
>
> What if, when you obtained said parts, it came with a license which
> appeared to be genuine, but in fact was illegally changed in a country
> which has not signed up to the copyright treaty? (I believe this may
> be part of the story here.) I believe that you'd need a good copyright
> lawyer, and it may depend upon local law.
I believe that, being the director of a company that will be subject to
potential lawsuits in countries that signed up to the copyright treaty,
I'll stop buying parts from countries that will not guarantee my company
about copyright infringement. Looking their economy to lose huge parts of
its business, maybe it'll suggest those countries to join the copyright
treaty. Yes those parts might be dirt cheap, but if I have to spend big
bucks for lawsuits and if I have to see my company image to lose
sharpness, I'd better go picking up parts where at least I can sue back my
suppliers in case they'll break copyright in what they did license to me.
- Davide
A possible common source for wlan router software ?
Linux drivers, etc for Broadcom wlan chipsets
is to be found within the AirForce program from Broadcom.
The OneDriver infrastucture concept offers drivers
for Linux and VxWorks.
http://www.broadcom.com/docs/AirForceFam.pdf
On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 09:57:04PM +0100, Peter Westwood wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> In a similar vein to the Linksys router. I have a Buffalo (Melco) WBR-G54.
>
> Looking through the latest firmware update available :
> http://www.buffalo-technology.com/support/firmware.htm
>
I grabbed the wbr-113b.exe, lha x ed it
and found a cramfs image 2 bytes further on in the file than
with the linksys firmware.
lha x wbr-113.exe
dd if=wbrbg-113b of=test.dump skip=853 bs=922c
You now have a mountable cramfs which seems to include quite a bit of GPLed free
software at a glance Zebra, fwlogwatch, busybox, dnrd, udhcpd, ntpclient.
--
William Boughton
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 21:53:14 -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
> I went through a similar exercise several weeks ago when I saw
> the thread on the l-k mailing list. It took just a fix minutes
> to extract the linux kernel and cramfs filesystem from their
> firmware. Linksys is indeed shipping BusyBox and the Linux
BTW, this is what I did to open up the Linksys rom...
#!/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 (bytes 45 3D CD 28
followed shortly by "Compressed ROMFS") 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
# Use uClibc's ldd to get useful answers for non-x86 binaries
/usr/i386-linux-uclibc/bin/i386-uclibc-ldd /mnt/bin/busybox
-Erik
--
Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
On Mon, 2003-06-09 at 01:25, Hakan Lennestal wrote:
> A possible common source for wlan router software ?
>
> Linux drivers, etc for Broadcom wlan chipsets
> is to be found within the AirForce program from Broadcom.
> The OneDriver infrastucture concept offers drivers
> for Linux and VxWorks.
Yes, but nobody can get his hands on this. Broadcom doesn't reply on requests.
Regards,
Martin List-Petersen
martin at list-petersen dot dk
--
Preserve the old, but know the new.
On Sunday, Jun 08 2003, 15:57:04 EST, Peter Westwood wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> In a similar vein to the Linksys router. I have a Buffalo (Melco) WBR-G54.
>
> Looking through the latest firmware update available :
> http://www.buffalo-technology.com/support/firmware.htm
>
> It does appear to be similar to the Linksys firmware and contain linux and
> possibly busybox
>
> No mention here or anywhere on there site of the GPL or the source code to
> what they are distributing!
Wow, thanks for the pointer! I just visited the Buffalo site
http://www.buffalo-technology.com/
and I could not find any source code. And not only are they
distributing the linux kernel and BusyBox, their rom is
_remarkably_ similar to the Linksys one in many respects.
Perhaps they share an upstream vendor that did not make them
aware of their responsibilities?
Here is a script I just whipped up to open up their firmware...
#!/bin/sh
wget http://www.buffalo-technology.com/download/firmware/wbr-113b.exe
# Next I used wine (20030408) to extract the content
wine wbr-113b.exe
# Move into the directory into which the firmware was extracted
cd Wbr_1.13b
# I noticed a GZIP signature for a file named "piggy" at offset
# 62 bytes from the start, suggesting we have a compressed Linux
# kernel
dd if=wbrbg-113b bs=62 skip=1 | zcat > kernel
# Noticed there was a cramfs magic signature at offset 786466
dd if=wbrbg-113b of=cramfs.image bs=786466 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-ldd /mnt/bin/busybox
It seems my Dad will have another letter to mail out in the
morning!
