Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations

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 <[email protected]> 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

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

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

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

Hi,

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

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

Hi,

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

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

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!

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

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

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

Hi

does anyone have a link to this source ?

thanks
James

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

Sasa Ostrouska <[email protected]>

Hi,

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

Reagrds,
Florian

Quoting Florian Schirmer <[email protected]>:

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

Fascinating. Do you have a link for the code?

--Rob