Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[Andrew Miklas]

Hi,


Sorry for the very lengthly posting, but I want to be as precise as possible 
in describing this problem.

Awhile ago, I mentioned that the Linksys WRT54G wireless access point used 
several GPL projects in its firmware, but did not seem to have any of the 
source available, or acknowledge the use of the GPLed software.  Four weeks 
ago, I spoke with an employee at Linksys who confirmed that the system did 
use Linux, and also mentioned that he would work with his management to 
ensure that the source was released.  Unfortunately, my e-mails to this 
individual over the past three weeks have gone unanswered.  Of course, I also 
tried contacting Linksys through their common public e-mail accounts 
(pr@linksys.com, mailroom@linksys.com) to no avail.

However, it is hard for me to know if my contact in the company has just gone 
on a three week vacation (and not set an auto-responder), or has been asked 
to not answer anymore mail on this subject.  Also, I should note that I don't 
own this product, so I can't determine if the source is shipped with it.  
However, I have gone through all the available information on the Linksys 
website, and can find no reference to the GPL, Linux (as it relates to this 
product), or the firmware source code.  Also, the firmware binary (see below) 
is freely available from their website.  There is no link from the download 
page to the source, or any mention of Linux or the GPL.  Finally, it would be 
strange if the source was included in the physical package, as my contact at 
Linksys was initially unaware Linux was used in this product.



The following steps can be used to determine the exact nature of the possible 
GPL violation.

1. Go to the following URL:
    http://www.linksys.com/download/firmware.asp?fwid=178

2. Download the "firmware upgrade files":     
ftp://ftp.linksys.com/pub/network/WRT54G_1.02.1_US_code.bin
    (MD5SUM: b54475a81bc18462d3754f96c9c7cc0f)

3. While it is downloading, confirm that there is nothing on the webpage to 
indicate that this binary contains GPLed software.

4. Once the download is complete, copy the contents of the file from offset 
0xC0020 onward into a new file.
    dd if=WRT54G_1.02.1_US_code.bin of=test.dump skip=24577c bs=32c

5. Notice that this file is an image of a CramFS filesystem.
    Mount it.

6. Explore the filesystem.  You will notice that the system appears to be 
based on Linux 2.4.5.
   Incidentally, there is at least one other GPLed project in the firmware: 
the BusyBox userland component: (http://www.busybox.net/)

7. The Linux kernel (I think) is mixed up with a bunch of other stuff in:
    bin/boot.bin



You might want to know why I am interested in getting the code for the kernel 
used in this device.

There's been some discussion here about Linux's lack of wireless support for a 
few of the newer 802.11b and (nearly?) all 802.11g chips.  Incidentally, 
Linux has excellent support for at least one manufacturer's wireless family.  
The following Broadcom chips all appear to be supported under Linux -- if you 
happen to be running Linux on a MIPS processor in a Linksys router:

Broadcom BCM4301 Wireless 802.11b Controller
Broadcom BCM4307 Wireless 802.11b Controller
Broadcom BCM4309 Wireless 802.11a Controller
Broadcom BCM4309 Wireless 802.11b Controller
Broadcom BCM4309 Wireless 802.11 Multiband Controller
Broadcom BCM4310 Wireless 802.11b Controller
Broadcom BCM4306 Wireless 802.11b/g Controller
Broadcom BCM4306 Wireless 802.11a Controller
Broadcom BCM4306 Wireless 802.11 Multiband Controller

This list was produced by running strings on:
lib/modules/2.4.5/kernel/drivers/net/wl/wl.o

I am trying to determine exactly how tightly coupled these drivers are to the 
kernel.

As an aside, I know that some wireless companies have been hesitant of 
releasing open source drivers because they are worried their radios might be 
pushed out of spec.  However, if the drivers are already written, would there 
be any technical reason why they could not simply be recompiled for Intel 
hardware, and released as binary-only modules?



Finally, I know that traditionally, Linux has allowed binary-only modules.  
However, I was always under the impression that this required that the final 
customer be allowed to remove them at will.  That is to say, you couldn't 
choose to implement a portion of the kernel critical to the system's 
operation in a module, and then not release that module under the GPL.  In 
this particular case, I would argue that the wireless drivers are critical to 
this device's operation (after all, it is a wireless access point).  In 
addition, the final user in this case really can't just "rmmod" the wireless 
driver.

The Broadcom driver, kernel, and really everything else in the firmware, are 
(IMHO anyways) being used to form a discrete package -- the WRT54Gs firmware.  
Does/should this have any implication on whether the Broadcom wireless module 
must be covered by the GPL?



I would be very interested in knowing if I am mistaken in any of my claims or 
conclusions, and if not, how I should proceed in getting this issue resolved.