-Erik
--
Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
On Sun, 8 Jun 2003, Erik Andersen wrote:
> BTW, this is what I did to open up the Linksys rom...
interesting.. what do you make of:
http://download.qlogic.com/sf/10215/fullimage_1.5.1.04.zip
which is the firmware that runs on QLogic SANBox2 2Gbit fibre-channel
switches (Cyrix MediaGX iirc). Looking at strings it includes
software such as glib (LGPL), Linux and GRUB.
QLogic did not answer my request for source to the (L)GPL
parts of the firmware when i asked them.
> -Erik
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [email protected] [email protected] Key ID: 64A2FF6A
warning: do not ever send email to [email protected]
Fortune:
All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 09:57:04PM +0100, Peter Westwood <[email protected]> wrote...
> Looking through the latest firmware update available :
> http://www.buffalo-technology.com/support/firmware.htm
> No mention here or anywhere on there site of the GPL or the source code to
> what they are distributing!
I have another product from Melco/Buffalo and found out, that it had
Linux and other GPLed (and BSD with adv. clause and Apache with end-user
doc clasue and and and) materials on it, without the manual or their web page
mentioning it. Their telephone support
in Japan (where the stuff comes from) didn't give sh*t about it and
repeatedly told me about their policy of not telling anything about the
inner workings of products and even refused to either elevate me to talk
to somebody else or give me an contacting point to either their legal
or PR departments.
I directly called the PR guy responsible for that line of products at their
headquater (good to be on their list of press) and explained the situation
to him. He promised to clear it up with legal and the developers.
After about a week (and me ranting about an anonymous company in my blog)
he got back with a very detailed and polite answer about the situation.
They DID know about the issues involved and their obligations. Just that
their other hand (like support and web page creation) isn't up to the
"new" style and that they were fixing it. I also found out, that the
"quick setup" leaflet in the product actually contained a small note
that the product included GPLed software.
It has been 3 month since. If they havn't gotten their act together
still, they need to be reminded of it.
--
Oliver M. Bolzer
[email protected]
GPG (PGP) Fingerprint = 621B 52F6 2AC1 36DB 8761 018F 8786 87AD EF50 D1FF
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Another product from Linksys that runs linux is "EtherFast? Network Attached
Storage." The firmware contains an ext2 image with some i386 binaries. It
appears to be running 2.4.14-xfs (I did not locate the kernel, but the
network module has it as a version.)
This is what I did:
unzip efg80.zip
mv EFG80_V10R33.bin EFG80_V10R33.bin.tar.gz
tar -xzf EFG80_V10R33.bin.tar.gz
cd rpm
mv system.img system.img.gz
gzip -df system.img
mount system.img /mnt -t ext2 -o loop
Jeff.
P.S. I did not check every document Linksys has about this product.
- --
I have recently changed my GPG key from 0x68FA8E08 to 0xC7958FFE.
For more information see http://www.sweb.cz/supertucnak/gpg/
- --
FORTUNE PROVIDES QUESTIONS FOR THE GREAT ANSWERS: #19
A: To be or not to be.
Q: What is the square root of 4b^2?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+49VswFP0+seVj/4RAkuLAJ9T2qfgmCd2U7bYlLnQxKKZXHmFbwCgs4ls
U1rTKpeeiXUsxgT+N0Ixjhc=
=yUuw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Mon Jun 09, 2003 at 01:09:45AM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003, Erik Andersen wrote:
>
> > BTW, this is what I did to open up the Linksys rom...
>
> interesting.. what do you make of:
>
> http://download.qlogic.com/sf/10215/fullimage_1.5.1.04.zip
>
> which is the firmware that runs on QLogic SANBox2 2Gbit fibre-channel
> switches (Cyrix MediaGX iirc). Looking at strings it includes
> software such as glib (LGPL), Linux and GRUB.
>
> QLogic did not answer my request for source to the (L)GPL
> parts of the firmware when i asked them.
gzip magic at 0x4110 for a compressed 1.7 MB, i386,
2.4.18-xfs linux kernel
x86 boot sector with GRUB at 0xE3ACB6
gzip magic at 0xFA0E4 for file named "image" that contains
a compressed 24 MB ext2 filesystem
gzip magic at 0x80D278 for a compressed 1.7 MB, i386,
2.4.18-xfs linux kernel (apparently a backup)
gzip magic at 0x90324Ci for a file name "fl_image" that
also contains a compressed 24 MB ext2 filesystem
A quick look through their filesystem shows plenty of GPL'd
stuff. Mostly looks lika RedHat ripoff, with a bunch of
apparently proprietary junk under /itasca,
-Erik
--
Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
On Sun, 8 Jun 2003, Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Sunday, Jun 08 2003, 15:57:04 EST, Peter Westwood wrote:
> >
> > In a similar vein to the Linksys router. I have a Buffalo (Melco) WBR-G54.
