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 165443
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Seems like great news.
by kwag on Mon 25th Sep 2006 17:02 UTC 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

RE[7]: Seems like great news.
by hal2k1 on Mon 25th Sep 2006 23:19 in reply to "RE[6]: Seems like great news."
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//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.//

When will you get it through your head? The IP did not belong to Linksys, or to D-Link. The code was GPL code, it was Linux, iptables and samba. These are all GPL licensed code. The only thing that D-Link and Linksys did was modify it slightly to run on their hardware box.

The modifications you make ARE your own additions. We are taliking about a few dozen lines of code to get it to talk to the hardware, amongst millions of lines of GPL code. What are you on about here? You make no sense whatsoever.

The vast bulk of the code on these products was not Linksys code. It was not D-Link code. It was GPL code.

Therefore, the companies give nothing away by publishing the code. They are not "releasing" it - it wasn't their code to begin with.

D-Link and Linksys had virtually none of THEIR work in the products to start with. So they don't give away THEIR work by publishing the code.

Yes, Linksys did produce a closed-source variant of the WRT54g rounter, using Windriver code. It was more expensive for Linksys (because they had to pay Windriver), and it sells nowhere near as well (because it is closed source).

So which turned out better for Linksys? (1) Use Linux, iptables and samba, incur virtually no development costs, publish the code and sell the router as functional, open and cheap, or (2) Use Windriver, incur development costs, sell the router as so-called "improved" but closed, and watch it gather dust on the shelves.

Let me tell you, (1) is far, far better outcome than (2) for companies like Linksys or D-Link, and other companies like ASUS are beginning to realise this.

Edited 2006-09-25 23:34

Reply Parent Score: 1