-- Andrew Miklas

Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[Dave Jones]

On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 10:41:23PM -0400, Andrew Miklas wrote:
 > 1. Go to the following URL:
 >     http://www.linksys.com/download/firmware.asp?fwid=178
 > 
 > 2. Download the "firmware upgrade files":     
 > ftp://ftp.linksys.com/pub/network/WRT54G_1.02.1_US_code.bin
 >     (MD5SUM: b54475a81bc18462d3754f96c9c7cc0f)
 > 
 > 3. While it is downloading, confirm that there is nothing on the webpage to 
 > indicate that this binary contains GPLed software.
 > 
 > 4. Once the download is complete, copy the contents of the file from offset 
 > 0xC0020 onward into a new file.
 >     dd if=WRT54G_1.02.1_US_code.bin of=test.dump skip=24577c bs=32c
 > 
 > 5. Notice that this file is an image of a CramFS filesystem.
 >     Mount it.
 > 
 > 6. Explore the filesystem.  You will notice that the system appears to be 
 > based on Linux 2.4.5.
 >    Incidentally, there is at least one other GPLed project in the firmware: 
 > the BusyBox userland component: (http://www.busybox.net/)
 > 
 > 7. The Linux kernel (I think) is mixed up with a bunch of other stuff in:
 >     bin/boot.bin

Curiously, the Belkin products (http://networking.belkin.com) also seem
to be based upon the same source.  Looks like they could just be
rebranded firmware images with some features disabled.

Additionally, strings(1) output of firmware image may be interesting
to users of their 54g WAPs. Seems it has a lot more html pages inside
than what is documented. The 'low-end' version I bought doesn't mention
anything about firewall, dhcp, dns configuration, or parental controls,
however it's all in there if you know the right URLs. Fun.

		Dave

Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[Alan Cox]

On Sul, 2003-06-08 at 12:54, Dave Jones wrote:
> Curiously, the Belkin products (http://networking.belkin.com) also seem
> to be based upon the same source.  Looks like they could just be
> rebranded firmware images with some features disabled.

If Belkin are shipping the same code and apparently got it from Linksys
someone migth also care to write to Belkin and inform them about this.
They may not even know about their rather large potential liability.

Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[uaca]

On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 12:54:02PM +0100, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 10:41:23PM -0400, Andrew Miklas wrote:
>  > 1. Go to the following URL:
>  >     http://www.linksys.com/download/firmware.asp?fwid=178
[...]
> Curiously, the Belkin products (http://networking.belkin.com) also seem


just for curious, anybody run nmap against these devices?

	Ulisses

                Debian GNU/Linux: a dream come true
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Computers are useless. They can only give answers."            Pablo Picasso

--->	Visita http://www.valux.org/ para saber acerca de la	<---
--->	Asociación Valenciana de Usuarios de Linux		<---
 

Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[Colm MacCárthaigh]

[general note: please cc, I'm not on lkml]

Andrew,

I was involved in a similar such action with Dell, though I had somewhat
different approach, but nevertheless I'm going to recount my experiences
as it may be useful for the purposes of comparison. Others: mark as read
now if you don't like long mails.

Early in the year, I purchased a nice new Dell Laptop, for running Linux
on, of course. Since it saved me money, I bought a Dell TrueMobile 1184
Access Point/Router at the same time.

 http://tinyurl.com/ds6i (accessories.us.dell.com)

 http://tinyurl.com/ds6d (support.ap.dell.com)

Give an impression of the product. Being a Network Engineer, I felt
compelled to fingerprint the device, very quickly finding that it
ran telnet on port 333, and after loging in (using the root username,
and the admin password), found that it was running armlinux:

# cat /proc/version

Linux version 2.2.14-v1.9 (root@localhost.localdomain) (gcc version
2.9-vLinux-armtool-0523) #5357 Sat Jan 25 17:39:42 CST 2003

# cat /proc/cpuinfo   
Processor       : S3C4510/SEC arm7tdmi rev 0
BogoMips        : 44.24
Hardware        : <NULL>

Other GPL software was abundant, including ipchains, busybox .. and
other things you would expect. Running Linux of course pleased me,
because it meant I put it to some real use (currently it's also
my house print server for example) as I had a self-built router
I wasnt going to stop using (I mean how could anyone live without
IPv6?). 