Fry's appears to be selling a lot of Linksys WAP-54g units, which are low
cost wireless access points. For firmware version 1.06.03, the cramfs
starts at skip=24576c, bs=32c.
<udhcp maintainer hat on>
> <BusyBox maintainer hat on>
> I went through a similar exercise several weeks ago when I saw
> the thread on the l-k mailing list. It took just a fix minutes
> to extract the linux kernel and cramfs filesystem from their
> firmware. Linksys is indeed shipping BusyBox and the Linux
> kernel without releasing source in violation of the GPL. I had
> my lawyer (it helps to have a lawyer for a Dad) send them a
> rather polite but firm letter about 3 weeks ago. No response.
> So he has now sent them a second letter... Assuming we again get
> no response, Linksys is going to find themselves in court in the
> very near future.
<udhcp maintainer hat on>
While a company including udhcp is a really exciting thing for me, its
mostly exciting because I get the additional resources of anyone at
linksys working on the code, and they get a low cost of ownership dhcp
server. Of course, if they don't send me the code, it doesn't help me at
all, and I get pissed off.
By downloading the firmware, and looking at the output of strings
usr/sbin/udhcpd makes it pretty clear that they have made modifications.
Anyway, sign me on for whatever legal actions you are making, caus I
want my code back.
--
Russ Dill
On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 10:41:23PM -0400, Andrew Miklas wrote:
> 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.
Requoting the above license violations for context.
> 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.
Note that including the source with the physical package is not enough
to meet the GPL requirements. The source must be available to any third
party, not just purchasers of the product.
/fc
> Also, I should note
> that I don't
> own this product, so I can't determine if the source is shipped with it.
Including the source with the product would be insufficient to meet the GPL
requirements. They would have to offer the source (or a written offer to
obtain the source for no more than the cost of physically copying it) to
everyone who downloaded their software from their web site. The GPL is quite
clear that the source code offer must be made to anyone to whom the object
code is distributed. (The program must be accompanied by the offer.)
DS
On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 10:32:52PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> Including the source with the product would be insufficient to meet the GPL
> requirements. They would have to offer the source (or a written offer to
> obtain the source for no more than the cost of physically copying it) to
> everyone who downloaded their software from their web site. The GPL is quite
> clear that the source code offer must be made to anyone to whom the object
> code is distributed. (The program must be accompanied by the offer.)
No, a source code *offer* must be made to anyone, period.
Section 3(b) of GPLv2 says "Accompany it with a written offer ... to give
any third party ... [the] source code".
If the source code is actually distributed with the object code, then
they need only make it available to those who obtain the object code.
Of course those folks are free to redistribute to anyone, if they want.
/fc
On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 08:47:16PM -0700, Russ Dill wrote:
> While a company including udhcp is a really exciting thing for me, its
> mostly exciting because I get the additional resources of anyone at
> linksys working on the code, and they get a low cost of ownership dhcp
> server. Of course, if they don't send me the code, it doesn't help me at
> all, and I get pissed off.
Exactly the same is true of my EBSA285 BIOS. The "fix" for the situation
that the infringers came up with was to take down the binary download from
their website which allowed me to obtain a binary copy of my code. They
refused to supply source, and to date, I haven't heard anything from the
company concerned.
--
Russell King ([email protected]) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
Frank Cusack <[email protected]> writes:
> Note that including the source with the physical package is not enough
> to meet the GPL requirements. The source must be available to any third
> party, not just purchasers of the product.
Not true, you have two options, physical medium or written offer.
Choosing just one is perfectly acceptable.
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-06-09 at 01:25, Hakan Lennestal wrote:
> > Linux drivers, etc for Broadcom wlan chipsets
> > is to be found within the AirForce program from Broadcom.
> > The OneDriver infrastucture concept offers drivers
> > for Linux and VxWorks.
>
> Yes, but nobody can get his hands on this. Broadcom doesn't reply on requests.
