dslreports logo
 story category
Verizon Sued For GPL Violation
ILEC didn't provide Busybox source code...
The Software Freedom Law Center says they are suing Verizon for breaching the terms of the GNU General Public License. At issue is a network utility called Busybox, which is distributed with the ActionTec MI424WR router Verizon gives FiOS customers. From the group's statement:
quote:
Click for full size
This router contains BusyBox, and under the terms of the GPL, Verizon is obligated to provide the source code of BusyBox to recipients of the device. According to the lawsuit, Verizon continues to distribute BusyBox illegally without source code, despite having been contacted by SFLC. The complaint requests that an injunction be issued against Verizon and that damages and litigation costs be awarded to the plaintiffs.
"Our clients licensed BusyBox under the GPL to ensure that all users of the program can access and modify its source code," says Dan Ravicher, Legal Director of SFLC. "Because Verizon chose not to respond to our concerns, we had no choice but to file a lawsuit to ensure that they comply with the GPL."
view:
topics flat nest 

nklb
Premium Member
join:2000-11-17
Ann Arbor, MI

1 edit

nklb

Premium Member

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.

djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV

1 edit

djrobx

Premium Member

Re: Modified Source

quote:
My guess is that we will see a web or ftp server appear shortly with the code.
No. Verizon will just announce that the firmware is in a "beta test" stage and that the source will be released when it's done. No one says they have to finish.

Or they can encrypt relevant bits of the source they don't want to release. VPinMAME gets away with that one.

-- Rob

Cabal
Premium Member
join:2007-01-21

2 edits

Cabal

Premium Member

Re: Modified Source

said by djrobx:
quote:
My guess is that we will see a web or ftp server appear shortly with the code.
No. Verizon will just announce that the firmware is in a "beta test" stage and that the source will be released when it's done. No one says they have to finish.

Or they can encrypt relevant bits of the source they don't want to release. VPinMAME gets away with that one.

-- Rob
Wrong on both counts. A.) They distribute the router, whether they consider it "done" or not is irrelevant, they need to comply with BusyBox's terms because they have distributed it. B.) All code must be in legible, as-it-was-developed form.

Both of these are spelled out quite explicitly in the GPL license.
tobycable1
join:2003-02-20
Pass Christian, MS

tobycable1 to nklb

Member

to nklb
here's the code:
»opensource.actiontec.com ··· dex.html

I don't know if it's new or not but I stumbled across it moments ago on their site and knew I'd seen this article, etc.

rtcy
FACTS only please
Premium Member
join:1999-10-16
Norwalk, CA

1 edit

rtcy

Premium Member

Re: Modified Source

said by tobycable1:

here's the code:
»opensource.actiontec.com ··· dex.html

I don't know if it's new or not but I stumbled across it moments ago on their site and knew I'd seen this article, etc.
looks like Actiontec is doing the same STUPID crap as JUNGO the people that made the firmware on the MI424-WR ,they want 15.00 in a certified check so they will send you cd. the files for download are coming down at 8kb restricted in speed and in content.

can't wait till someone re-write the code on that hardware and turns it loose.

here's jungo site
»www.jungo.com/openrg/rel ··· 4_8.html

houkouonchi
join:2002-07-22
Ontario, CA

houkouonchi

Member

Re: Modified Source

said by rtcy :

Looks like Actiontec is doing the same STUPID crap as JUNGO the people that made the firmware on the MI424-WR ,they want 15.00 in a certified check so they will send you cd. the files for download are coming down at 8kb restricted in speed and in content.
I think they Just hosted it on some shitty box with a 1.5 meg QoS limit or something because I just opened 150 connections to their stupid web-server and got 137 KB/sec (vs 8 KB/sec with one connection) and while downloading from a different connection while the 150 thread download was going I got a lovely 700 bytes/sec (much slower than the 8 before) so yeah.... It went much faster with 150 connections though:

Connection 148 finished
,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,..
Connection 143 finished
,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,. .
Connection 147 finished
,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, ,..
Connection 112 finished
,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, ,,,..
Connection 149 finished
,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,.

Downloaded 33.4 megabytes in 4:11 seconds. (136.19 KB/s)

rtcy
FACTS only please
Premium Member
join:1999-10-16
Norwalk, CA

1 edit

rtcy

Premium Member

Re: Modified Source

how do you open that many connections in a browser? I only use Seamonkey if that matters

houkouonchi
join:2002-07-22
Ontario, CA

houkouonchi

Member

Re: Modified Source

axel, a command line downloader. For the 90 MB file I used 250 connections which totally killed their server =P Got almost exactly 150 kilobytes/sec on that. Just did axel -n 250 »url/

Most downloaders have a limit of only 10 or so connections which wouldn't help in this situation but axel doesn't really have a limit so it could be used for DDoS's on web-servers but that is really easy to do by launching a bunch of wget's limited to 200 bytes/sec as well.

rtcy
FACTS only please
Premium Member
join:1999-10-16
Norwalk, CA

rtcy

Premium Member

Re: Modified Source

thanks will look into downloaders
mikenolan7
Premium Member
join:2005-06-07
Torrance, CA

mikenolan7

Premium Member

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.

koitsu
MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
Humax BGW320-500

koitsu

MVM

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...

Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium Member
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL

Maxo

Premium Member

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?

koitsu
MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
Humax BGW320-500

koitsu

MVM

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.

Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium Member
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL

Maxo

Premium Member

Re: GPL Violation

said by koitsu:

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!).
So if I use Vista in a way that violates their licensing agreement, and I do it in a highly public way that brings lots of attention to me, you don't think their lawyers could successfully go after me for the infringement?

I do agree that there are some area that are questionable. Someone pointed that if you put in your license agreement that the person using the software must be dressed like a monkey, it would not be enforceable. So the question is where is the line drawn to what stipulations you can and cannot put on intellectual property.

koitsu
MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
Humax BGW320-500

koitsu

MVM

Re: GPL Violation

said by Maxo:

I do agree that there are some area that are questionable. Someone pointed that if you put in your license agreement that the person using the software must be dressed like a monkey, it would not be enforceable. So the question is where is the line drawn to what stipulations you can and cannot put on intellectual property.
So keeping that in mind, do you not equally think that such licenses are a waste of time?

It's fairly easy to understand my point of view on this matter: In general, I think the negatives of licenses easily outweigh the benefits. I'm specifically referring to open-source licenses, because commercial licenses (mainly business-to-business) are very different, and definitely state repercussions of violation.

The primary 3 open-source licenses used these days are the Apache, BSD, and GPLv2 (I haven't read v3). None of these licenses state what the repercussions of violation are -- it's completely open-ended.

Using city/state/federal laws for comparison: you know what the repercussions of violation are: fines, community service, removal of rights/freedoms, jail, prison, or death. Simple, no?

With aforementioned licenses, no such thing. Instead, they try to tell you what you can/cannot do with what you've already got your hands on.... "or else". Or else what? You'll feel bad about yourself? You'll get sued? You can get sued for any reason at all in this country to begin with (and even if you lose the suit, you've still destroyed the defendant financially, which is often a tactic used even in present day).

Again, business-to-business licenses are different. They explicitly state what the consequences of violation are. Sometimes they're vague in definition (to allow the violated to get whatever they can out of the violator), but the consequences are still stated.

I'm not going to respond to this thread past this point. My opinion might seem bizarre, unrealistic, and downright absurd to some, and that's fine -- everyone has a right to their opinion, and diversity == good. But really, the whole licensing thing is so out of hand, and there's really no light at the end of the tunnel as long as people keep putting faith into things like licenses.
Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL

Stumbles

Member

Re: GPL Violation

You are full of shit if you say you have read GPLv2 and "None of these licenses state what the repercussions of violation are". It's obvious you are speaking out of your ass.
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Miami, FL

wierdo to koitsu

Member

to koitsu
said by koitsu:

So keeping that in mind, do you not equally think that such licenses are a waste of time?

It's fairly easy to understand my point of view on this matter: In general, I think the negatives of licenses easily outweigh the benefits. I'm specifically referring to open-source licenses, because commercial licenses (mainly business-to-business) are very different, and definitely state repercussions of violation.

The primary 3 open-source licenses used these days are the Apache, BSD, and GPLv2 (I haven't read v3). None of these licenses state what the repercussions of violation are -- it's completely open-ended.
What on earth are you talking about? It's rare that a license explicitly states what the repercussions for violating it are, beyond saying "you don't have a license to use this software if you don't abide by the terms," which is essentially what the GPL says.

Also, you know exactly what the consequences are, defend yourself against a lawsuit, and if you lose, pay damages, which may or may not be any significant amount of money. Additionally, you open yourself up to charges of criminal violation of copyright law.
Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL

Stumbles

Member

Re: GPL Violation

beyond saying "you don't have a license to use this software if you don't abide by the terms,"; yes you are exactly right.

That is what happens if you violate the terms of GPLv2. And if that isn't a repercussion of violating the terms of a license then I don't know how it can be said any planner.

Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium Member
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL

Maxo to koitsu

Premium Member

to koitsu
Not being a lawyer I can't really comment on the this, other than to say it is my understanding that software licenses are enforceable in a court of law. The repercussions of breaking a GPLed software's license are the legal inability to continue distributing the software. The GPL is not what you can do with the software (as far as personal use) but all about distribution. It's simply, you may redistribute this software under these terms.
For example, if I write a piece of software and you come to my house and steal it and then go home and start redistributing it I could take you to court and have you stopped. It is up to me to decide who can and cannot redistribute my code, and under what conditions I allow redistribution. That's my right as the holder of the intellectual property. Just like people who own music get to decide who can redistribute their music and under what terms.
I have never heard anyone that is involved in law state that IP holders do not get to have any say in how their IP is redistributed.
Aside from it being your opinion, do you have any legal references to back this up?

knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN

knightmb to koitsu

Member

to koitsu
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.
nshulga
join:2002-06-06
Morrisville, PA

nshulga to koitsu

Member

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.

PolarBear03
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium Member
join:2005-01-03

PolarBear03 to koitsu

Premium Member

to koitsu
said by koitsu:

Licensing in general is complete and total bullshit.
Wow. Just. Wow. As much as I may not like the following organizations, try explaining your point of view to Microsoft or the RIAA.

koitsu
MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
Humax BGW320-500

koitsu

MVM

Re: GPL Violation

said by PolarBear03:

said by koitsu:

Licensing in general is complete and total bullshit.
Wow. Just. Wow. As much as I may not like the following organizations, try explaining your point of view to Microsoft or the RIAA.
That's funny -- I happen to work for Microsoft. I'm sure I could explain my point of view to many of my co-workers (developers/engineers), some of which would agree with me, but explaining the same thing to Legal would be like willingly sticking my head in a blender.

PolarBear03
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium Member
join:2005-01-03

PolarBear03

Premium Member

Re: GPL Violation

said by koitsu:

but explaining the same thing to Legal would be like willingly sticking my head career in a blender.
My point exactly.
gaforces (banned)
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA

1 edit

gaforces (banned) to mikenolan7

Member

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!
mikenolan7
Premium Member
join:2005-06-07
Torrance, CA

mikenolan7

Premium Member

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.

noping
no route to host
Premium Member
join:2007-01-09

4 edits

noping

Premium Member

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
Columbia, SC

mjwalfredo

Member

Re: Uh, what

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.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

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.
rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT

rahvin112

Member

Re: Uh, what

Verizon is distributing the software. This lawsuit isn't necessarily about the routers (although it likely is because Verizon has modified the actiontec firmware, most likely to include Verizon branding). This is more about Verizon publishing firmware on their website. That firmware contains Busybox, Verizon is distributing it themselves, hence they are responsible for the terms of the GPL about making source available.

You distribute the software you comply with the terms. First sale doctrine where they could point at Actiontec would apply ONLY if they distributed the routers with standard Actiontec firmware and referred customers to Actiontec for firmware updates. They do neither.

Steve
I know your IP address

join:2001-03-10
Tustin, CA

Steve to mjwalfredo

to mjwalfredo
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.

•••••••••••••••••••••••
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Miami, FL

wierdo to noping

Member

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.

•••••••••••••••••

sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ

sporkme to noping

MVM

to noping
said by noping:

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
Exactly. This is nothing more than a (bad) publicity stunt. The SFLC kind of pisses me off. A bunch of Linux developers outright stole some wireless driver code, put their names on it, removed the original copyright/license and the SFLC had the balls to stand up for these thieves. Hypocrites if you ask me...

Total BS to go after a distributor. If actiontec is publishing their changes, that's it, case closed. The router says "Actiontec" on it, no?

They also filed a suit against a guy that sells WISP radios. His company doesn't make them, just sells them, yet the SFLC filed suit.

This should scare plenty of businesses away from Linux, that's for sure.

•••

fcisler
Premium Member
join:2004-06-14
Riverhead, NY

fcisler

Premium Member

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.

sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ

sporkme

MVM

Re: Linksys

said by fcisler:

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.
Actiontec did release the modifications to BusyBox.

Just FYI, BusyBox is not that huge a deal - it's a simple set of utilities for embedded devices. It is NOT the firmware that makes the router run. Loading your own BB would be boring.

»www.busybox.net/about.html

mattei
Moderated, now muzzled
join:2001-03-19
Canada

mattei

Member

Re: Linksys

BusyBox is a comprehensive set of (dare I say, standard) UNIX utilities. The exceedingly granular code base is packaged as a small, single binary. If you're developing for an embedded device, it is a big deal. Without it, your device will cost more.

Very little is needed after porting/compiling the Kernel + BusyBox. It makes up a fair portion of the user space firmware in many devices.
mooseman6
join:2007-11-28

mooseman6

Member

Grrr.....

Dont like GPL lawsuits and stuff?

- Write your own code from scratch
- Contact the developer, pay them for the code and license
- Develop your own hardware and software

OR

- Follow the guidelines of the GPL!!!!