After some discussion on ILUG (www.linux.ie), I researched it further,
I double-checked, and none of the documentation Dell sent me, nor the
software CD, nor the website indicated it was using GPL software, and
did provide me with a copy of the license, or a written offer with a
means to obtain the source. I'm not a licensing hack, and I almost
would have been prepared to just leave it be had the Documentation not
said:

"Requirements:
  
  You must have at least one computer that has the following: 

   1. Running Microsoft(R) Windows(R) 98, 98SE, Windows Me,
      Windows 2000, Windows XP Home or XP Professional (
      Windows 2000 or XP require you to have administrator
      privileges on your computer in order to configure the
      router - see the computers users' guide for more information)
   2. A CD drive
   3. An active Internet connection"

Which supremely annoyed me, as of course all you need is *any* 
IP capable system for the router to work, it just uses plain NAT,
nothing Windows specific, and you can use any browser to configure
it's luser interface. So after some grepping:

# cat /etc/hosts
127.0.0.1               vLinux/Vitals_System_Inc.
  
They appear to have a website at:
  
  http://www.vitalsystem.com/

Though

  http://www.onsoftwarei.com/
  
seem to be the people who license support vlinux:

  http://www.onsoftwarei.com/product/prod_vlinux.htm

I'm sure there are people on-list with much more in-depth knowlege of
these companies.

Anyway, since in my case, Dell were the direct vendor, I contacted them
first. After some number chasing, I was passed to Dell Ireland's Legal
Director, who got on to the Dell US guys. 

I have to say that allthough it took some time for the issue to be
resolved, Dell were abosulutely brilliant about it, and kept me
informed, they were extremely friendly and helpful about the request.

The original mail I sent Dell is available at:

 http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~colmmacc/TrueMobile-1184/dell.letter

But after that, most of the action happened on phone. 6 weeks
later, Seamus (Dell Legal) was able to respond positively to my
request, and I got a CD including the source free of Charge, and
a nice letter:

 http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~colmmacc/TrueMobile-1184/dell.jpg

The contents are available online, and if anyone wants it, mails
me and I'll give you the URL, but to save me bandwidth - it's
vanilla Linux 2.2.14 with the 2.2.14-rmk4 patch, nothing bespoke.
But now that I had the configuration, I could actually build 
a replacement IPv6 capable kernel. 

Dell have also reviewed their procedures to ensure that this kind
of thing does not happen again, and from talking to Dell Legal I
got the impression that it was the result of suppliers not fully
informing Dell about Licensing provisions. 

Dell now ship a copy of the source and the license on the CD that
comes with the TrueMobile kit. I really have to make clear here,
Dell did amazingly well, they researched it, kept me informed,
responded positively, and rectified procedures. It's a great example
of how to do it right. 

So, I don't know what the linksys situation is fully, but I do hope
that this report may help you in that it gives an example of a
near-identical situation having been resolved successfully in the past.

I also know from Dell Legal, that my request generated a lot of 
e-mail internal to Dell legal, so I'm sure they researched it very
well. If Dell Legal come to the conclusion that this is what they
must do, that certainly might be a useful example to point Linksys
at.

