 
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 | |
|  | | | | 
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA
2 edits | 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.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? | |
| | | | | 
rtcy
FACTS only please
Premium
join:1999-10-16
Beverly Hills, CA
 ·Verizon west (ex G..
 ·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | Re: Modified Source said by tobycable1 :here's the code: » opensource.actiontec.com/index.htmlI 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/release_notes_v4_8.html
--
no sports watched here, so don't want to pay for it! | |
| | | | 
houkouonchi
join:2002-07-22
Corona, CA
clubs:
·AT&T U-Verse
·DSL EXTREME
·OCN
·Pacific Bell - SBC
 ·Charter Pipeline
| 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)
--
Chugging along on 3x 6016/768k DSL Extreme DSL lines and one 3008/512 ATT DSL DIrect line for a combined total of just over 18 meg download and 2350 up. yay! | |
| | | | |
rtcy
FACTS only please
Premium
join:1999-10-16
Beverly Hills, CA
1 edit | Re: Modified Source how do you open that many connections in a browser? I only use Seamonkey if that matters | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
rtcy
FACTS only please
Premium
join:1999-10-16
Beverly Hills, CA | Re: Modified Source thanks will look into downloaders | |
| 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. | |
| | 
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| 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,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
·Embarq
| 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
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| 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,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
·Embarq
| 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.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad | |
| | | | | |
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| 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 | 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
Tulsa, OK
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| 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
| 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | nshulga
join:2002-06-06
Morrisville, PA
| 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. | |
| | | 
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
·CableOne
| 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
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| Re: GPL Violation said by PolarBear :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. | |
| | | | |
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
·CableOne
| 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
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
1 edit | 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 | |
| | | mikenolan7
Premium
join:2005-06-07
Torrance, CA
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
| 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
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 | 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
| 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
| 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'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| 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 | |
| | | |
See 23 replies to this post | |
| wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| 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. | |
| | |
See 17 replies to this post | |
| 
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| 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. | |
| | | B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
1 edit | Re: Uh, what said by sporkme :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. But it doesn't matter one whit who makes the router or who makes a radio! It does matter who DISTRIBUTES the binary code. You can modify all the GPL code you want in your own lab and create as many radios as you like. You can twist the code into pretzels without issue. But at the point you sell them to someone else, at the point you distribute them, you are obligated to abide by the copyrights and licenses of the software you're distributing.
Yes, sometimes it's kind of silly for a retailer to have to worry about providing source code -- that's why he or she should simply make sure that his suppliers are providing LEGAL materials. If the GPL isn't abided, they are dealing in illegal goods...
It shouldn't "scare businesses away from Linux" (in part because BusyBox isn't Linux) but rather scare businesses away from... distributing illegal (or carelessly packaged, if you prefer) goods.
Edit: I finally got around to RTFA... There's an inaccuracy there that troubles me -- they write "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." They're only obligated to make it available upon request, NOT "obligated to provide" it... 
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
| | | rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
| said by sporkme :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... Don't spread that lie. The code in question was originally GPL code. The original developers decided to throw BSD a bone and dual licensed the code. Later the same group of developers (not necessarily all the same people) took later versions of the code which were STILL dual licensed and took out the notice about being dual licensed (and conversely the BSD copyright notices) returning the driver to being GPL only. Being a dual license meant that you could assume it was one or the other and work from there (which is what the SFLC confirmed). There was NOTHING improper about this. Not a single thing about this action was illegal or a violation of the copyright because it was already all GPL or if you wished all BSD. What the SFLC did was tell the developers that even though what they did was legally ok, it probably wasn't the right thing to do as the BSD contributers probably still wanted attribution even though the GPL doesn't require it (and the code was GPL). AFAIK they put back the BSD copyright attributions on the sections of code contributed by BSD developers.
The reason Theo had a hissy fit is that future versions of the code wouldn't be able to be moved back to BSD as the changes would be exclusively GPL. That would mean the BSD's would have to take over full development of the driver (for the BSD side and couldn't use the GPL improvements) where GPL developers were making most of the improvements and updating for new hardware. That means more work for the BSD developers and that's the reason Theo started making wild accusations (not based on fact or the law) and calling people names. That's what Theo always does when something irks him mostly because he's 100% a-hole. | |
| | | |
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| Re: Uh, what said by rahvin112 :said by sporkme :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... Don't spread that lie. The code in question was originally GPL code. The original developers decided to throw BSD a bone and dual licensed the code. Later the same group of developers (not necessarily all the same people) took later versions of the code which were STILL dual licensed and took out the notice about being dual licensed (and conversely the BSD copyright notices) returning the driver to being GPL only. Actually, your version is revisionist BS, but think what you will.
The original file in question (a header file containing bits needed to talk to a proprietary chunk of hardware) began under copyright. The Linux guys made style changes, stripped the license, then claimed copyright.
Theft, pure and simple.
Your argument is based on the little trick that parts of the whole driver were originally dual-licensed. The one (important) file in question was never dual licensed by the original author.
It sucks that GPL proponents were themselves thieves, but it's true. | |
| 
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. | |
| |
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| 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
| 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. | |
| mooseman
join:2007-11-28
·Verizon FIOS
| 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
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| Re: Grrr..... said by mooseman :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
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| 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
join:2002-08-05
Pasadena, TX
| 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
--
Sometimes a paradox is just a paradox | |
| |
See 17 replies to this post | |
sherman10570
join:2000-10-15
Pleasantville, NY | Who cares? 1) It's a crappy router
2) Verizon's not selling it directly
- Sherman | |
| mikenolan7
Premium
join:2005-06-07
Torrance, CA
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
| 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. | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
mooseman
join:2007-11-28
·Verizon FIOS
| 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. | |
| | cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| 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 | 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
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
·Verizon FIOS
| 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 | 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
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
·AT&T U-Verse
| 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.
--
Am Heimcomputer sitz' ich hier, und programmier' die Zukunft mir | |
| |
mattei
Moderated, now muzzled
join:2001-03-19
Canada
| 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/actiontec···ntec.asp. | |
| | | |
|
|
Verizon Sued For GPL Violation
