FSF, OSI and Busybox [LWN.net]

FSF, OSI and Busybox

Posted Dec 16, 2008 0:05 UTC (Tue) by landley (guest, #6789)
In reply to: FSF, OSI and Busybox by Ze
Parent article: The FSF raises the stakes for Cisco

> Rob clearly is upset that FSF entirely separate actions might interfere
> with his meal ticket.

Actually, I've received far more money from the SFLC's enforcement actions (without ever _asking_ for a dime, they just sent it to me) than I've ever received from Cisco. By your logic I should be gung-ho SFLC and drop Cisco like a rock.

I also note I've been contacted by four other people trying to hire me in the past month. That's without _looking_ for work; they came to me.

> The FSF have been going to cisco for five years to keep fixing the same
> problem just on different products.

The current FSF license enforcement guy has been on the job for maybe a year. I met him in New York this September when we were both on a panel at a conference HP flew me in for. When I talked to him he said he was the entirety of the FSF's licensing division, just that one guy. I asked him about the Mepis suit, and he didn't know about it because that had been handled by his predecessor. He was very up front about being new on the job.

So here's a guy who didn't know anything about a 2 year old conflict that made news here on LWN more than once, claiming to have a 5 year relationship with Cisco that long predated him. (I also point out that the SFLC didn't _exist_ 5 years ago, and the first time the complaint says the FSF did anything "through counsel" was this February. So they're _both_ new at this.)

They're suing Cisco over a Broadcom toolchain, which as far as I can tell Broadcom never gave Cisco the source to in the first place. The FSF is chosing to sue Cisco rather than Broadcom, not because Cisco is more in the wrong but because (as far as I can tell from the outside) they think Cisco is more easily intimidated due to having previously folded to the BusyBox guys (again, back before the SFLC existed).

Translation: if you settle a GPL suit, you open yourself to more from other parties. That's a wonderful message to send, isn't it?

I agreed to work with Cisco _because_ I liked what they were doing, not the other way around. I've amicably left a number of employers because the work they wanted me to do either wasn't interesting or wasn't something I was comfortable doing, and I've turned down plenty more offers of work I simply didn't want to do. (I admit this is a luxury, but it's one I currently have.)

to post comments

Broadcom or Cisco responsibility?

Posted Dec 16, 2008 23:33 UTC (Tue) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] (2 responses)

> They're suing Cisco over a Broadcom toolchain, which as far as I
> can tell Broadcom never gave Cisco the source to in the first place.

It's even theoretically possible that the supplier was abiding by the
licence, if they offered the source but the integrator never got
around to obtaining it. OTOH a more likely scenario is that the
supplier failed to supply correct and/or complete corresponding
source code and the integrator accepted the binaries without
confirming that the source matched.

Either way, if Cisco is redistributing software, it's Cisco's
responsibility to ensure that it's in compliance with the copyright
requirements on that software. Which, in the case of GPL'd software,
means actually obtaining the corresponding source code from the
supplier and making it available down the line.

(Of course I know nothing of the facts here, I'm just speculating).

> The FSF is chosing to sue Cisco rather than Broadcom...

If it's Cisco and not Broadcom which is making software derived from
FSF-copyrighted code available to the public in violation of the
licence, this is logical. It's Cisco's responsibility to make sure
it follows the licence conditions, even if the problem originated
elsewhere.

Broadcom or Cisco responsibility?

Posted Dec 17, 2008 0:31 UTC (Wed) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (1 responses)

note that since the FSF isn't suing about the kernel, just userspace tools, this speculation about broadcom drivers seems out of place. it's only if someone who has copyright on what the broadcom drivers are derived from sues that they have the standing to ask for them.

much as they would like to, the FSF cannot say that any company failed to comply with the GPL on something the FSF controls and therefor looses the ability to use the GPL on something the FSF doesn't control

now, I agree that a settlement is probably going to cover all GPL software, but they already did that and the FSF is playing hardball.

"toolchain", not "driver"

Posted Dec 17, 2008 0:44 UTC (Wed) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

I understand that Rob Landley has some knowledge of the case beyond what has been announced by the FSF and SFLC. The information we have is that the FSF is suing with regard to FSF-copyrighted material, and Landley indicates above that it has something to do with a toolchain that Broadcom supplied to Cisco.

That's "toolchain", not "driver", no mention of the Linux kernel.

