Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Asus Corrects Eee PC Source Code Issue

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wed Nov 28, 2007 01:56 PM
from the learning-from-mistakes dept.
Portables Software Hardware Linux
ozmanjusri writes "Asus has corrected the availability of source code for its Eee PC, and reaffirmed its commitment to meeting the requirements of open source licenses, including the GPL. They also announced the upcoming release of a new SDK to assist the Open Source community development on the Eee PC."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Review of Asus Linux-Based Eee PC 701 227 comments
Bongo Bob writes "CNET.co.uk has up a review of the Asus Eee PC 701 that runs Linux. According to the reviewer. 'It's hard to fault the Eee PC, mainly because of its price. It can be difficult to use because of the cramped keyboard, but it's better than similar-sized laptops like the Toshiba Libretto. If you're in the market for a second PC, or looking for something you can take with you almost anywhere, the Eee PC is definitely worth buying.'"
Submission: Asus corrects Eee PC source code issue. by ozmanjusri (601766)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Asus Corrects Eee PC Source Code Issue 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • What's With the Name? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Apple Acolyte (517892) on Wednesday November 28 2007, @02:03PM (#21508009)
    EEE? Triple E PC? What's with the name (i.e. what does it signify)?

  • Better late than never (Score:5, Funny)

    by RandoX (828285) on Wednesday November 28 2007, @02:03PM (#21508017)
    "The code released by Asus brings the company into compliance with its obligations under the GPL and should satisfy most of the critics."

    And those critics that aren't satisfied by that will all be regulars here at /.

  • ASUS: Brilliant Marketing Strategy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by multipart/mixed (163409) on Wednesday November 28 2007, @02:04PM (#21508037)
    1. Release geek-oriented product nobody's ever heard of
    2. Make it very obvious it's based on GNU/Linux
    3. "Accidentally" screw up the GPL code release
    4. Wait for Slashdot Story
    5. Fix GPL code release
    6. Trigger Slashdot follow-up story
    5. Free advertising sells lots of product
    6. Profit!

    • Re:ASUS: Brilliant Marketing Strategy (Score:5, Funny)

      by slyn (1111419) <ozzietheowl@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 28 2007, @02:51PM (#21508633)
      123456....56

      wjat?

    • 1. Release geek-oriented product nobody's ever heard of
      2. Make it very obvious it's based on GNU/Linux
      3. "Accidentally" screw up the GPL code release
      4. Wait for Slashdot Story
      5. Fix GPL code release
      6. Trigger Slashdot follow-up story
      5. Free advertising sells lots of product
      3. ????
      6. Profit!
      Fixed

    • Re:ASUS: Brilliant Marketing Strategy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SagSaw (219314) <slashdot@nOSpaM.mmoss.org> on Wednesday November 28 2007, @06:54PM (#21511989)
      1. Release geek-oriented product nobody's ever heard of

      I don't think that geeks are Asus' target market on this one. From what I've seen, their goal was to produce an sub-laptop with the best possible ratio of out-of-the-box capabilities to cost. What resulted is, IMHO, somewhere between the capabilities of a smart-phone (minus the cell phone, of course) and a note-book. I think they expect to be able to sell this to populations that might not otherwise be able to afford a computer (think OLPC, but less philanthropic), or who might not currently have their own computer (think of schools outfitting every classroom with a set, for example, or parents buying one for their school-aged child).

      2. Make it very obvious it's based on GNU/Linux

      I think this was mainly for cost reasons. The OS itself is free (not counting anything Asus might have paid Xandros for development work), and massive amounts of software are freely available. I suspect that license costs, hardware requirements, and cost/headache-factor of distributing a similar suite of applications for Windows would have driven up the price.

      3. "Accidentally" screw up the GPL code release
      4. Wait for Slashdot Story
      5. Fix GPL code release
      6. Trigger Slashdot follow-up story
      5. Free advertising sells lots of product
      6. Profit!

      Or, more likely IMHO,

      4. Fail to release the code on time to some combination of overwhelming bureaucracy, over-optimistic marketing deadlines, and overworked engineers.
      5. Release the code shortly after consumers point out your omission.
      6. Good will!