I'm quite sure that Linksys, Melco etc have full access to this software.
-----Original Message-----
From: Russell King [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 5:48 PM
>> http://www.vitalsystem.com/
>
> and http://www.armlinux.net. Linus has already been informed of this situation,
> and we came to the conclusion that, at the time, there was no way to
> enforce the copyright due to their location in the world. This may have
> changed recently.
IANAL and all that, but VITAL Systems Inc. list themselves as having
a corporate HQ in Phoenix, AZ, USA. As such, were someone interested,
a suit could proceed in US courts.
Frank Cusack <[email protected]> said:
[...]
> Note that including the source with the physical package is not enough
> to meet the GPL requirements. The source must be available to any third
> party, not just purchasers of the product.
Nope. The product (binary) has to be freely redistributable, and everybody
who gets the binary has the right to get the source.
IANAL, and no GPL-expert either, but...
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
On Mon, 2003-06-09 at 15:13, Downing, Thomas wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell King [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 5:48 PM
>
> >> http://www.vitalsystem.com/
> >
> > and http://www.armlinux.net. Linus has already been informed of this situation,
> > and we came to the conclusion that, at the time, there was no way to
> > enforce the copyright due to their location in the world. This may have
> > changed recently.
>
> IANAL and all that, but VITAL Systems Inc. list themselves as having
> a corporate HQ in Phoenix, AZ, USA. As such, were someone interested,
> a suit could proceed in US courts.
> -
Vital Systems Inc (http://www.vitalsystem.com) is not Vitals Systems (http://www.armlinux.net). Thats a wrong. And the
one that is ignoring the GPL here is Vitals Systems (http://www.armlinux.net).
Unfortunatly not based in the U.S.
Regards,
Martin List-Petersen
martin at list-petersen dot dk
--
Lie, n.:
A very poor substitute for the truth, but the only one
discovered to date.
> On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 10:32:52PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Including the source with the product would be insufficient to
> > meet the GPL
> > requirements. They would have to offer the source (or a written offer to
> > obtain the source for no more than the cost of physically copying it) to
> > everyone who downloaded their software from their web site. The
> > GPL is quite
> > clear that the source code offer must be made to anyone to whom
> > the object
> > code is distributed. (The program must be accompanied by the offer.)
> No, a source code *offer* must be made to anyone, period.
No.
> Section 3(b) of GPLv2 says "Accompany it with a written offer ... to give
> any third party ... [the] source code".
"Accompany" means two things have to travel together. If I have to
accompany a car with an instruction manual, it does not follow that I must
give the instruction manual to anyone who requests it.
> If the source code is actually distributed with the object code, then
> they need only make it available to those who obtain the object code.
> Of course those folks are free to redistribute to anyone, if they want.
But the object code is available from their web site. I don't see how you
can accompany a download with a written offer, so to comply with the GPL,
they must "accompany" the object code with the source code.
DS
On Llu, 2003-06-09 at 06:22, Frank Cusack wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Note that including the source with the physical package is not enough
> to meet the GPL requirements. The source must be available to any third
> party, not just purchasers of the product.
Wrong. Its a common misconception. The GPL requires I make source
available to those I give the binaries, be it a box on a supermarket
shelf or a one of product for a client.
In fact the GPL has to do this because it is really import that the
author is not hit with the cost of third party distribution. What the
author cannot do is forbid that third party distribution.
In Linksys case dumping the required source on the end of the CD of
goodies that comes with the kit and including a notice would be
sufficient.
On Llu, 2003-06-09 at 06:47, Frank Cusack wrote:
> Section 3(b) of GPLv2 says "Accompany it with a written offer ... to give
> any third party ... [the] source code".
>
> If the source code is actually distributed with the object code, then
> they need only make it available to those who obtain the object code.
> Of course those folks are free to redistribute to anyone, if they want.
This is specific only to the written offer case. MOst people I know
throw the tar ball on the CD they already ship holding manuals, windows
installer for the pointless gui config app etc
On Llu, 2003-06-09 at 04:39, John Shifflett wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003, Erik Andersen wrote:
> > On Sunday, Jun 08 2003, 15:57:04 EST, Peter Westwood wrote:
> > >
> > > In a similar vein to the Linksys router. I have a Buffalo (Melco) WBR-G54.
>
> Fry's appears to be selling a lot of Linksys WAP-54g units, which are low
> cost wireless access points. For firmware version 1.06.03, the cramfs
> starts at skip=24576c, bs=32c.
