All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations
@ 2003-09-29 18:22 David Turner
  2003-10-06  8:29 ` David Woodhouse
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: David Turner @ 2003-09-29 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2762 bytes --]


To Linux Developers Concerned about the Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations:

We are in ongoing negotiating with Linksys/Cisco about this issue.
Information from Andrew Miklas and others has been very helpful to us in
our negotiations, and we encourage others to share with us any technical
information about this or any other GPL violation.

This isn't the first GPL violation we have dealt with; we've been
actively
enforcing the GPL for over ten years.  Our usual practice is not to
publicly announce details of ongoing violation negotiations, because we
find that private negotiation yields quicker and better cooperation.
By building a relationship with violators where we are helping them to
come
into compliance, we avoid having to fight in court, and are able to
spend
less resources per violation.  Our number one goal in any GPL violation
case is to get proper and full compliance with the license; everything
else is secondary.

GPL violations sometimes take time to resolve.  We wish that we could
force resolution quicker, but we haven't found a way to do that.  We
have,
however, discovered a variant of Brooks's Law: adding more lawyers to a
GPL violation usually makes it take longer.  Lawyers are reluctant to
admit to mistakes, because they fear it could be used against them.
Engineers and product managers are typically interested in fixing
mistakes, so we try our best to work with them first before escalating
to
legal teams on both sides.  Such escalation has happened on this
violation, so it will take additional time to resolve the matter.

In addition, we are leading a coalition of many copyright holders in the
WRT54G, as Linux is only one part of a large body of GPL'ed software in
the product.  We formed this coalition because, having done enforcement
cases for a product with a broad range of copyright holders before, we
have found that separate enforcement actions and/or law suits from
individual copyright holders make attainment of compliance more
difficult.

We will continue to do everything necessary to obtain full compliance on
this and any other products where violations can be confirmed.  On this
particular violation, we will keep the community informed when issues
come
up that impact the rights of everyone whose work is being distributed by
Cisco or any of its subsidiaries.

If you are a copyright holder on software in the WRT54G, or any other
Cisco product, you are welcome join this coalition.  Please email
<license-violation@fsf.org> for details.

Sincerely,

David Turner, GPL Compliance Engineer, FSF
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, FSF


-- 
-Dave Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSF

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations
  2003-09-29 18:22 Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations David Turner
@ 2003-10-06  8:29 ` David Woodhouse
  2003-10-10 13:09   ` Florian Schirmer
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: David Woodhouse @ 2003-10-06  8:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: David Turner; +Cc: linux-kernel

On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 14:22 -0400, David Turner wrote: 
> To Linux Developers Concerned about the Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations:
> 
> We are in ongoing negotiating with Linksys/Cisco about this issue.

I fail to comprehend. In the United Kingdom, Linksys-Cisco B.V. are
committing a criminal offence under the provisions of Section 107(1) of
the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, by knowingly distributing
software without the licence of the copyright owner.

Even if the source were to appear on their web site today, their
packaging remains a problem since it contains neither said source nor a
written offer to provide it. In order to comply, they _must_ recall this
product and amend the packaging. So even if they are already working on
putting the source on their web site, they still need to recall the
product -- and should already have done so.

Once they have withdrawn these products from the market and ceased to
commit this criminal offence, _then_ there is scope for negotiation
regarding the ways in which they can re-release the products.

Until then, I see none. By continuing to unlawfully sell this product,
Cisco are clearly demonstrating that they are not acting in good faith.

I would like to know if this is also a criminal matter in the United
States, and if you have also discussed this with the appropriate
authorities, rather than only with Linksys/Cisco?

I would also like to know if in the US, as in the UK, it is also an
offence for the _retailers_ and _distributors_ of these products to
continue to sell them after being informed of the problem. And have they
each been informed in a manner which allows it to be proven in a
criminal court that they had 'reason to believe' (to use the phrase from
the 1988 Act) that there was a problem? 

-- 
dwmw2


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations
  2003-10-06  8:29 ` David Woodhouse
@ 2003-10-10 13:09   ` Florian Schirmer
  2003-10-10 13:16     ` David Woodhouse
                       ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Florian Schirmer @ 2003-10-10 13:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel
  Cc: David Woodhouse, David Turner, andrew, lwn, rob, linux-bcom4301-priv

Hi,

good news. Broadcom/Linksys finally decided to provide all sources. I
haven't checked everything but it looks like everything is there. Don't know
if they did it by accident but they even donated more ... including the
bootloader, ethernet driver and lots of other non-gpl'ed stuff. Interesting
change of attitude. I'm sure one day i'll ask them for the source of the
(modified) toolchain which they distribute binary only inside this
package... but for now i'm happy :-)

Thanks for all the people that supported us. Thanks Broadcom/Linksys for
finally come to the conclusion that working together with the community is
much more effective than working against us. Thanks!

