Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 25th Nov 2007 23:05 UTC, submitted by jello
Members of the Linux community have complained that the hot new sub-notebook from Asus, the eeePC, may have violated the spirit of the Linux General Public License. Some Linux advocates claim the eeePC has not included required source code with the installed Xandros Linux distribution and does not easily enable users to install another distro. However, there are indications that eeePC fans probably don't care.
Thread beginning with comment 286791
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Let's not go to court
by sigzero on Mon 26th Nov 2007 01:58
in reply to "RE: Let's not go to court"
Member since:2006-01-03
RE[3]: Let's not go to court
by butters on Mon 26th Nov 2007 03:00
in reply to "RE[2]: Let's not go to court"
Member since:2005-07-08
Why can't they just point you to where Xandros has them?
Because, under section 3c of the GPLv2, that option would only be permitted if 1) Asus received the binary packages from Xandros along with a written promise to provide source code upon request for three years (3b) as opposed to Xandros providing public access to the source on their website (3a), and if 2) Asus were distributing these packages as a part of a non-commercial product.
Since they fail both of these criteria, Asus must comply under their choice of 3a or 3b. Since their tarball only partially complies under 3a, they must either provide the rest of the code on their website or distribute to all current and future eeePC owners a written promise to provide the rest of the source code upon request as per 3b.
The rationale is that Xandros is making it very easy for Asus to acquire the source code, and Asus is using the software for profit, so there's no compelling reason why offering the source code as Xandros does for them would be an undue burden on Asus. Furthermore, since Xandros hasn't promised to provide the source code for three years, they could very well go out of business tomorrow and take down their ftp server. So Asus has to provide source code so long as they are in the business of distributing the software.
More generally, the idea of a distributed software ecosystem is strained by the implicit pressure on upstream distributors from their downstream redistributors. This is a delicate relationship, and it makes practical sense to require that the downstream takes responsibility for its own operations. An upstream distributor should only benefit from gaining downstream projects. They should not dread their consumption of project resources, including bandwidth demands on ftp servers.
RE[2]: Let's not go to court
by umccullough on Mon 26th Nov 2007 02:58
in reply to "RE: Let's not go to court"
Member since:2006-01-26
Yeah, this is simply Asus being incompetent.
...
It's quite possible that getting the proper source code on their website got bungled in their rush to get the machine out it time for the holidays.
As an ASUS customer for many years, I can attest that their support and website quality has degraded a lot since I first started purchasing their products in the mid-90s.
These days, finding stuff on their website is painful, or simply impossible. I have found newer BIOS updates, manuals, and drivers for their motherboards in places other than their downloads section. That is ridiculous. Sometimes you have to go to their non-US website to find the right stuff. Clearly they don't put enough effort into their website and support any longer.
Member since:
2005-07-08
Yeah, this is simply Asus being incompetent. They included a printed copy of the GPL in the manual and even cited the GPL somewhere on the retail box. They posted a source tarball on their website, but it doesn't contain the sources for all of the packages on the eeePC. Maybe the tarball was reused from some other Linux-based product that Asus distributes.
It's quite possible that getting the proper source code on their website got bungled in their rush to get the machine out it time for the holidays. It's hard to imagine that Asus would jeopardize a product for which they have very high hopes by distributing modifications to GPL software for which they won't or can't provide the corresponding source. I'd be very surprised if they don't comply and avoid a lawsuit.
As Warren Woodford from MEPIS learned the hard way, the GPL requires the distributor to provide all corresponding source--at least upon request and payment of a reasonable fee--even for packages redistributed unmodified from an upstream distributor. So Asus is obligated under the GPL to provide source for GPLed Xandros packages it distributes unmodified.
However, Asus is not required to provide source for its modified madwifi ath_pci driver, since that is dual-licensed under GPL/BSD. As it seems that the version from madwifi's SVN currently lacks support for the eeePC's wireless chipset, it may be that the only solution for those who want to install a different Linux distribution is the binary from Asus.
I'm definitely giving Asus the benefit of the doubt and waiting for some official response. In the computer industry, if a sensational story is Slashdotted, Dugg, and OSNewsed, the company has no choice but to respond. The eeePC is a Good Thing(TM) for Linux, and Asus has done some other interesting Linux work like their SplashTop BIOS that runs Firefox and Skype. As OEMs go, Asus is among the more Linux-friendly, and I'm expecting an amicable resolution to this story.
Edited 2007-11-26 01:50