On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 10:41:23PM -0400, Andrew Miklas wrote:
> Sorry for the very lengthly posting, but I want to be as precise as possible 
> in describing this problem.
> 
> Awhile ago, I mentioned that the Linksys WRT54G wireless access point used 
> several GPL projects in its firmware, but did not seem to have any of the 
> source available, or acknowledge the use of the GPLed software.  Four weeks 
> ago, I spoke with an employee at Linksys who confirmed that the system did 
> use Linux, and also mentioned that he would work with his management to 
> ensure that the source was released.  Unfortunately, my e-mails to this 
> individual over the past three weeks have gone unanswered.  Of course, I also 
> tried contacting Linksys through their common public e-mail accounts 
> (pr@linksys.com, mailroom@linksys.com) to no avail.
> 
> However, it is hard for me to know if my contact in the company has just gone 
> on a three week vacation (and not set an auto-responder), or has been asked 
> to not answer anymore mail on this subject.  Also, I should note that I don't 
> own this product, so I can't determine if the source is shipped with it.  
> However, I have gone through all the available information on the Linksys 
> website, and can find no reference to the GPL, Linux (as it relates to this 
> product), or the firmware source code.  Also, the firmware binary (see below) 
> is freely available from their website.  There is no link from the download 
> page to the source, or any mention of Linux or the GPL.  Finally, it would be 
> strange if the source was included in the physical package, as my contact at 
> Linksys was initially unaware Linux was used in this product.
> 
> 
> 
> The following steps can be used to determine the exact nature of the possible 
> GPL violation.
> 
> 1. Go to the following URL:
>     http://www.linksys.com/download/firmware.asp?fwid=178
> 
> 2. Download the "firmware upgrade files":     
> ftp://ftp.linksys.com/pub/network/WRT54G_1.02.1_US_code.bin
>     (MD5SUM: b54475a81bc18462d3754f96c9c7cc0f)
> 
> 3. While it is downloading, confirm that there is nothing on the webpage to 
> indicate that this binary contains GPLed software.
> 
> 4. Once the download is complete, copy the contents of the file from offset 
> 0xC0020 onward into a new file.
>     dd if=WRT54G_1.02.1_US_code.bin of=test.dump skip=24577c bs=32c
> 
> 5. Notice that this file is an image of a CramFS filesystem.
>     Mount it.
> 
> 6. Explore the filesystem.  You will notice that the system appears to be 
> based on Linux 2.4.5.
>    Incidentally, there is at least one other GPLed project in the firmware: 
> the BusyBox userland component: (http://www.busybox.net/)
> 
> 7. The Linux kernel (I think) is mixed up with a bunch of other stuff in:
>     bin/boot.bin
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to know why I am interested in getting the code for the kernel 
> used in this device.
> 
> There's been some discussion here about Linux's lack of wireless support for a 
> few of the newer 802.11b and (nearly?) all 802.11g chips.  Incidentally, 
> Linux has excellent support for at least one manufacturer's wireless family.  
> The following Broadcom chips all appear to be supported under Linux -- if you 
> happen to be running Linux on a MIPS processor in a Linksys router:
> 
> Broadcom BCM4301 Wireless 802.11b Controller
> Broadcom BCM4307 Wireless 802.11b Controller
> Broadcom BCM4309 Wireless 802.11a Controller
> Broadcom BCM4309 Wireless 802.11b Controller
> Broadcom BCM4309 Wireless 802.11 Multiband Controller
> Broadcom BCM4310 Wireless 802.11b Controller
> Broadcom BCM4306 Wireless 802.11b/g Controller
> Broadcom BCM4306 Wireless 802.11a Controller
> Broadcom BCM4306 Wireless 802.11 Multiband Controller
> 
> This list was produced by running strings on:
> lib/modules/2.4.5/kernel/drivers/net/wl/wl.o
> 
> I am trying to determine exactly how tightly coupled these drivers are to the 
> kernel.
> 
> As an aside, I know that some wireless companies have been hesitant of 
> releasing open source drivers because they are worried their radios might be 
> pushed out of spec.  However, if the drivers are already written, would there 
> be any technical reason why they could not simply be recompiled for Intel 
> hardware, and released as binary-only modules?
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, I know that traditionally, Linux has allowed binary-only modules.  
> However, I was always under the impression that this required that the final 
> customer be allowed to remove them at will.  That is to say, you couldn't 
> choose to implement a portion of the kernel critical to the system's 
> operation in a module, and then not release that module under the GPL.  In 
> this particular case, I would argue that the wireless drivers are critical to 
> this device's operation (after all, it is a wireless access point).  In 
> addition, the final user in this case really can't just "rmmod" the wireless 
> driver.
> 
> The Broadcom driver, kernel, and really everything else in the firmware, are 
> (IMHO anyways) being used to form a discrete package -- the WRT54Gs firmware.  
> Does/should this have any implication on whether the Broadcom wireless module 
> must be covered by the GPL?
> 
> 
> 
> I would be very interested in knowing if I am mistaken in any of my claims or 
> conclusions, and if not, how I should proceed in getting this issue resolved.
> 
> 
> -- Andrew Miklas
> 
> 
> -
> 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/
> 
> 

-- 
Colm MacCárthaigh                        Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net
colm@stdlib.net					  http://www.stdlib.net/

Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[Jörn Engel]

On Sun, 8 June 2003 20:44:22 +0100, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
> 
> Early in the year, I purchased a nice new Dell Laptop, for running Linux
> on, of course. Since it saved me money, I bought a Dell TrueMobile 1184
> Access Point/Router at the same time.
> 
> [six weeks later]
> 
> Dell now ship a copy of the source and the license on the CD that
> comes with the TrueMobile kit. I really have to make clear here,
> Dell did amazingly well, they researched it, kept me informed,
> responded positively, and rectified procedures. It's a great example
> of how to do it right. 

Nice.  This looks like the first hardware router that could really
fancy my wishes.  And if I buy this piece of hardware, Dell can
attribute that directly to the software running on it and the kind of
control it offers to me.

Should be a great thing for companies as well.  Unknown software
without support or updates and a direct internet connection is a
nightmare for security.  And that was what most "hardware" routers
boiled down to and still do.

Jörn

-- 
A surrounded army must be given a way out.
-- Sun Tzu

Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[Russell King]

On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 08:44:22PM +0100, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
> # cat /etc/hosts
> 127.0.0.1               vLinux/Vitals_System_Inc.
>   
> They appear to have a website at:
>   
>   http://www.vitalsystem.com/

and www.armlinux.net.  Linus has already been informed of this situation,
and we came to the conclusion that, at the time, there was no way to
enforce the copyright due to their location in the world.  This may have
changed recently.