Regards,
   Florian




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations
  2003-10-10 13:09   ` Florian Schirmer
@ 2003-10-10 13:16     ` David Woodhouse
  2003-10-10 13:26       ` Florian Schirmer
  2003-10-10 15:11     ` [Linux-bcom4301-priv] " James Stevenson
  2003-10-10 15:58     ` Rob Flickenger
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: David Woodhouse @ 2003-10-10 13:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Florian Schirmer
  Cc: linux-kernel, David Turner, andrew, lwn, rob, linux-bcom4301-priv

On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 15:09 +0200, Florian Schirmer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> good news. Broadcom/Linksys finally decided to provide all sources. I
> haven't checked everything but it looks like everything is there. Don't know
> if they did it by accident but they even donated more ... including the
> bootloader, ethernet driver and lots of other non-gpl'ed stuff.

I just built the kernel for the WAP54G (wap54g.1.08.tar.gz) and it seems
to contain only object code for the wireless driver.

In which version did you find the source?

-- 
dwmw2


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations
  2003-10-10 13:16     ` David Woodhouse
@ 2003-10-10 13:26       ` Florian Schirmer
  2003-10-10 13:39         ` David Woodhouse
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Florian Schirmer @ 2003-10-10 13:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: David Woodhouse; +Cc: linux-kernel, David Turner, andrew, rob

Hi,

> I just built the kernel for the WAP54G (wap54g.1.08.tar.gz) and it seems
> to contain only object code for the wireless driver.
>
> In which version did you find the source?

The ethernet and wireless driver where never linked into the kernel. So it
should be okay if they only distribute the module. They decided to provide
object code. Which is far better than a linked the module. I'm aware of the
current discussion wether binary modules are legal or not. The main Linksys
case was about the GPL violation by linking stuff into the kernel. _That_ is
resolved now. The wireless driver is a completely different story. IMHO.

Regards,
   Florian


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations
  2003-10-10 13:26       ` Florian Schirmer
@ 2003-10-10 13:39         ` David Woodhouse
  2003-10-10 14:18           ` Florian Schirmer
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: David Woodhouse @ 2003-10-10 13:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Florian Schirmer; +Cc: linux-kernel, David Turner, andrew, rob

On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 15:26 +0200, Florian Schirmer wrote:
> The ethernet and wireless driver where never linked into the kernel.
>  So it should be okay if they only distribute the module.

That is true, according to the GPL, _only_ if the modules are
distributed as separate works. If they are part of a collective work
which is based on the kernel (note, not a _derived_ work but a
_collective_ work) then they must be released under the terms of the
GPL.

This is a _different_ issue to the question of whether a module is
indeed a derived work, and it's _far_ more clear-cut.

Ask yourself the following questions:

1. The wireless and Ethernet driver modules are distributed within
   a cramfs file system in a flash image on a chip soldered to the
   board of the device.

   Are they being distributed 'as separate works'?

2. The fundamental mode of operation of these devices is to
   receive network packets from one of the drivers, pass them
   through the Linux kernel routing or bridging code, and then
   back out through another of the network interfaces. All 
   three parts of this are indispensable and the product is 
   useless without any one part.

   A) Does this form a whole which is a derived work based on the
      Linux kernel?

   B) Does this form a whole which is a collective work?

   C) Is this collective work based, in part, on the Linux kernel?

3. Refer back to the facts in question 1. Is this 'mere aggregation
   of a work not based on the [kernel] on a volume of a storage or
   distribution medium'?

Now, having answered those questions, reread the final three paragraphs
of §2 of the GPL.

-- 
dwmw2


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations
  2003-10-10 13:39         ` David Woodhouse
@ 2003-10-10 14:18           ` Florian Schirmer
  2003-10-10 14:25             ` David Woodhouse
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Florian Schirmer @ 2003-10-10 14:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dwmw2; +Cc: linux-kernel, David Turner, andrew, rob

Hi,

> That is true, according to the GPL, _only_ if the modules are
> distributed as separate works. If they are part of a collective work
> which is based on the kernel (note, not a _derived_ work but a
> _collective_ work) then they must be released under the terms of the
> GPL.