Has anyone had a lawyer write and advise Fry s yet ? Hey theory seems to
work for SCO 8)
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 07:23:52PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Llu, 2003-06-09 at 06:22, Frank Cusack wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Note that including the source with the physical package is not enough
> > to meet the GPL requirements. The source must be available to any third
> > party, not just purchasers of the product.
>
> Wrong. Its a common misconception. The GPL requires I make source
> available to those I give the binaries, be it a box on a supermarket
> shelf or a one of product for a client.
>
> In fact the GPL has to do this because it is really import that the
> author is not hit with the cost of third party distribution. What the
> author cannot do is forbid that third party distribution.
It depends which choice the distributor chooses regarding section three
of the GPL.
If he chooses 3b ("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") he has to give it to everyone.
You are right for 3a (source shipped together with the binaries) and 3c
(noncommercial redistribution of binaries received under 3b).
> In Linksys case dumping the required source on the end of the CD of
> goodies that comes with the kit and including a notice would be
> sufficient.
Yup.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 10:47:27PM -0700, Frank Cusack wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 10:32:52PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Including the source with the product would be insufficient to meet the GPL
> > requirements. They would have to offer the source (or a written offer to
> > obtain the source for no more than the cost of physically copying it) to
> > everyone who downloaded their software from their web site. The GPL is quite
> > clear that the source code offer must be made to anyone to whom the object
> > code is distributed. (The program must be accompanied by the offer.)
>
> No, a source code *offer* must be made to anyone, period.
Wrong.
> Section 3(b) of GPLv2 says "Accompany it with a written offer ... to give
> any third party ... [the] source code".
>...
If you read section 3 from the beginning you notice that 3b is only one
of three choices.
> /fc
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
> If he chooses 3b ("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") he has to give it to everyone.
As I read 3b, it only applies if the person requesting the source code
actually has physical possession of the written offer. (Though the offer
could be transferred to anyone.)
> > In Linksys case dumping the required source on the end of the CD of
> > goodies that comes with the kit and including a notice would be
> > sufficient.
> Yup.
No, it would not be. They also distribute the software from their web page,
and that distribution must also be accompanied by source code or a written
offer.
DS
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 02:50:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > If he chooses 3b ("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") he has to give it to everyone.
>
> As I read 3b, it only applies if the person requesting the source code
> actually has physical possession of the written offer. (Though the offer
> could be transferred to anyone.)
"to give any third party" in 3b is pretty non-ambiguous.
> > > In Linksys case dumping the required source on the end of the CD of
> > > goodies that comes with the kit and including a notice would be
> > > sufficient.
>
> > Yup.
>
> No, it would not be. They also distribute the software from their web page,
> and that distribution must also be accompanied by source code or a written
> offer.
I missed the fact they make it available at their web page.
> DS
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Sunday 08 June 2003 21:44, Colm MacC?rthaigh wrote:
> Dell now ship a copy of the source and the license on the CD that
> comes with the TrueMobile kit. I really have to make clear here,
> Dell did amazingly well, they researched it, kept me informed,
> responded positively, and rectified procedures. It's a great example
> of how to do it right.
>
> So, I don't know what the linksys situation is fully, but I do hope
> that this report may help you in that it gives an example of a
> near-identical situation having been resolved successfully in the past.
In the hopes that somebody from Linksys is reading this thread, I'll add my
$0.02. I have one of these routers. I'd buy a second instantly, if only I
could build the firmware and fix some bugs in it. I love the overall
concept, but the buggy html interface is more than a little annoying.
Furthermore, I can think of a lot of uses for this little box, other than just
a router. If I had the source, I'd try some out, and if the results turned
out as well expected, I'd make that public. It's hard to see how this would
be bad for Linksys.
Regards,
Daniel
> I suggest taking this slowly; just like no one here would like a bunch
> of lawyers breathing down their necks for something I'm sure their
> guys won't either - and that should probably be a last resort after
> people have tried a few friendlier contacts.
its clear from Andrew Miklas original email that this has been tried.
(although a second chance wouldn't hurt). However, if this was a company
distributing unlicensed sofware from a company that makes their living
selling software (Microsoft, Id, Symantec, Oracle, etc) I can assure you
that they would not be let off with a warning.
> In the case of busybox I guess they are just using a standard
> unmodified one; so in principal all they really missing is an
> acknowledgment pointing to its home page.
