nklb
Premium
join:2000-11-17
Ann Arbor, MI
clubs:
1 edit | Modified Source
Quite likely they didn't even modify the Busybox source, but that still doesn't excuse them from the right of not distributing the code to at least show this.
My guess is that we will see a web or ftp server appear shortly with the code.
--
for all your Linux questions |
|
mikenolan7
Premium
join:2005-06-07
Torrance, CA | GPL Violation
I don't understand how companies with so many attorneys on the payroll can continue to violate the GPL. Whether you like the GPL or not, it's clear to anyone that you can't use Busybox and not provide source code. |
|
noping
no route to host
Premium
join:2007-01-09
 ·Verizon FIOS
4 edits | Uh, what
Shouldn't they be complaining to Actiontec (developers of the device and firmware) and not Verizon? If I recall correctly, Verizon contracts the work out to Actiontec, they build the hardware and firmware. Verizon just hands them out.
»opensource.actiontec.com/ - busybox 0.50 is listed
I'd like to see them open up the entire device (it uses Linux) so that we can get some third-party firmware working on it unless they pull a TiVO. |
|
mjwalfredo
join:2007-06-05
Blythewood, SC | That was my thought exactly as well. I guess going after Verizon will get more attention drawn to the issue. They probably could be held responsible in the eyes of the law as well since they are distributing the device which contains the code. |
|
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| reply to mikenolan7
Re: GPL Violation
said by mikenolan7  :I don't understand how companies with so many attorneys on the payroll can continue to violate the GPL. Whether you like the GPL or not, it's clear to anyone that you can't use Busybox and not provide source code. It's simply because they don't care to take the time to investigate legal issues *prior* to them happening.
Licensing in general is complete and total bullshit. I'll repeat myself: it's bullshit. As a developer, I'm so sick and tired of seeing licensing battles (BSD vs. GPL2 vs. GPL3 vs. Apache vs. etc.), and I'm tired of seeing licensing get in the way of getting things done. God I'm so tired of it... |
|
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
1 edit | reply to mikenolan7
said by mikenolan7 :I don't understand how companies with so many attorneys on the payroll can continue to violate the GPL. Whether you like the GPL or not, it's clear to anyone that you can't use Busybox and not provide source code. You would think that some laywers and a product director would have to sign off on those routers before production.
Quick, blame a 2nd party manufacturer! 
--
‘Do ye, quieting in your bosoms your strong hearts,
Who of many good things have had your fill even to surfeit,
With what is moderate nourish your mighty desire; for neither will
We yield, nor shall you have all else as you wish.’
Solon |
|
fcisler
Premium
join:2004-06-14
Riverhead, NY
| Linksys
It worked with linksys, who knows - maybe verizon/actiontek will release the source code.
Releasing the source code, though, does not always mean that you will be able to compile your own and use it on the router - I have a feeling that only "signed" updates can be installed. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to mjwalfredo
Re: Uh, what
I would have to disagree. If I am installing (distributing in this case) products for people, I should not be the one making sure they are compliant. The company making the product must make sure they are compliant to the software and hardware companies who's products they use to build the device.
If Verizon's is not building/modifying the boxes themselves but simply rebranding them then I do not agree with them having to provide anything. If they are however modifying the kernel or building the entire box, they should. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to noping
Actiontec is complying, Verizon is not.
Verizon is not excused from the terms of the GPL simply because someone else is also distributing the source code. Verizon is distributing the binaries in the form of the router itself, thus they must at least make a written offer to provide the source.
Presumably, including a piece of paper in the box (or on a configuration page in the router itself) pointing users to actiontec's site would do the trick, assuming actiontec was willing to take on the cost of distributing the source for Verizon. |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| reply to koitsu
Re: GPL Violation
Why are licenses bullshit?
Someone put in his or her own time and resources to produce a product. They have put their work under a license that allows for anyone and everyone to use or modify their work free of duties under one very simply and easy to follow stipulation.
As a developer I am sure that there are stipulation you put those who use it under. Am I not correct? |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| reply to mjwalfredo
Re: Uh, what
said by mjwalfredo : They probably could be held responsible in the eyes of the law as well since they are distributing the device which contains the code. That would be an abomination if it were true.
If - as is likely - Verizon is merely distributing a product as a whole, I don't know how they can be held responsible for the sins of the developers. If they can, then this problem will be fixed rapidly by large companies (such as Verizon) issuing blanket prohibitions on the use of GPL-related code in anything they have anything to do with.
Likewise, is Best Buy responsible for the GPL status of everything they distribute? How about eBay?
This is just atrocious.
--
Stephen J. Friedl | Unix Wizard | Microsoft Security MVP | Tustin, California USA | my web site |
|
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to koitsu
Re: GPL Violation
said by koitsu :Licensing in general is complete and total bullshit. I'll repeat myself: it's bullshit. As a developer, I'm so sick and tired of seeing licensing battles (BSD vs. GPL2 vs. GPL3 vs. Apache vs. etc.), and I'm tired of seeing licensing get in the way of getting things done. God I'm so tired of it... As another developer, in this day and time it's necessary. The last thing I want is for any large company to take my personal widget project that I spend a lot of time developing and use it to their advantage for profit without even a thank you or "donation" to the project.
