BusyBox developers go after Verizon [LWN.net]

BusyBox developers go after Verizon

Posted Dec 7, 2007 18:19 UTC (Fri) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872)
In reply to: BusyBox developers go after Verizon by pizza
Parent article: BusyBox developers go after Verizon

On that page, the only source code they provide for "Wireless Broadband Router Model MI424WR"
is Busybox, which means they're almost surely continuing to violate the licenses of many other
components that are bundled with that system.  I wonder if it's going to become typical that
vendors will respond to these SFLC lawsuits by providing source code only to the software
package that is the subject of the suit.  (Thereby demonstrating that their other license
violations are willful, but if nobody else is suing, it doesn't much matter...)

(Log in to post comments)

BusyBox developers go after Verizon

Posted Dec 7, 2007 19:25 UTC (Fri) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]

You know, it's conceivable that the only GPL software that the MI424WR uses is Busybox.
(Doesn't VxWorks provide a Linux userspace/syscall emulator?)

Even if it's not, it's certianly plausible that only Busybox has been modified from the other
set of GPL sources they provide on that site.

Even if that isn't the case, they're under no obligation to provide the full set of source
code on a public web site, given that they provide a written offer to provide the source on
CD.

This is why I said that "on the surface, Actiontec is complying with the GPL."

Now if someone sends Actiontec $15 and the CD doesn't contain everything it's supposed to...
then you can wag the finger at 'em and toss 'em to the legal wolves.

Anyway.  I'm glad these lawsuits are happening; aside from the direct cost of litigation, the
fact that losing will destroy their business (and the fact that they *will* lose) means the
relatively trivial cost of preemptively complying with the GPL is well worth it.

Please read the GPL before talking

Posted Dec 8, 2007 2:36 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Even if it's not, it's certianly plausible that only Busybox has been modified from the other set of GPL sources they provide on that site.

It does not matter if source is modified or not: You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also ... accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) Emphasis mine: you can only transfer source code offer if you only got offer instead of the original source and if it's noncommercial distribution.

Now if someone sends Actiontec $15 and the CD doesn't contain everything it's supposed to... then you can wag the finger at 'em and toss 'em to the legal wolves.

Verizon must provide the CD, not Actiontec - and I hope SFLC asked them to send the copy of said CD first...

Please read the GPL before talking

Posted Dec 8, 2007 2:57 UTC (Sat) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]

I believe the source-code web page they were talking about is the 
Actiontec one mentioned above, so the question raised was whether Actiontec was meeting its
obligations (that is, away from the topic of the original story).

I don't think anyone in this chain has claimed that Verizon has made an offer to provide
source.

BusyBox developers go after Verizon

Posted Dec 7, 2007 22:48 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]

"On that page, the only source code they provide for "Wireless Broadband Router Model MI424WR"
is Busybox,"

I have no direct knowledge of what's in the router, but the fact that they do list a much
longer list of sources for their "GT products" suggests that they aren't averse to supplying
their code...