You guess? how can you know? What unreleased bug fixes could be lurking
inside? You don't know unless you have the source. This point is mute,
because a) it violates busybox's copyright, and b) another GPL program
included (udhcp) is most definately modified.
> In the case of the kernel do we know they've actually made any
> modifications at all? Or is it just a standard distribution from
> someone else? Perhaps they've contributed changes back?
Well, they have nothing to lose by sending us their kernel source tree,
do they?
--
Russ Dill <[email protected]>
On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 12:21:41AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 02:50:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > As I read 3b, it only applies if the person requesting the source
> > code actually has physical possession of the written offer. (Though
> > the offer could be transferred to anyone.)
>
> "to give any third party" in 3b is pretty non-ambiguous.
You've skipped the qualifing predicate condition. Every clause
of section 3 begins with "Accompany it with", referring to the
distribution of the Program in object code or executable form.
--
Randolph Bentson
[email protected]
Quoting Oliver M. Bolzer ([email protected]):
> [...]
> I directly called the PR guy responsible for that line of products at their
> headquater (good to be on their list of press) and explained the situation
> to him. He promised to clear it up with legal and the developers.
> After about a week (and me ranting about an anonymous company in my blog)
> he got back with a very detailed and polite answer about the situation.
> They DID know about the issues involved and their obligations. Just that
> their other hand (like support and web page creation) isn't up to the
> "new" style and that they were fixing it. I also found out, that the
> "quick setup" leaflet in the product actually contained a small note
> that the product included GPLed software.
>
> It has been 3 month since. If they havn't gotten their act together
> still, they need to be reminded of it.
>
Over a month ago I send them a request and this is their response:
--------------------------------------------------------------
>From [email protected] Fri Apr 25 20:04:28 2003
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 08:52:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Linux & WLI-CB-G54
From: Dave Howell <[email protected]>
To: Michael Neuffer <[email protected]>
Michael,
Thank you for your interest in Buffalo's wireless products.
At this time, Buffalo does not support Linux for our wireless products.
We are working with our chip mfg on this issue and should have working Linux
drivers in the future but we cannot say when.
Keep posted to our website for the latest information.
Regards,
Dave Howell
Buffalo Technology USA
U.S. Technical Support is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Consumers call: 866-752-6210
Resellers call: 877-424-6355
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I'm pleased to report that Linksys has noticed the activity here and is now in
the process of determining what must be released under the GPL. I will keep
this list updated on what I receive.
My current contact within Linksys also noted that the company has a long
tradition of support for Linux. Previously, they have shipped CDs containing
GPL'd source with their networking products. I'm told the lack of source for
the WRT54G was not intentional and is an isolated incident.
If anyone has any material that they want me to forward on to the people at
Linksys, please drop me a line at this address.
-- Andrew
On Maw, 2003-06-10 at 23:47, Andrew Miklas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm pleased to report that Linksys has noticed the activity here and is now in
> the process of determining what must be released under the GPL. I will keep
> this list updated on what I receive.
>
> My current contact within Linksys also noted that the company has a long
> tradition of support for Linux. Previously, they have shipped CDs containing
> GPL'd source with their networking products. I'm told the lack of source for
> the WRT54G was not intentional and is an isolated incident.
Thats good news. Thanks for bugging your contacts
On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 06:47:39PM -0400, Andrew Miklas wrote:
> I'm pleased to report that Linksys has noticed the activity here and is now in
> the process of determining what must be released under the GPL. I will keep
> this list updated on what I receive.
Cool!
-kb, the Kent who is pleased the GPL is building this kind of
precedence as it will maybe make the eventual legal defence of the GPL
a smidge easier, also the Kent who looks like he will finally be
buying a home wireless access point--and it looks like it will be a
Linksys (are the other Linksys boxes going to be opened?).
On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 01:17:30PM -0700, Randolph Bentson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 12:21:41AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 02:50:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > > As I read 3b, it only applies if the person requesting the source
> > > code actually has physical possession of the written offer. (Though
> > > the offer could be transferred to anyone.)
> >
> > "to give any third party" in 3b is pretty non-ambiguous.
>
> You've skipped the qualifing predicate condition. Every clause
> of section 3 begins with "Accompany it with", referring to the
> distribution of the Program in object code or executable form.
You definitely don't need physical possession of the written offer.
Otherwise 3c wouldn't work.