Dont get me wrong. I agreee that there are still issues with the wireless
driver. IMHO binary modules aren't legal at all. I just don't wanted to
start the binary discussion and therefore posted the misleading statement.

Regards,
   Florian


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations
  2003-10-10 14:18           ` Florian Schirmer
@ 2003-10-10 14:25             ` David Woodhouse
  2003-10-11  5:37               ` Andre Hedrick
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: David Woodhouse @ 2003-10-10 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Florian Schirmer; +Cc: linux-kernel, David Turner, andrew, rob

On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 16:18 +0200, Florian Schirmer wrote:
> Dont get me wrong. I agreee that there are still issues with the wireless
> driver. IMHO binary modules aren't legal at all. I just don't wanted to
> start the binary discussion and therefore posted the misleading statement.

OK. Let's agree that your statement was indeed slightly misleading (it
certainly misled me) and drop the discussion, lest we incur the wrath of
davem again :)

-- 
dwmw2


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: [Linux-bcom4301-priv] Re: Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations
  2003-10-10 13:09   ` Florian Schirmer
  2003-10-10 13:16     ` David Woodhouse
@ 2003-10-10 15:11     ` James Stevenson
  2003-10-10 15:29       ` Sasa Ostrouska
  2003-10-10 15:58     ` Rob Flickenger
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: James Stevenson @ 2003-10-10 15:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Florian Schirmer
  Cc: linux-kernel, David Woodhouse, David Turner, andrew, lwn, rob,
	linux-bcom4301-priv


Hi

does anyone have a link to this source ?

thanks
	James

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Florian Schirmer wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> good news. Broadcom/Linksys finally decided to provide all sources. I
> haven't checked everything but it looks like everything is there. Don't know
> if they did it by accident but they even donated more ... including the
> bootloader, ethernet driver and lots of other non-gpl'ed stuff. Interesting
> change of attitude. I'm sure one day i'll ask them for the source of the
> (modified) toolchain which they distribute binary only inside this
> package... but for now i'm happy :-)
> 
> Thanks for all the people that supported us. Thanks Broadcom/Linksys for
> finally come to the conclusion that working together with the community is
> much more effective than working against us. Thanks!
> 
> Regards,
>    Florian


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: [Linux-bcom4301-priv] Re: Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations
  2003-10-10 15:11     ` [Linux-bcom4301-priv] " James Stevenson
@ 2003-10-10 15:29       ` Sasa Ostrouska
  2003-10-10 16:36         ` Florian Schirmer
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Sasa Ostrouska @ 2003-10-10 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: James Stevenson
  Cc: Florian Schirmer, linux-kernel, David Woodhouse, David Turner,
	andrew, lwn, rob, linux-bcom4301-priv

This is the link 

http://linksys.com/support/gpl.asp

Download the wrt54g.tar.gz  it is 37MB but I have not find anything 
interesting in it. Maybe I have not looked well.

Sasa

On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 17:11, James Stevenson wrote:
> Hi
> 
> does anyone have a link to this source ?
> 
> thanks
> 	James
> 
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Florian Schirmer wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > good news. Broadcom/Linksys finally decided to provide all sources. I
> > haven't checked everything but it looks like everything is there. Don't know
> > if they did it by accident but they even donated more ... including the
> > bootloader, ethernet driver and lots of other non-gpl'ed stuff. Interesting
> > change of attitude. I'm sure one day i'll ask them for the source of the
> > (modified) toolchain which they distribute binary only inside this
> > package... but for now i'm happy :-)
> > 
> > Thanks for all the people that supported us. Thanks Broadcom/Linksys for
> > finally come to the conclusion that working together with the community is
> > much more effective than working against us. Thanks!
> > 
> > Regards,
> >    Florian
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
> SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects.
> See the people who have HELPED US provide better services:
> Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-bcom4301-priv mailing list
> Linux-bcom4301-priv@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-bcom4301-priv
-- 
Sasa Ostrouska <sasa.ostrouska@volja.net>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations
  2003-10-10 13:09   ` Florian Schirmer
  2003-10-10 13:16     ` David Woodhouse
  2003-10-10 15:11     ` [Linux-bcom4301-priv] " James Stevenson
@ 2003-10-10 15:58     ` Rob Flickenger
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Rob Flickenger @ 2003-10-10 15:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Florian Schirmer
  Cc: linux-kernel, David Woodhouse, David Turner, andrew, lwn,
	linux-bcom4301-priv

Fascinating.  Do you have a link for the code?