I get tired of licensing battles, but it's just a part of being a developer. If we lived in a perfect world, we wouldn't need all the legal hoopla and everyone would give everyone credit for everything including even shares of profits. But that's why we have greedy people  to counteract that. |
|
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to wierdo
Re: Uh, what
said by wierdo :Actiontec is complying, Verizon is not. Verizon is not excused from the terms of the GPL simply because someone else is also distributing the source code. Verizon is distributing the binaries in the form of the router itself, thus they must at least make a written offer to provide the source. Presumably, including a piece of paper in the box (or on a configuration page in the router itself) pointing users to actiontec's site would do the trick, assuming actiontec was willing to take on the cost of distributing the source for Verizon. If Actiontek is compliant so is Verizon. THe GPL license requires you to:
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, So if ActionTek is GPL compliant by including a GPL notice somewhere in the box is Verizon taking them out? I don't understand? If ActionTek is selling a product that is fully compliant by including the appropriate notices and Verizon is turning around and giving the same router and documentation to their end users what is the issues?
If ActionTek is not including the details then yes I guess Verizon is technically violating the GPL but that would give them the right to turn around and sue ActionTek for their non-compliance.
Posting the GPL code on your website alone is not "compliance" |
|
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX
| reply to Steve
said by Steve :said by mjwalfredo : They probably could be held responsible in the eyes of the law as well since they are distributing the device which contains the code. That would be an abomination if it were true. If - as is likely - Verizon is merely distributing a product as a whole, I don't know how they can be held responsible for the sins of the developers. If they can, then this problem will be fixed rapidly by large companies (such as Verizon) issuing blanket prohibitions on the use of GPL-related code in anything they have anything to do with. Likewise, is Best Buy responsible for the GPL status of everything they distribute? How about eBay? This is just atrocious. I think it is a fine distinction between distributing a product and integrating a product. As you rightly say, it would be very unfair for Verizon to be held responsible if they were simply acting as a distributor. However, it could be argued that they are integrating the product into their own (a FiOS installation) which would make them somewhat more responsible. |
|
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| reply to Maxo
Re: GPL Violation
Licenses in general are bullshit because no one has to adhere to them. There is absolutely nothing stopping someone from violating a license, and this news article is proof of that (from a commercial company/corporation nonetheless!).
You have just as much risk getting sued if you violate a license as you do if there's no license involved. People sue for superfluous reasons all the time, as I'm sure you're aware. Licenses are just miserable attempts to remind people that being moral is the right thing to do, and if you're not a moral individual, money (via a lawsuit) will somehow make it all better.
The only license that makes sense is this one, because that's exactly what people (and companies) are going to do anyways. |
|
nshulga
join:2002-06-06
Morrisville, PA
| reply to koitsu
In general, maybe. Or may be not. It's not the point.
In this particular case, the legal owners of the code made it available to anyone based on certain conditions: that the derivative work is also made available to anyone.
Nobody forced VZ to use that code; once they used it, they are obligated, both legally and ethically, to follow the terms they agreed to by using the code.
VZ is not a garage-based startup. They should know and follow the rules. |
|
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
2 edits | reply to joako
Re: Uh, what
Verizon put thier name on the device and distributed them, why would actiontek be liable? Actiontek would have to provide the source to Verizon (recipient) who they distributed to, which it looks like they did. |
|
Hall
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
·EarthLink
·AT&T Midwest
 ·Earthlink Cable Mo..
| reply to wierdo
said by wierdo :Actiontec is complying, Verizon is not. Can you give a reference to the GPL that says a party in Verizon's position has *anything* to do with the source code ? |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| reply to Steve
Hi Steve. I know you have a "thing" about the GPL, but it's really not a big deal in this case. As the poster below you wrote, all they really have to include is a slip of paper in the box that says the code (for busybox only as far as I understand) is available upon request. I guess the reason Verizon is involved is because yes, they distribute a binary -- the router brand is incidental and can change at Verizon's discretion. I don't think Verizon's ads and contracts mention Actiontec or anyone else. (Not that it would really matter if Actiontec had included the code or offer of code in the first place!)
And I suppose that yes, if BestBuy sells you a disk that contains GPL binaries, they are arguably responsible for fulfilling the GPL requirements of including or offering source. Why is this so onerous? If it were me I'd just include the little bit of source on the CD that's shipping anyway with every darned product including little USB adapters and mice and keyboards et al.
Please try looking at it this way -- inclusion of the source is proper PAYMENT for the copyright of the author in these cases. They're shipping code for which they haven't PAID. Does that make it more appealing or understandable?
If BestBuy is about to sell an item, don't they want it to be legal? Would you NOT fault them if they were blithely selling bootleg copies of Office 2007? Don't you see that selling non-compliant GPL software is the same thing?
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
mikenolan7
Premium
join:2005-06-07
Torrance, CA
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to gaforces
Re: GPL Violation
Exactly. I have subcontracted many satellite components in the past. The requirements are clearly spelled out, and signed off by the attorneys for both companies. I guarantee there are provisions protecting against the second party using anyone else's proprietary code in that contract.
The contracts start out with a "boilerplate" that includes things such as delivery options, payment terms, and not breaking the law. Why doesn't the GPL get the same protection? A few more lawsuits like this should fix the problem. |
|
