Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 23rd Sep 2006 17:58 UTC, submitted by Ben Jao Ming
GNU, GPL, Open Source "The gpl-violations.org project prevails in court litigation against D-Link regarding D-Link's alleged inappropriate and copyright infringing use of parts of the Linux Operating System Kernel. D-Link distributed DSM-G600, a network attached storage device which uses a Linux-based Operating System. However, this distribution was incompliant with the GNU General Public License which covers the Linux Kernel and many other software programs used in the product."
Thread beginning with comment 165266
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Seems like great news.
by kwag on Mon 25th Sep 2006 04:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Seems like great news."
kwag
Member since:
2006-08-31

"Other companies looks at this and see "Use Linux, Get Sued". It's bad PR."

Yep, that is exactly what is happening, and that is exactly why many manufacturers are starting to get away from any GPL code for any of their designs.
The GPL'ers see it as "Hurray! we won!", while the reality is that every time a violation is pointed out, and gplviolations.org steps in or the FSS, you can bet that the company that is in violation will quickly either remove the product from market, or redesign the offending product under a new OS, such as Windriver's or a *BSD.
So the truth is that the users are the ones who really loose, because the new products will now probably have an embedded OS which they have to pay royalties (unless it's BSD based), and the added cost is passed on to consumers.
I'm sure that D-Link will now think twice before using any GPL product in their embedded systems, just like Linksys did, and now the majority of their products are no longer Linux based.
So, choose your poison ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"The GPL'ers see it as "Hurray! we won!", while the reality is that every time a violation is pointed out, and gplviolations.org steps in or the FSS, you can bet that the company that is in violation will quickly either remove the product from market, or redesign the offending product under a new OS, such as Windriver's or a *BSD."

So, uh, how is this a loss for the GPL if companies that violates it and ignore it are no longer using prodcuts licensed under it?

"I'm sure that D-Link will now think twice before using any GPL product in their embedded systems, just like Linksys did, and now the majority of their products are no longer Linux based."

Since these companies didn't contribute back how is this a loss?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Seems like great news.
by kwag on Mon 25th Sep 2006 16:31 in reply to "RE[5]: Seems like great news."
kwag Member since:
2006-08-31

"So, uh, how is this a loss for the GPL if companies that violates it and ignore it are no longer using prodcuts licensed under it?"

One less GPL based product being used on the market.

"Since these companies didn't contribute back how is this a loss?"

The users of the product are the ones at loss, who will now have to pay more for the newer products due to licensing, unless the manufacturers choose some other open source non-GPL'ed license.

It's really funny, when Joe Doe goes out to CompUSA and buys a router, then finds out that it's Linux based and the sources are nowhere, and Joe runs out to gplviolations.org to announce a violation, and in the end the router manufacturer admits the error, removes the code and releases a new version of the router with a higher price tag due to the new research and time needed for changes.

Way to go Joe! LOL

But of course, Joe was right, because thats the law. Right? ;)

Maybe embedded developers and companies should have a read here before planning their products (We did ;) ): http://www.wasabisystems.com/gpl/

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[5]: Seems like great news.
by hal2k1 on Mon 25th Sep 2006 05:31 in reply to "RE[4]: Seems like great news."
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//The GPL'ers see it as "Hurray! we won!", while the reality is that every time a violation is pointed out, and gplviolations.org steps in or the FSS, you can bet that the company that is in violation will quickly either remove the product from market, or redesign the offending product under a new OS, such as Windriver's or a *BSD. //

Actually, no. In nearly every case, the company involved has opted to do exactly what they were supposed to do in the first place, and that is re-publish the modified code under the GPL.

//So the truth is that the users are the ones who really loose, because the new products will now probably have an embedded OS which they have to pay royalties (unless it's BSD based), and the added cost is passed on to consumers.//

Actually, no. The products go on to the market just as they were released, and the only thing that needs to be done by the violating company is publish the code.

//I'm sure that D-Link will now think twice before using any GPL product in their embedded systems, just like Linksys did, and now the majority of their products are no longer Linux based. So, choose your poison ;) //

The Linksys product was the WRT54g. This is by far and away the most successful Linksys product, and it is so precisely because the code is GPL.

http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/3562391

This link above says it nicely. "Itís also the story of how the open source movement can produce a win-win scenario for both consumers and commercial endors."

http://www.seattlewireless.net/LinksysWrt54g
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS4729641740.html
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Linksys-Blue-Box-Router-HOWTO/
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20040527.html
http://www.batbox.org/wrt54g-linux.html

Based on this success story, here is an example of what other manufacturers of similar products are doing:

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/wireless/asus-wl700ge-wifi-router-bu...
http://wl700g.info/forumdisplay.php?f=87
http://wiki.openwrt.org/OpenWrtDocs/Hardware/Asus/WL700gE

Edited 2006-09-25 05:32

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Seems like great news.
by kwag on Mon 25th Sep 2006 17:02 in reply to "RE[5]: Seems like great news."
kwag Member since:
2006-08-31

"Actually, no. In nearly every case, the company involved has opted to do exactly what they were supposed to do in the first place, and that is re-publish the modified code under the GPL."

Sure they released the code, which is now useless on their new WRT54G, because the hardware was redesigned to run on Windriver's OS. Wonder why?

"Actually, no. The products go on to the market just as they were released, and the only thing that needs to be done by the violating company is publish the code."

Sure, except that this exact option of releasing IP is a no no by many companies.
If they only had to release the modified GPL code, then that wouldn't be any problem, and I can understand that perfectly and I also see it as the correct approach.
I modify a public piece of code, I give back the modifications EXCEPT my own additions, unless I want to contribute MY work. That's why the LGPL and BSDs are more corporate friendly than GPL.

Reply Parent Score: 1