--Rob

On Friday, October 10, 2003, at 06:09  AM, Florian Schirmer wrote:

> Hi,
>
> good news. Broadcom/Linksys finally decided to provide all sources. I
> haven't checked everything but it looks like everything is there. 
> Don't know
> if they did it by accident but they even donated more ... including the
> bootloader, ethernet driver and lots of other non-gpl'ed stuff. 
> Interesting
> change of attitude. I'm sure one day i'll ask them for the source of 
> the
> (modified) toolchain which they distribute binary only inside this
> package... but for now i'm happy :-)
>
> Thanks for all the people that supported us. Thanks Broadcom/Linksys 
> for
> finally come to the conclusion that working together with the 
> community is
> much more effective than working against us. Thanks!
>
> Regards,
>    Florian
>
>
>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: [Linux-bcom4301-priv] Re: Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations
  2003-10-10 15:29       ` Sasa Ostrouska
@ 2003-10-10 16:36         ` Florian Schirmer
  2003-10-10 16:58           ` Luite Stegeman
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Florian Schirmer @ 2003-10-10 16:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Sasa Ostrouska, James Stevenson; +Cc: linux-kernel, rob, linux-bcom4301-priv

Hi,

> This is the link
>
> http://linksys.com/support/gpl.asp
>
> Download the wrt54g.tar.gz  it is 37MB but I have not find anything
> interesting in it. Maybe I have not looked well.

check out the WAP54G, WAP54AG or WRT54AG files. Haven't checked yet what is
different.

Reagrds,
  Florian


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: [Linux-bcom4301-priv] Re: Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations
  2003-10-10 16:36         ` Florian Schirmer
@ 2003-10-10 16:58           ` Luite Stegeman
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Luite Stegeman @ 2003-10-10 16:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Florian Schirmer
  Cc: Sasa Ostrouska, James Stevenson, linux-kernel, rob, linux-bcom4301-priv

Quoting Florian Schirmer <jolt@tuxbox.org>:

> > Download the wrt54g.tar.gz  it is 37MB but I have not find anything
> > interesting in it. Maybe I have not looked well.
> 
> check out the WAP54G, WAP54AG or WRT54AG files. Haven't checked yet what is
> different.

There seems to be much more in the package, more developer tools, source code 
for the broadcom reference design etc. Good for the linksys router hackers, but 
unfortunately there is still no source code for the driver.

I think the driver files are in /release/src/wl. This directory contains only 
object files, no source code. The wl driver directory in the kernel tree ( 
release/src/linux/linux/drivers/net/wl ) is empty. 

I've checked the WAP54G, WAP55AG and WRT55AG archives and none of these contain 
the source code for the driver.

Luite

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations
  2003-10-10 14:25             ` David Woodhouse
@ 2003-10-11  5:37               ` Andre Hedrick
  2003-10-11  6:35                 ` David Woodhouse
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-10-11  5:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: David Woodhouse; +Cc: Florian Schirmer, linux-kernel, David Turner, andrew, rob


David,

If you still have not paid and gotten legal advise on the position, you 
are still talking out of your ARSE.  Clearly you have horses and wishes
confused on what GPL is and is not.

If there is not boundary for modules then SCO will eat Linux alive in
court.  You can't have it both ways.

Regards,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

I am done with the subject, good day sir!

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, David Woodhouse wrote:

> On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 16:18 +0200, Florian Schirmer wrote:
> > Dont get me wrong. I agreee that there are still issues with the wireless
> > driver. IMHO binary modules aren't legal at all. I just don't wanted to
> > start the binary discussion and therefore posted the misleading statement.
> 
> OK. Let's agree that your statement was indeed slightly misleading (it
> certainly misled me) and drop the discussion, lest we incur the wrath of
> davem again :)
> 
> -- 
> dwmw2
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations
  2003-10-11  5:37               ` Andre Hedrick
@ 2003-10-11  6:35                 ` David Woodhouse
  2003-10-11  7:03                   ` Andre Hedrick
  2003-10-13  9:40                   ` Florian Schirmer
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: David Woodhouse @ 2003-10-11  6:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andre Hedrick; +Cc: Florian Schirmer, linux-kernel, David Turner, andrew, rob

On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 22:37 -0700, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> David,
> 
> If you still have not paid and gotten legal advise on the position, you 
> are still talking out of your ARSE. Clearly you have horses and wishes
> confused on what GPL is and is not.

> If there is not boundary for modules then SCO will eat Linux alive in
> court.  You can't have it both ways.

Andre, while I thank you for your well-written and coherent statement in
opposition to my own position, I'm sure you'll agree that it doesn't
matter what orifice I use if I stick to merely quoting...

