jdmatl
join:2000-04-27
Deerfield Beach, FL
1 edit |  Lawsuit is next!!!
Isn't it sad that a HUGE company like Linksys can't develop features such as this?
Heck, dlink's current firmware for the di-624 reboots the router every 5 mins. What great QA of code Dlink!
My next guess is that all these firmware "hacks" will be sued by Cisco/Linksys for violating copyright or The Digital Millennium Act.
Remember in technology we don't encourage innovation we stifle it with lawsuits.  |
|
ihaddsl
join:2001-12-05
/dev/hda0
 ·Comcast
| said by jdmatl  :
Isn't it sad that a HUGE company like Linksys can't develop features such as this?
Heck, dlink's current firmware for the di-624 reboots the router every 5 mins. What great QA of code Dlink!
My next guess is that all these firmware "hacks" will be sued by Cisco/Linksys for violating copyright or The Digital Millennium Act.
Remember in technology we don't encourage innovation we stifle it with lawsuits.
Sorry, but that's not possible. Linksys released the source under the GPL, (as they were required to) since it runs on GPL'd software
--
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.-- Mark Twain |
|
lazarus_
join:2002-08-31
Resolute, NU
| reply to jdmatl
The easiest way around that is for the hackers to release a exe that will mod the original FW. This way the people who patch the FW are at fault.
Anyways I cant see cisco or linksys really caring..
--
It's a once in a lifetime thing that only happens every so often. |
|
microbob
@rr.com | reply to ihaddsl
Yup, odds are they'll pick up these mods and include 'em in the next release.
BTW, did Linksys ever release the modded GPL code for these routers? |
|
R-1729
@64.56.x.x
| reply to ihaddsl
The GPL has stopped surprisingly few lawsuits, IMHO. The source is GPL'd, but I'd bet the hardware interfaces are "Patented" at some level. If Linksys (CISCO?) really felt like it they could probably find a way to sue for reverse engineering the hardware, or the firmware updater, or some non-Linux-related nonsense. Not that I think they will, but it wouldn't be as clear-cut a legal battle as "Linksys released the source under the GPL". |
|
Tomek
Premium
join:2002-01-30
Brooklyn, NY
 ·Packet8
| reply to jdmatl
That won't happen. Ability to use modified firmware may boost sales of that product. More sales = more money.
I think that other companies should follow this idea.
I would buy Linksys only and only if they had nicer cases.
--
There are 32 types of people.Those who understand HEX and those who don't. |
|
Freezone
join:2000-09-29
Southfield, MI | reply to R-1729
If they did this it would just be stupid. This helps sell routers. |
|
Dwonis
@sk.ca | reply to R-1729
Actually, if Linksys did this, then they would lose the right to distribute Linux.
See section 7 of the GNU General Public License. |
|
John H II
@wsu.edu | reply to lazarus_
.EXE? That's so Windows!  |
|
asldkf
@echostar.com
| reply to ihaddsl
I assume you are shilling for SCO or MSoft. They are NOT required to release the code under the GPL.
Quoted from the GPL faq:
"Can I use GPL-covered editors such as GNU Emacs to develop non-free programs? Can I use GPL-covered tools such as GCC to compile them?
Yes, because the copyright on the editors and tools does not cover the code you write. Using them does not place any restrictions, legally, on the license you use for your code." |
|
mongre26
join:2004-02-04
| reply to R-1729
"The GPL has stopped surprisingly few lawsuits, IMHO"
I am curious as to what you base your humble opinion on because from here its does not look like it is anything approaching facts.
The GPL has not stopped stopped lawsuits? I am not sure what you are trying to say but if I read the sentence on its face then I have to disagree. The GPL has in fact stopped many lawsuits. That is lawsuits where the owner of the copyright, who released their code under the GPL requests that a violator of the GPL comply with the terms of the license. The violator, understanding their rights under the license, presumably after consulting with attorneys has in all cases to date complied with the copyright holders request, without a lawsuit.
As for an example one need look no further than the very subject of this thread, the Linksys use of GPL'd Linux code. Linksys was in 2003 discovered to have used GPL code in their routers but had not complied with the GPL license and released their modifications in source code to the community. They were alerted to this fact and after some conversations with the copyright holders, a letter or two from the FSF and others Linksys complied with the GPL license and released the code. The GPL 100% had to do with preventing a lawsuit with Linksys as the defendent. This has happened many times before and the GPL will undoubtedly continue with its track record of stopping lawsuits in their tracks.
Also I a curious why you think you can sue for reverse engineering? You do know that reverse engineering is protected behaviour right? That you have the right to reverse engineer a product, produce a specification and then publish a work alike? Had this no been the case Compaq would never have been able to start the whole IBM clone business. Now it is true that your reverse engineered system could violate some patents, but then patents are public so you do not have to reverse engineer patented features, only license them, or create a work alike that does not violate the patent.
Now as far as patents and the GPL, yes if there is a patent then the GPL, a license, does not idemnify you from violating others patents. That is if you as the originator of a program violate some other entities patents. However if you actually would read the GPL you would know that the GPL specifically requires that any algorithms that the author of the software has patented and has placed in the GPL code they must, in order to use and/or comply with the GPL license provide royalty free rights to use said patent.
That is you cannot poison a GPL'd program with a patent. Eben is a smart guy, they thought of that one already. Section 7 of the terms and conditions if you are curious.
As a final word, does the GPL work? Resoundingly yes, here we have a case of a proprietary company using GPL'd code, as it is allowed to do, to create a product which is a successful product, they released their changes to the community and now others have taken it and improved on it again. Now Linksys can take those changes and re-integrate them back into their product.
Isn't it wonderful when your own customers implement a key feature that will help you hold or even advance more market share in home based wireless devices? Does it get any better?
If Linksys does re-integrate these changes then the circle will be complete and the superiority of the GPL license to continue to advance innovation in software will once again be demonstrated. |
|
Kimura_Kalidor
@rr.com | reply to jdmatl
not likely. Linksys posts the source, since they run linux |
|
medici
join:2001-02-22
Shohola, PA
| reply to lazarus_
Anyways I cant see cisco or linksys really caring.
If the features enabled by the mod'd firmware make the $90 LinkSys the functional equivalent of, say, a Cisco SOHO or SMB router at 10X or more the price, then Cisco may feel compelled to do something to protect their higher margin products. Most likely this would be elimination of GPL-powered routers, but you never know what a company will do when backed into a corner. |
|
Elasah
@sea1-4-4-093-234.sea
| reply to asldkf
Actually, that is code that you create yourself with tools that are released under GPL, not GPL'd code itself. Basically if you use GCC to compile a program you wrote yourself, without using someone else's GPL'd code, then that code is not protected under GPL, and you do not have to release it. If you use GCC to compile a program you wrote with GPL'd code, then you would have to make the source available. |
|
Bordruh
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Woodbridge, VA
clubs:
| reply to asldkf
Your mixxing apples and oranges here.
If I understand it correctly part of the Linksys' Firmware source code has already been GPL'd therefore, yes they ARE required to the code under GPL.
Your quote is referring to the editors and compilers used to write the source code. Thats like saying Since I used a Black and Decker power saw to build my house, Black and decker has rights to the house. |
|