FSF, OSI and Busybox

Posted Dec 17, 2008 14:15 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link]

Translation: if you settle a GPL suit, you open yourself to more from other parties. That's a wonderful message to send, isn't it?

Not an uncommon spin of course, and you are free to entertain it, but I think we have passed the point where ignorance and misinformation are significant or even relevant factors in Free Software adoption.

You make it sound as if LinkSys has been punished more than enough by the BusyBox tough guys and the Hall of Shame (to the extent that they are now an example of good behaviour for other offenders), which, indeed, is not such a great message, but one that will be ignored by most parties involved. LinkSys most of all, it seems.

FSF, OSI and Busybox

Posted Dec 18, 2008 13:07 UTC (Thu) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link]

Translation: if you settle a GPL suit, you open yourself to more from other parties. That's a wonderful message to send, isn't it?
Except it is: "if you settle a GPL suit, you open yourself to more from other parties unless you start complying with the GPL for all your releases". And yes, that IS a wonderful message to send.

Broadcom or Cisco

Posted Dec 18, 2008 15:28 UTC (Thu) by ajb (subscriber, #9694) [Link]

If it is in fact a Broadcom toolchain that is at issue (which doesn't square with this 'nameless far-eastern companies' bit), then the FSF almost certainly can't choose to sue Broadcom instead, because Broadcom doesn't distribute anything much directly to John Q Public. Therefore the FSF probably doesn't have standing to sue them. I think (although I'm no lawyer) that enforcement must occur along the chain of licenses - if Broadcom are the problem, the it is down to Cisco to take it up with them.

FSF, OSI and Busybox

Posted Dec 20, 2008 14:18 UTC (Sat) by Tet (subscriber, #5433) [Link]

The FSF is chosing to sue Cisco rather than Broadcom, not because Cisco is more in the wrong but because (as far as I can tell from the outside) they think Cisco is more easily intimidated

It might not be pretty, but that's how the law works. When you have multiple infringing parties, it makes sense to sue the one you think has the highest likelihood of getting you a return. In this case, that happens to be Cisco rather than Broadcom. Whatever else though, Cisco do seem to be redistributing GPLed code without adhering to the terms of the license. Were you in Cisco's position, and about to release a product to the market, wouldn't you want to check that all of your licensing obligations had been met (whether you built the product yourself or bought it from Broadcom or someone in Taiwan is irrelevant here). Yet Cisco didn't do that. At best it's negligence, but repeating the same mistake again and again tends to imply it's something else. That alone makes them fair game in my book.

FSF, OSI and Busybox

Posted Dec 21, 2008 10:14 UTC (Sun) by Ze (guest, #54182) [Link]

Yes but it's quite possible that FSF was doing things itself before the SFLC and that they weren't doing them through counsel. That still doesn't predate a 5 year saga with cisco/linksys.

Actually I'm pretty sure they are suing cisco since they are the bigger infringer and they've repeatedly been told about the problem and fixed that particular issue without fixing the general compliance problem.

FSF, OSI and Busybox

Posted Dec 28, 2008 12:48 UTC (Sun) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

They're suing Cisco over a Broadcom toolchain, which as far as I can tell Broadcom never gave Cisco the source to in the first place. The FSF is chosing to sue Cisco rather than Broadcom, not because Cisco is more in the wrong but because (as far as I can tell from the outside) they think Cisco is more easily intimidated due to having previously folded to the BusyBox guys (again, back before the SFLC existed).

Dare I suggest you should read the GPL? If you make and sell me a copy of Cent OS Linux, the GPL is very clear it is you who are responsible for giving me a copy of the source, not Cent OS.

It is Linksys that are selling copies of Linux, therefore it is Linksys that are responsible for providing the source. Otherwise, taken to its extreme, it would mean that nobody would be responsible for providing the source! (I was going to say "nobody other than the original author", but they can't be bound by the licence, which means effectively it would be "nobody at all"!)

Cheers,
Wol

FSF, OSI and Busybox

Posted Dec 28, 2008 16:34 UTC (Sun) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

technically you are correct, which means that almost everyone who hands out fedora, ubuntu, or debian CDs is violating the GPL becouse they aren't handing out the source or a written offer for the source from them (a offer for the source from Redhat isn't good enough)

you need to hurry and shut down all the violation of the GPL. you could be the RIAA of the opensource community (after all, what linux user _hasn't_ burned a CD and given it to someone)