ZyXEL Kernel /BusyBox GPL violation?

ZyXEL Kernel /BusyBox GPL violation?

[Mace Moneta]

I purchased a ZyXEL router, and noted in its log:

0day 00:00:16 klogd started: BusyBox v1.00-pre8 (2005.06.02-02:19+0000)
0day 00:00:16 Linux version 2.4.18-MIPS-01.00 (root@UTOPIA) (gcc version
3.3.3) #53 Fri Jun 10 16:13:48 CST 2005
...

I contacted the vendor to request source, since no mention of it is made
on their website (http://www.zyxel.com), or documentation:

---
Subject: Linux GPL software for P-330W  
                
Where can I obtain the Linux software for the P-330W, as required under
Gnu Public Licence (Firmware Version: v4.2.1.6.6e.)?
---

Their response:

---
Sir, 
Our unit is only based on Linux. It is not necessarily built off the
source code. The code was developed by our engineers in Taiwan.  As this
is the case, we do not have access to the code here, and it is not
covered by the GPL. If you need more assistance, please call at
1-800-255-4101. 

Thank you,

Scott Latimer
Technicial Support Specialist
ZyXEL Communications
1130 N Miller Street
Anaheim, CA  92806 
A+, Network+
---

The response seems meaningless; does this constitute a violation of GPL?
If so what, if any, action needs to be taken?

Re: ZyXEL Kernel /BusyBox GPL violation?

[Lee Revell]

On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 23:21 -0400, Mace Moneta wrote:
> The response seems meaningless; does this constitute a violation of
> GPL?
> If so what, if any, action needs to be taken?

It sounds like they think you are asking for their userspace source
code, or that support rep does not know the difference.

Also if they didn't modify the kernel, they don't have to give you
source, they can just refer you to kernel.org.

Lee

Re: ZyXEL Kernel /BusyBox GPL violation?

[Stephen Pollei]

On 7/25/05, Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 23:21 -0400, Mace Moneta wrote:
> > The response seems meaningless; does this constitute a violation of
> > GPL?
> > If so what, if any, action needs to be taken?

http://gpl-violations.org/
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReportingViolation
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-violation.html
[[[You should report it. First, check the facts as best you can. Then
tell the publisher or copyright holder of the specific GPL-covered
program. If that is the Free Software Foundation, write to
<license-violation@gnu.org>. Otherwise, the program's maintainer may
be the copyright holder, or else could tell you how to contact the
copyright holder, so report it to the maintainer.]]]

> Also if they didn't modify the kernel, they don't have to give you
> source, they can just refer you to kernel.org.

Wrong.....

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeWithSourceOnInternet
[[[I want to distribute binaries without accompanying sources. Can I
provide source code by FTP instead of by mail order?
    You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a
physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people
a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the
mail-order option, but FTP access to the source is not sufficient to
satisfy section 3 of the GPL.

    When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the
source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get the
source from you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the job. But not
every user can do such a download. The rest of the users are just as
entitled to get the source code from you, which means you must be
prepared to send it to them by post.

    If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose
to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship one. But you
cannot assume that.

    Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the binary in
the first place. ]]]

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCSourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites
[[[Can I put the binaries on my Internet server and put the source on
a different Internet site?
    The GPL says you must offer access to copy the source code "from
the same place"; that is, next to the binaries. However, if you make
arrangements with another site to keep the necessary source code
available, and put a link or cross-reference to the source code next
to the binaries, we think that qualifies as "from the same place".

    Note, however, that it is not enough to find some site that
happens to have the appropriate source code today, and tell people to
look there. Tomorrow that site may have deleted that source code, or
simply replaced it with a newer version of the same program. Then you
would no longer be complying with the GPL requirements. To make a
reasonable effort to comply, you need to make a positive arrangement
with the other site, and thus ensure that the source will be available
there for as long as you keep the binaries available. ]]]

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html
Section 3 mentions three choices of what you must do to copy and distribute:
a) Have it from the same location. They have not.
b) Have written offer good for three years.... None such mentioned.
c) Be noncommercial plus send some information. zyxel.com "seller of
routers" sounds like a commercial enterprise to me.