Since this is the case, it may be arguable that the users of vLinux from
Vitals are unkowningly breaking the GPL due to the apparant licensing
which Vitals Systems Inc are re-distributing the code to their customers.

-- 
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk)                The developer of ARM Linux
             http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html

Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[Frank Cusack]

On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 10:41:23PM -0400, Andrew Miklas wrote:
> However, I have gone through all the available information on the Linksys
> website, and can find no reference to the GPL, Linux (as it relates to
> this product), or the firmware source code.  Also, the firmware binary
> (see below) is freely available from their website.  There is no link
> from the download page to the source, or any mention of Linux or the GPL.

Requoting the above license violations for context.

> Finally, it would be strange if the source was included in the physical
> package, as my contact at Linksys was initially unaware Linux was used
> in this product.

Note that including the source with the physical package is not enough
to meet the GPL requirements.  The source must be available to any third
party, not just purchasers of the product.

/fc

RE: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[David Schwartz]

> Also, I should note
> that I don't
> own this product, so I can't determine if the source is shipped with it.

	Including the source with the product would be insufficient to meet the GPL
requirements. They would have to offer the source (or a written offer to
obtain the source for no more than the cost of physically copying it) to
everyone who downloaded their software from their web site. The GPL is quite
clear that the source code offer must be made to anyone to whom the object
code is distributed. (The program must be accompanied by the offer.)

	DS

Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[Frank Cusack]

On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 10:32:52PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> Including the source with the product would be insufficient to meet the GPL
> requirements. They would have to offer the source (or a written offer to
> obtain the source for no more than the cost of physically copying it) to
> everyone who downloaded their software from their web site. The GPL is quite
> clear that the source code offer must be made to anyone to whom the object
> code is distributed. (The program must be accompanied by the offer.)

No, a source code *offer* must be made to anyone, period.

Section 3(b) of GPLv2 says "Accompany it with a written offer ...  to give
any third party ... [the] source code".

If the source code is actually distributed with the object code, then
they need only make it available to those who obtain the object code.
Of course those folks are free to redistribute to anyone, if they want.

/fc

Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[Florian Weimer]

Frank Cusack <fcusack@fcusack.com> writes:

> Note that including the source with the physical package is not enough
> to meet the GPL requirements.  The source must be available to any third
> party, not just purchasers of the product.

Not true, you have two options, physical medium or written offer.
Choosing just one is perfectly acceptable.

Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[Horst von Brand]

Frank Cusack <fcusack@fcusack.com> said:

[...]

> Note that including the source with the physical package is not enough
> to meet the GPL requirements.  The source must be available to any third
> party, not just purchasers of the product.

Nope. The product (binary) has to be freely redistributable, and everybody
who gets the binary has the right to get the source.

IANAL, and no GPL-expert either, but...
-- 
Dr. Horst H. von Brand                   User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica                     Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria              +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile                Fax:  +56 32 797513

RE: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[David Schwartz]

> On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 10:32:52PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:

> > Including the source with the product would be insufficient to
> > meet the GPL
> > requirements. They would have to offer the source (or a written offer to
> > obtain the source for no more than the cost of physically copying it) to
> > everyone who downloaded their software from their web site. The
> > GPL is quite
> > clear that the source code offer must be made to anyone to whom
> > the object
> > code is distributed. (The program must be accompanied by the offer.)

> No, a source code *offer* must be made to anyone, period.

	No.

> Section 3(b) of GPLv2 says "Accompany it with a written offer ...  to give
> any third party ... [the] source code".

	"Accompany" means two things have to travel together. If I have to
accompany a car with an instruction manual, it does not follow that I must
give the instruction manual to anyone who requests it.

> If the source code is actually distributed with the object code, then
> they need only make it available to those who obtain the object code.
> Of course those folks are free to redistribute to anyone, if they want.

	But the object code is available from their web site. I don't see how you
can accompany a download with a written offer, so to comply with the GPL,
they must "accompany" the object code with the source code.

	DS

Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[Alan Cox]

On Llu, 2003-06-09 at 06:22, Frank Cusack wrote:
> > Finally, it would be strange if the source was included in the physical
> > package, as my contact at Linksys was initially unaware Linux was used
> > in this product.
> 
> Note that including the source with the physical package is not enough
> to meet the GPL requirements.  The source must be available to any third
> party, not just purchasers of the product.

Wrong. Its a common misconception. The GPL requires I make source
available to those I give the binaries, be it a box on a supermarket
shelf or a one of product for a client.

In fact the GPL has to do this because it is really import that the
author is not hit with the cost of third party distribution. What the
author cannot do is forbid that third party distribution.

In Linksys case dumping the required source on the end of the CD of
goodies that comes with the kit and including a notice would be
sufficient. 

Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[Alan Cox]

On Llu, 2003-06-09 at 06:47, Frank Cusack wrote:
> Section 3(b) of GPLv2 says "Accompany it with a written offer ...  to give
> any third party ... [the] source code".
> 
> If the source code is actually distributed with the object code, then
> they need only make it available to those who obtain the object code.
> Of course those folks are free to redistribute to anyone, if they want.

This is specific only to the written offer case. MOst people I know
throw the tar ball on the CD they already ship holding manuals, windows
installer for the pointless gui config app etc

Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[Adrian Bunk]

On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 07:23:52PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Llu, 2003-06-09 at 06:22, Frank Cusack wrote:
> > > Finally, it would be strange if the source was included in the physical
> > > package, as my contact at Linksys was initially unaware Linux was used
> > > in this product.
> > 
> > Note that including the source with the physical package is not enough
> > to meet the GPL requirements.  The source must be available to any third
> > party, not just purchasers of the product.
> 
> Wrong. Its a common misconception. The GPL requires I make source
> available to those I give the binaries, be it a box on a supermarket
> shelf or a one of product for a client.
> 
> In fact the GPL has to do this because it is really import that the
> author is not hit with the cost of third party distribution. What the
> author cannot do is forbid that third party distribution.

It depends which choice the distributor chooses regarding section three
of the GPL.

If he chooses 3b ("written offer, valid for at least three years, to
give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically
performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the
corresponding source code") he has to give it to everyone.

You are right for 3a (source shipped together with the binaries) and 3c 
(noncommercial redistribution of binaries received under 3b).

> In Linksys case dumping the required source on the end of the CD of
> goodies that comes with the kit and including a notice would be
> sufficient. 

Yup.

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 10:47:27PM -0700, Frank Cusack wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 10:32:52PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Including the source with the product would be insufficient to meet the GPL
> > requirements. They would have to offer the source (or a written offer to
> > obtain the source for no more than the cost of physically copying it) to
> > everyone who downloaded their software from their web site. The GPL is quite
> > clear that the source code offer must be made to anyone to whom the object
> > code is distributed. (The program must be accompanied by the offer.)
> 
> No, a source code *offer* must be made to anyone, period.

Wrong.

> Section 3(b) of GPLv2 says "Accompany it with a written offer ...  to give
> any third party ... [the] source code".
>...

If you read section 3 from the beginning you notice that 3b is only one 
of three choices.

> /fc

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

RE: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[David Schwartz]

> If he chooses 3b ("written offer, valid for at least three years, to
> give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically
> performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the
> corresponding source code") he has to give it to everyone.

	As I read 3b, it only applies if the person requesting the source code
actually has physical possession of the written offer. (Though the offer
could be transferred to anyone.)

> > In Linksys case dumping the required source on the end of the CD of
> > goodies that comes with the kit and including a notice would be
> > sufficient.

> Yup.

	No, it would not be. They also distribute the software from their web page,
and that distribution must also be accompanied by source code or a written
offer.

	DS

Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[Adrian Bunk]

On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 02:50:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> 
> > If he chooses 3b ("written offer, valid for at least three years, to
> > give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically
> > performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the
> > corresponding source code") he has to give it to everyone.
> 
> 	As I read 3b, it only applies if the person requesting the source code
> actually has physical possession of the written offer. (Though the offer
> could be transferred to anyone.)

"to give any third party" in 3b is pretty non-ambiguous.

> > > In Linksys case dumping the required source on the end of the CD of
> > > goodies that comes with the kit and including a notice would be
> > > sufficient.
> 
> > Yup.
> 
> 	No, it would not be. They also distribute the software from their web page,
> and that distribution must also be accompanied by source code or a written
> offer.

I missed the fact they make it available at their web page.

> 	DS

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[Daniel Phillips]

On Sunday 08 June 2003 21:44, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
> Dell now ship a copy of the source and the license on the CD that
> comes with the TrueMobile kit. I really have to make clear here,
> Dell did amazingly well, they researched it, kept me informed,
> responded positively, and rectified procedures. It's a great example
> of how to do it right.
>
> So, I don't know what the linksys situation is fully, but I do hope
> that this report may help you in that it gives an example of a
> near-identical situation having been resolved successfully in the past.

In the hopes that somebody from Linksys is reading this thread, I'll add my 
$0.02.  I have one of these routers.  I'd buy a second instantly, if only I 
could build the firmware and fix some bugs in it.  I love the overall 
concept, but the buggy html interface is more than a little annoying.

Furthermore, I can think of a lot of uses for this little box, other than just 
a router.  If I had the source, I'd try some out, and if the results turned 
out as well expected, I'd make that public.  It's hard to see how this would 
be bad for Linksys.