> Randolph Bentson
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 05:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> You definitely don't need physical possession of the written offer.
> Otherwise 3c wouldn't work.
You cannot mix the terms of clauses 3a, 3b, and 3c. The "written
offer" is only an element of clause 3b.
A significant point which seems to be glossed over is that the
distributor is the entity which selects which of these clauses,
3a, 3b, or 3c, is to be exercised to satisfy the GPL. Each places
a different obligation on the distributor.
If the distributor elects to distribute the object code or executable
form under clause 3a, the distributor need only distribute copies of
the source to the recipients of the object code or executable form.
If the distributor elects to distribute the object code or executable
form under clause 3b, one might reasonably argue that the distributor
need only distribute the source to those third parties in possession
of the written offer which must be included. Others may argue that
this clause requires that the distributor make the source available
to everyone, but even then the distributor is not obliged to put it
on the web and the distributor may charge for the distribution cost.
If the distributor elects to distribute the object code or executable
form under clause 3c, and is qualified to do so, the distributor
need only distribute the information to those who receive the object
code or executable form. The distributor is not obliged to give
this information to everyone.
Of course, once anyone has a copy of this source, it may be further
distributed under sections 1, 2, or 3.
I'd like to see Linksys elect to distribute under clause 3b by putting
a note in each box with a pointer to source files which everyone
can fetch from their web site. (I believe that web based distribution
qualifies as "a medium customarily used for software interchange"
cited in 3b and that they can simply absorb the cost of this method
of distribution.) Recent news suggests that this will be the case.
Let's hope that they, and other such distributors of embedded GPL
based systems, follow this course.
--
Randolph Bentson
[email protected]
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:39:36AM -0700, Randolph Bentson wrote:
>...
> If the distributor elects to distribute the object code or executable
> form under clause 3b, one might reasonably argue that the distributor
> need only distribute the source to those third parties in possession
> of the written offer which must be included. Others may argue that
>...
"Accompany it with a written offer, ..., to give any third party, ..., a
complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code..."
This is non-ambiguous. You might _not_ "reasonably argue" about it, the
"any third party" leaves no room for other interpretations.
> Randolph Bentson
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:39:36AM -0700, Randolph Bentson wrote:
> >...
> > If the distributor elects to distribute the object code or executable
> > form under clause 3b, one might reasonably argue that the distributor
> > need only distribute the source to those third parties in possession
> > of the written offer which must be included. Others may argue that
> >...
> "Accompany it with a written offer, ..., to give any third party, ..., a
> complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code..."
>
> This is non-ambiguous. You might _not_ "reasonably argue" about it, the
> "any third party" leaves no room for other interpretations.
>
> > Randolph Bentson
>
> cu
> Adrian
Think about this logically. Suppose a company releases a product and
(maybe) accompanies it with such a written offer (I mean, how could you know
for sure if you hadn't seen it?). You call the company up to try to enforce
the offer. They say, "What offer?" You say, "the written offer that
accompanied some copies of your product." You can't cite the text of the
written offer, you can't specify any specific person they made the offer to.
It is totally reasonable to construe "any third party" to mean that the
offer can't specify that it's only vaild for certain particular individuals.
In fact, I always understood simply to mean that you couldn't limit the
offer to only the purchaser (assuming the product was sold).
What would the purpose be of a "written offer" (and why would you have to
"accompany" the object code with it?) if not that the offer is an
enforceable 'coupon'? Why wouldn't the GPL just say that you have to
"provide any third party with a complete machine-readable copy of the
corresponding source code". Why specify a written offer if it just meant
that you had to offer it?
DS
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:12:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:39:36AM -0700, Randolph Bentson wrote:
> > >
> > > If the distributor elects to distribute the object code or executable
> > > form under clause 3b, one might reasonably argue that the distributor
> > > need only distribute the source to those third parties in possession
> > > of the written offer which must be included. Others may argue that
> >
> > "Accompany it with a written offer, ..., to give any third party, ..., a
> > complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code..."
> >
> > This is non-ambiguous. You might _not_ "reasonably argue" about it, the
> > "any third party" leaves no room for other interpretations.
>
> Think about this logically. Suppose a company releases a product and
> (maybe) accompanies it with such a written offer (I mean, how could you know
> for sure if you hadn't seen it?). You call the company up to try to enforce
> the offer. They say, "What offer?" You say, "the written offer that
> accompanied some copies of your product." You can't cite the text of the
> written offer, you can't specify any specific person they made the offer to.