So no they must assume responsibility to have the sources availible
even if they didn't modify them.

-- 
http://dmoz.org/profiles/pollei.html
http://sourceforge.net/users/stephen_pollei/
http://www.orkut.com/Profile.aspx?uid=2455954990164098214
http://stephen_pollei.home.comcast.net/

RE: ZyXEL Kernel /BusyBox GPL violation?

[David Schwartz]

> > Also if they didn't modify the kernel, they don't have to give you
> > source, they can just refer you to kernel.org.
>
> Wrong.....
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeWithS
> ourceOnInternet
> [[[I want to distribute binaries without accompanying sources. Can I
> provide source code by FTP instead of by mail order?
>     You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a
> physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people
> a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the
> mail-order option, but FTP access to the source is not sufficient to
> satisfy section 3 of the GPL.
>
>     When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the
> source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get the
> source from you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the job. But not
> every user can do such a download. The rest of the users are just as
> entitled to get the source code from you, which means you must be
> prepared to send it to them by post.
>
>     If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose
> to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship one. But you
> cannot assume that.
>
>     Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the binary in
> the first place. ]]]

	I'm sorry, this makes no sense. What if a user can't conveniently get the
source by mail?

	More users can more conveniently get the source by HTTP than can get it by
mail. This argument may have made sense many years ago, but it doesn't now.

	The GPL does not say you have to mail it. The GPL says you have to provide
it "on a medium customarily used for software interchange". That means *YOU*
get to pick the medium, you just can't pick one that's so obscure that
nobody could decode it. The web is just such a medium.

	DS

RE: ZyXEL Kernel /BusyBox GPL violation?

[linux-os (Dick Johnson)]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, David Schwartz wrote:
>
>>> Also if they didn't modify the kernel, they don't have to give you
>>> source, they can just refer you to kernel.org.
>>
>> Wrong.....
>>
>> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeWithS
>> ourceOnInternet
>> [[[I want to distribute binaries without accompanying sources. Can I
>> provide source code by FTP instead of by mail order?
>>     You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a
>> physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people
>> a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the
>> mail-order option, but FTP access to the source is not sufficient to
>> satisfy section 3 of the GPL.
>>
>>     When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the
>> source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get the
>> source from you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the job. But not
>> every user can do such a download. The rest of the users are just as
>> entitled to get the source code from you, which means you must be
>> prepared to send it to them by post.
>>
>>     If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose
>> to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship one. But you
>> cannot assume that.
>>
>>     Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the binary in
>> the first place. ]]]
>
> 	I'm sorry, this makes no sense. What if a user can't conveniently get the
> source by mail?
>
> 	More users can more conveniently get the source by HTTP than can get it by
> mail. This argument may have made sense many years ago, but it doesn't now.
>
> 	The GPL does not say you have to mail it. The GPL says you have to provide
> it "on a medium customarily used for software interchange". That means *YOU*
> get to pick the medium, you just can't pick one that's so obscure that
> nobody could decode it. The web is just such a medium.
>
> 	DS
>

But the larger question: Does the ZyXEL Box work well or did
somebody buy it just to take it apart?


Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.12 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
.
I apologize for the following. I tried to kill it with the above dot :

****************************************************************
The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to DeliveryErrors@analogic.com - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them.

Thank you.

RE: ZyXEL Kernel /BusyBox GPL violation?

[Mace Moneta]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1178 bytes --]

It's worked flawlessly for me.  The price was right too: $5 USD after
manufacturer and retailer (CompUSA) rebates.  For an 802.11b/g
router/bridge with 4-port switch running Linux, that seemed more than
reasonable.  :)


> But the larger question: Does the ZyXEL Box work well or did
> somebody buy it just to take it apart?
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Dick Johnson
> Penguin : Linux version 2.6.12 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
> Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
> .
> I apologize for the following. I tried to kill it with the above dot :
> 
> ****************************************************************
> The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to DeliveryErrors@analogic.com - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them.
> 
> Thank you.


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