Regards,

Daniel

Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[Randolph Bentson]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 12:21:41AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 02:50:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > As I read 3b, it only applies if the person requesting the source
> > code actually has physical possession of the written offer. (Though
> > the offer could be transferred to anyone.)
> 
> "to give any third party" in 3b is pretty non-ambiguous.

You've skipped the qualifing predicate condition.  Every clause
of section 3 begins with "Accompany it with", referring to the
distribution of the Program in object code or executable form.

-- 
Randolph Bentson
bentson@holmsjoen.com

Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[Andrew Miklas]

Hi,

I'm pleased to report that Linksys has noticed the activity here and is now in 
the process of determining what must be released under the GPL.  I will keep 
this list updated on what I receive.

My current contact within Linksys also noted that the company has a long 
tradition of support for Linux.  Previously, they have shipped CDs containing 
GPL'd source with their networking products.  I'm told the lack of source for 
the WRT54G was not intentional and is an isolated incident.

If anyone has any material that they want me to forward on to the people at 
Linksys, please drop me a line at this address.



-- Andrew

Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[Alan Cox]

On Maw, 2003-06-10 at 23:47, Andrew Miklas wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm pleased to report that Linksys has noticed the activity here and is now in 
> the process of determining what must be released under the GPL.  I will keep 
> this list updated on what I receive.
> 
> My current contact within Linksys also noted that the company has a long 
> tradition of support for Linux.  Previously, they have shipped CDs containing 
> GPL'd source with their networking products.  I'm told the lack of source for 
> the WRT54G was not intentional and is an isolated incident.

Thats good news.  Thanks for bugging your contacts

Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[Kent Borg]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 06:47:39PM -0400, Andrew Miklas wrote:
> I'm pleased to report that Linksys has noticed the activity here and is now in 
> the process of determining what must be released under the GPL.  I will keep 
> this list updated on what I receive.

Cool!


-kb, the Kent who is pleased the GPL is building this kind of
precedence as it will maybe make the eventual legal defence of the GPL
a smidge easier, also the Kent who looks like he will finally be
buying a home wireless access point--and it looks like it will be a
Linksys (are the other Linksys boxes going to be opened?).

Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[Adrian Bunk]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 01:17:30PM -0700, Randolph Bentson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 12:21:41AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 02:50:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > > As I read 3b, it only applies if the person requesting the source
> > > code actually has physical possession of the written offer. (Though
> > > the offer could be transferred to anyone.)
> > 
> > "to give any third party" in 3b is pretty non-ambiguous.
> 
> You've skipped the qualifing predicate condition.  Every clause
> of section 3 begins with "Accompany it with", referring to the
> distribution of the Program in object code or executable form.

You definitely don't need physical possession of the written offer. 
Otherwise 3c wouldn't work.

> Randolph Bentson

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[Randolph Bentson]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 05:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> You definitely don't need physical possession of the written offer.
> Otherwise 3c wouldn't work.

You cannot mix the terms of clauses 3a, 3b, and 3c.  The "written
offer" is only an element of clause 3b.

A significant point which seems to be glossed over is that the
distributor is the entity which selects which of these clauses,
3a, 3b, or 3c, is to be exercised to satisfy the GPL.  Each places
a different obligation on the distributor.

If the distributor elects to distribute the object code or executable
form under clause 3a, the distributor need only distribute copies of
the source to the recipients of the object code or executable form.

If the distributor elects to distribute the object code or executable
form under clause 3b, one might reasonably argue that the distributor
need only distribute the source to those third parties in possession
of the written offer which must be included.  Others may argue that
this clause requires that the distributor make the source available
to everyone, but even then the distributor is not obliged to put it
on the web and the distributor may charge for the distribution cost.

If the distributor elects to distribute the object code or executable
form under clause 3c, and is qualified to do so, the distributor
need only distribute the information to those who receive the object
code or executable form.  The distributor is not obliged to give
this information to everyone.

Of course, once anyone has a copy of this source, it may be further
distributed under sections 1, 2, or 3.


I'd like to see Linksys elect to distribute under clause 3b by putting
a note in each box with a pointer to source files which everyone
can fetch from their web site.  (I believe that web based distribution
qualifies as "a medium customarily used for software interchange"
cited in 3b and that they can simply absorb the cost of this method
of distribution.)  Recent news suggests that this will be the case.
Let's hope that they, and other such distributors of embedded GPL
based systems, follow this course.

--
Randolph Bentson
bentson@holmsjoen.com

Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[Adrian Bunk]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:39:36AM -0700, Randolph Bentson wrote:
>...
> If the distributor elects to distribute the object code or executable
> form under clause 3b, one might reasonably argue that the distributor
> need only distribute the source to those third parties in possession
> of the written offer which must be included.  Others may argue that
>...