        These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
        identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
        Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and
        separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms,
        do not apply to those sections WHEN YOU DISTRIBUTE THEM AS
        SEPARATE WORKS. BUT WHEN YOU DISTRIBUTE THE SAME SECTIONS AS
        PART OF A WHOLE WHICH IS A WORK BASED ON THE PROGRAM, THE
        DISTRIBUTION OF THE WHOLE MUST BE ON THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE,
        whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire
        whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
        it.
        
        Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or
        contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the
        intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of
        derivative OR COLLECTIVE works based on the Program.
        

-- 
dwmw2



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations
  2003-10-11  6:35                 ` David Woodhouse
@ 2003-10-11  7:03                   ` Andre Hedrick
  2003-10-13  9:40                   ` Florian Schirmer
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-10-11  7:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: David Woodhouse; +Cc: Florian Schirmer, linux-kernel, David Turner, andrew, rob


David,

Your assumption is based solely on the "COLLECTIVE" issue.

Where as the application of "COMBINED" or "CONCATINATION" is not addressed
or suggested.  Suggested or implied do not cut the legal points.

The issue of "distribution" has no clear definition.

Same media?
Same box?
Same ftp site?
Same crate?
Same delivery truck?
Same warehouse?

Simple presence does not make it "distribution", in part or whole.

If you were just quoting, I would not have an issue.
I have issue of your applied meanings, which are direct result of IMHO.
The fastest way to shut me up, other than DM killfiling me to the list, is
to present a legal opinion/brief from an attorney who will back the
position.

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, David Woodhouse wrote:

> On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 22:37 -0700, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> > David,
> > 
> > If you still have not paid and gotten legal advise on the position, you 
> > are still talking out of your ARSE. Clearly you have horses and wishes
> > confused on what GPL is and is not.
> 
> > If there is not boundary for modules then SCO will eat Linux alive in
> > court.  You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Andre, while I thank you for your well-written and coherent statement in
> opposition to my own position, I'm sure you'll agree that it doesn't
> matter what orifice I use if I stick to merely quoting...
> 
>         These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
>         identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
>         Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and
>         separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms,
>         do not apply to those sections WHEN YOU DISTRIBUTE THEM AS
>         SEPARATE WORKS. BUT WHEN YOU DISTRIBUTE THE SAME SECTIONS AS
>         PART OF A WHOLE WHICH IS A WORK BASED ON THE PROGRAM, THE
>         DISTRIBUTION OF THE WHOLE MUST BE ON THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE,
>         whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire
>         whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
>         it.
>         
>         Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or
>         contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the
>         intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of
>         derivative OR COLLECTIVE works based on the Program.
>         
> 
> -- 
> dwmw2
> 
> 


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations
  2003-10-11  6:35                 ` David Woodhouse
  2003-10-11  7:03                   ` Andre Hedrick
@ 2003-10-13  9:40                   ` Florian Schirmer
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Florian Schirmer @ 2003-10-13  9:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: David Woodhouse, Andre Hedrick; +Cc: linux-kernel, David Turner, andrew, rob

Hi,

i'm very sorry but i've to bring this topic to your attention again. We've
the source now. Fine. But there is no single sign of a GPL (compatible)
license anywhere. There are some "Broadcom All rights reserved" copyrights.
So i'm wondering wether the files inherit the GPL or do they have to be
declared as GPL by Broadcom? The license of the other files (non linux
kernel related) is somewhat unclear too.

Thanks for sharing your opinions.

Regards,
    Florian


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2003-10-13  9:40 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-09-29 18:22 Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations David Turner
2003-10-06  8:29 ` David Woodhouse
2003-10-10 13:09   ` Florian Schirmer
2003-10-10 13:16     ` David Woodhouse
2003-10-10 13:26       ` Florian Schirmer
2003-10-10 13:39         ` David Woodhouse
2003-10-10 14:18           ` Florian Schirmer
2003-10-10 14:25             ` David Woodhouse
2003-10-11  5:37               ` Andre Hedrick
2003-10-11  6:35                 ` David Woodhouse
2003-10-11  7:03                   ` Andre Hedrick
2003-10-13  9:40                   ` Florian Schirmer
2003-10-10 15:11     ` [Linux-bcom4301-priv] " James Stevenson
2003-10-10 15:29       ` Sasa Ostrouska
2003-10-10 16:36         ` Florian Schirmer
2003-10-10 16:58           ` Luite Stegeman
2003-10-10 15:58     ` Rob Flickenger

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.