Pretty easy if you ask me.

sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ

sporkme

MVM

Re: Grrr.....

said by mooseman6:

Dont like GPL lawsuits and stuff?

- Write your own code from scratch
- Contact the developer, pay them for the code and license
- Develop your own hardware and software

OR
Choose free software that is really free.
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Miami, FL

wierdo

Member

Re: Grrr.....

said by sporkme:

Choose free software that is really free.
You mean choose software that has no monetary cost, rather than software which you are and will always be guaranteed to be at liberty to modify. (Or to use Stallman's terms, gratis, rather than libre)

As a not-very-nice person who requires some incentive to distribute what little software I write, I'll stick with the GPL, thanks. I have no interest in helping people who wouldn't extend the same courtesy to me. (either that or pay me, which is how most of my work gets done)
emptywig
Huh? What?
Premium Member
join:2002-08-05
Pasadena, TX

emptywig

Premium Member

GPL is Horses*&t

So, how is a GPL binding on ANYONE AT ALL? How can the Software Freedom Law Center set themselves up as a plaintiff? Where does their legal standing come from. I'm assuming they don't own any of the code (since its free, right?) Why can't I file the suit? Who is the licensing entity under whose aegis the GPL is offered?

This is stupid shit. Suing someone for using free software.

The whole thing is ridiculous.

wig

•••••••••••••••••

sherman06810
join:2000-10-15
Danbury, CT

sherman06810

Member

Who cares?

1) It's a crappy router

2) Verizon's not selling it directly

- Sherman
mikenolan7
Premium Member
join:2005-06-07
Torrance, CA

mikenolan7

Premium Member

GPL Violation

I've got to try one more time. What would happen if this router included Microsoft Windows, and Microsoft was not paid any royalties? The giant sucking sound you would hear would be a company disappearing into another dimension.

Free software does not mean free, as in you can't be charged for it. It means free, according to the GPL, as in you must be provided access to the source code and you are free to modify it if you choose. This is why many people prefer the term "open source" to free.

The GPL does not require that users pay royalties to anyone, just that they provide the source code if they redistribute GPL'd software. I am not a developer, but this seems to be a reasonable request to me.

••••••••
mooseman6
join:2007-11-28

mooseman6

Member

Lawsuit

"Because Verizon chose not to respond to our concerns, we had no choice but to file a lawsuit to ensure that they comply with the GPL."

A lawsuit is always the last resort. Verizon messed up, they were notified, they choose not to correct it, and now they are being sued. Pretty straight forward to me.
cmaenginsb1
Premium Member
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA

cmaenginsb1

Premium Member

Re: Lawsuit

Verizon was notified on Nov 16 2007, lawsuit filed on Dec 7 2007. 15 business days to respond isn't a lot of time, especially for a large corp like Verizon.

If the SFLC did their usual tactic of contacting via email, that message could still be in someone's inbox waiting for them to get back from vacation.

SFLC jumped
@alanjacksonpools.com

SFLC jumped to mooseman6

Anon

to mooseman6
Generally SFLC files suit after initial contact and no more than one discussion, then even if the violator complies with the GPL, they will usually file suit because they don't like the way the violator complied (and they didn't get their money)

birdfeedr
MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI

birdfeedr

MVM

version 0.50?

Busybox is very clear about its licensing. See »www.busybox.net/license.html

But what I want to know is 0.50? Really? That version was released in March 2001. Current version is 1.82, November 2007. 6½ years is a long time for software.

Not that an update is required just because it's out there, but if there are so many complaints about the Fios Actiontec router, is old software part of the problem?
Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL

Stumbles

Member

Re: version 0.50?

In this case had you bothered to download that version and look at the license, it is still GPLv2. The age of code is totally immaterial and irrelevant. What matters is the terms it was licensed under.

joako
Premium Member
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null

joako

Premium Member

FIRMWARe UPGRADES no my caps log is not stuck bbr nazis

I read the full text of the complaint (except for the GPL license text). It can be found HERE

The complaint alleges that Verizon distributes the Actiontek firmware (and thus the BusyBox software) via the firmware upgrades on its website. The complaint does not make any claims regarding the actual distribution of the hardware or the firmware pre-installed on the hardware.

mattei
Moderated, now muzzled
join:2001-03-19
Canada

mattei

Member

Re: FIRMWARe UPGRADES no my caps log is not stuck bbr nazis

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to notice that .
11. Upon information and belief, Verizon distributes to its customers the Actiontec MI424WR
wireless router (“Infringing Product”), which contains embedded executable software (“Firmware”).
Defendant also provides the Firmware corresponding to the Infringing Product for download via
its website, at »www2.verizon.net/micro/a ··· ntec.asp.