"Accompany it with a written offer, ..., to give any third party, ..., a 
complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code..."

This is non-ambiguous. You might _not_ "reasonably argue" about it, the 
"any third party" leaves no room for other interpretations.

> Randolph Bentson

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

RE: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL

[David Schwartz]

> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:39:36AM -0700, Randolph Bentson wrote:

> >...
> > If the distributor elects to distribute the object code or executable
> > form under clause 3b, one might reasonably argue that the distributor
> > need only distribute the source to those third parties in possession
> > of the written offer which must be included.  Others may argue that
> >...

> "Accompany it with a written offer, ..., to give any third party, ..., a
> complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code..."
>
> This is non-ambiguous. You might _not_ "reasonably argue" about it, the
> "any third party" leaves no room for other interpretations.
>
> > Randolph Bentson
>
> cu
> Adrian

	Think about this logically. Suppose a company releases a product and
(maybe) accompanies it with such a written offer (I mean, how could you know
for sure if you hadn't seen it?). You call the company up to try to enforce
the offer. They say, "What offer?" You say, "the written offer that
accompanied some copies of your product." You can't cite the text of the
written offer, you can't specify any specific person they made the offer to.

	It is totally reasonable to construe "any third party" to mean that the
offer can't specify that it's only vaild for certain particular individuals.
In fact, I always understood simply to mean that you couldn't limit the
offer to only the purchaser (assuming the product was sold).

	What would the purpose be of a "written offer" (and why would you have to
"accompany" the object code with it?) if not that the offer is an
enforceable 'coupon'? Why wouldn't the GPL just say that you have to
"provide any third party with a complete machine-readable copy of the
corresponding source code". Why specify a written offer if it just meant
that you had to offer it?

	DS

"any third party" (Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL)

[Filip Van Raemdonck]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:12:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:39:36AM -0700, Randolph Bentson wrote:
> > >
> > > If the distributor elects to distribute the object code or executable
> > > form under clause 3b, one might reasonably argue that the distributor
> > > need only distribute the source to those third parties in possession
> > > of the written offer which must be included.  Others may argue that
> > 
> > "Accompany it with a written offer, ..., to give any third party, ..., a
> > complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code..."
> >
> > This is non-ambiguous. You might _not_ "reasonably argue" about it, the
> > "any third party" leaves no room for other interpretations.
> 
> 	Think about this logically. Suppose a company releases a product and
> (maybe) accompanies it with such a written offer (I mean, how could you know
> for sure if you hadn't seen it?). You call the company up to try to enforce
> the offer. They say, "What offer?" You say, "the written offer that
> accompanied some copies of your product." You can't cite the text of the
> written offer, you can't specify any specific person they made the offer to.
<snip>
> Why specify a written offer if it just meant that you had to offer it?

Because:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCWhatDoesWrittenOfferValid


Regards,

Filip

-- 
"Computers are not intelligent.  They only think they are."
	-- Martin Schulze

Re: "any third party" (Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL)

[Eli Carter]

Filip Van Raemdonck wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:12:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> 
>>Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:39:36AM -0700, Randolph Bentson wrote:
>>>
>>>>If the distributor elects to distribute the object code or executable
>>>>form under clause 3b, one might reasonably argue that the distributor
>>>>need only distribute the source to those third parties in possession
>>>>of the written offer which must be included.  Others may argue that
>>>
>>>"Accompany it with a written offer, ..., to give any third party, ..., a
>>>complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code..."
>>>
>>>This is non-ambiguous. You might _not_ "reasonably argue" about it, the
>>>"any third party" leaves no room for other interpretations.
>>
>>	Think about this logically. Suppose a company releases a product and
>>(maybe) accompanies it with such a written offer (I mean, how could you know
>>for sure if you hadn't seen it?). You call the company up to try to enforce
>>the offer. They say, "What offer?" You say, "the written offer that
>>accompanied some copies of your product." You can't cite the text of the
>>written offer, you can't specify any specific person they made the offer to.
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>Why specify a written offer if it just meant that you had to offer it?
> 
> 
> Because:
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCWhatDoesWrittenOfferValid

So you have to have a copy of the written offer to request the source 
code.  Anyone who gives out the binary must also give out that same 
written offer, so you may have sold it to Anne, who gave it to Bob, who 
gave it to Charles, who came to you with the written offer.  You would 
be required to give Charles the source code.  If Anne also came with the 
written offer, you'd give it to her as well.  But you would not have to 
give it to Diane if she does not have the written offer.

Eli
--------------------. "If it ain't broke now,
Eli Carter           \                  it will be soon." -- crypto-gram
eli.carter(a)inet.com `-------------------------------------------------