<snip>
> Why specify a written offer if it just meant that you had to offer it?
Because:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCWhatDoesWrittenOfferValid
Regards,
Filip
--
"Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are."
-- Martin Schulze
Filip Van Raemdonck wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:12:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
>>Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:39:36AM -0700, Randolph Bentson wrote:
>>>
>>>>If the distributor elects to distribute the object code or executable
>>>>form under clause 3b, one might reasonably argue that the distributor
>>>>need only distribute the source to those third parties in possession
>>>>of the written offer which must be included. Others may argue that
>>>
>>>"Accompany it with a written offer, ..., to give any third party, ..., a
>>>complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code..."
>>>
>>>This is non-ambiguous. You might _not_ "reasonably argue" about it, the
>>>"any third party" leaves no room for other interpretations.
>>
>> Think about this logically. Suppose a company releases a product and
>>(maybe) accompanies it with such a written offer (I mean, how could you know
>>for sure if you hadn't seen it?). You call the company up to try to enforce
>>the offer. They say, "What offer?" You say, "the written offer that
>>accompanied some copies of your product." You can't cite the text of the
>>written offer, you can't specify any specific person they made the offer to.
>
> <snip>
>
>>Why specify a written offer if it just meant that you had to offer it?
>
>
> Because:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCWhatDoesWrittenOfferValid
So you have to have a copy of the written offer to request the source
code. Anyone who gives out the binary must also give out that same
written offer, so you may have sold it to Anne, who gave it to Bob, who
gave it to Charles, who came to you with the written offer. You would
be required to give Charles the source code. If Anne also came with the
written offer, you'd give it to her as well. But you would not have to
give it to Diane if she does not have the written offer.
Eli
--------------------. "If it ain't broke now,
Eli Carter \ it will be soon." -- crypto-gram
eli.carter(a)inet.com `-------------------------------------------------
[FYI: Please cc: me; I'm not on lkml, thanks.]
On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 10:41:23PM -0400, Andrew Miklas wrote:
> 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.
[snip]
> 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
>
[much discussion]
On Maw, 2003-07-08 at 12:30, Matthew Hall wrote:
> Hi lkml,
> I don't know if anyone's noticed, but Linksys have opened up and
> released their code.
>
> http://www.linksys.com/support/gpl.asp
Remember the reason we were poking around inside the Linksys firmware? --
for Broadcom 11g support! Well, I've searched the WRT54G firmware 1.30.1
package kernel-2.4.5.tgz (linked at the above URL) and this is what I found:
<begin terminal output>
$ head -267 linux/arch/mips/Makefile | tail -11
#
# Broadcom BCM93725 variants
#
ifdef CONFIG_BCM93725
LIBS += arch/mips/brcm-boards/bcm93725/bcm93725.o arch/mips/brcm-boards/generic/brcm.o
SUBDIRS += arch/mips/brcm-boards/generic arch/mips/brcm-boards/bcm93725
LOADADDR += 0x80000000
TEXTADDR += 0x80001000
endif
$ find linux/ /fw_cramfs -ipath "*bcm9*" -o -ipath "*brcm-*" -o -name "diag.*" -o -name "et.*" -o -name "il.*" -o -name "*writemac*" -o -name "*wl.*"
/fw_cramfs/lib/modules/2.4.5/kernel/drivers/net/diag/diag.o
/fw_cramfs/lib/modules/2.4.5/kernel/drivers/net/et/et.o
/fw_cramfs/lib/modules/2.4.5/kernel/drivers/net/mac/writemac.o
/fw_cramfs/lib/modules/2.4.5/kernel/drivers/net/wl/wl.o
<end>
The Linksys kernel source tree seems to omit code for the Broadcom drivers,
the libraries which the build links against, and the resulting modules! Is
this allowed by the GPL? It seems Linksys has omitted (at least) one crucial
part of their kernel source....
True, Linksys deserves much credit for releasing their GPL-derived
source -- but can someone legally write a module or kernel library for a
GPL kernel and provide its recipient with neither the source nor library?
-- Michael English
Linus etc do not give a FUCK that Grsecurity is BLATANTLY violating the
GPL. So why do you fucking retards complain about this?
> DURR BECUAUSE WE DON'T HAVE 2 DO ANYTHING, CAN JUST COMMISERATE