  • Impatient, Are We? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tenshigure (1105825) on Wednesday November 28 2007, @02:10PM (#21508115)
    The EeePC has only been available publicly for a few weeks now. It was purely speculation that they were willingly holding back the code for asus_acpi and the other crap, and now they've corrected that mistake. Those 'critics' need to calm down sometimes, not every large corporation out there is trying to destroy the 'sanctity of GPL' at every opportunity.

    • Those 'critics' need to calm down sometimes, not every large corporation out there is trying to destroy the 'sanctity of GPL' at every opportunity.

      Neither are they trying to comply with it, unless someone points out their mistake.

      I mean, we're talking about source code that is already written. They have a disc marked "master source code for product rev 1" somewhere, it takes pretty much zilch extra effort to have that included with the product. Just duplicate it and throw it in. The fact they had to make a

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by orclevegam (940336)

        The fact they had to make a different "cleaned up" version just confirms my suspicions as to why they didn't release it to begin with; the actual source code has programming hacks and embarrassing comments in it, like some previous examples of closed-source code that has been forced in to public view by the courts.

        [citation needed]

        Seriously though, what are you basing this off of? I read TFA and I can't find any reference in that, or in the articles it links to that say ASUS released "cleaned up" versions of the code. Even the guy who originally discovered this and blogged about it, says he thinks it wasn't ASUS being malicious, just negligent and forgetting to publish the code.

      • Last minute changes (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Full Disclosure.....I haven't received my eee yet, I ordered it last Wednesday and it is due to arrive this week. I can't logon here at my client; my nick is alanbcohen

        As I understand it, Asus used a new chip to meet the cost targets and had to make some last minute code changes to get working systems out the door. No 'cleanup' of proprietary source, no trying to hide stuff. Over at the eeeuser forum, they are already reporting successful recompiles of the source and use in a different distro install on

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by xenocide2 (231786)
          I think it speaks more to the skills of asus to market the concept to people. Nobody accuses openMoko of failing to disclose the source, because they did so from the start! Even if you wanted to hide your engineering from the world, the source code is part of the selling point to the eee. A more skilled Asus would have it available on day one, if not before, and be proudly trumpeting it.
        • I haven't bought one either. I'm what you might call one of those "any third party [gnu.org]" people that they have an obligation to under the GPL:

          3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
          a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a m

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Obfuscant (592200)
          If we are to stop this kind of thing happening in future we need to make companies as scared of violating the copyright of FOSS as they are of violating the copyright of proprietary software.

          That certainly would stop it from happening in the future. It would also drive companies right into the arms of Microsoft.

          Which is easier for a corporate computer manufacturer PHB?

          1. Pay a licensing fee once to one company for all the software on a a system, and distribute nothing extra.
          2. Pay someone to develop code f

    • They need to do more than calm down (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Wednesday November 28 2007, @02:25PM (#21508275)
      They need to get a grip and get a clue. Unfortunately something attracts impossibilists to Gnu/Linux. It's the same self destructive urge that stops organizations like the Green Party going anywhere - they want impossibly perfect behaviour from their supporters and proponents. There is something weird in the psychology that seems endlessly to find fault with the things it claims to support, but it is remarkably common. I'd like to think that all the original attacks on Asus were actually astroturfing Microsoft PR flaks, but unfortunately years of experience lead me to the knowledge that Linux and FOSS needs to be protected from some of its friends as well as its enemies.

      Memo to these guys: you may not like having to live in your parents' basement, but you will find that a little tolerance of other people (and suppressing the hair trigger attack reaction) goes a long way when trying to lose your virginity.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by cbiffle (211614)
        For context, here's how this looks from outside Slashdot.

        Me: "It looks like ASUS may have violated the GPL in the eee software distribution. I suspect it was a mistake. I've contacted them and publicly stated that I don't intend to sue or anything." (This is the 'hair trigger attack reaction' I guess.)
        Blog community: "Lame!"
        ASUS: "Oh, hey, you're right, here are some source tarballs."
        Me: "Thanks! Go ASUS!"
        "Kupfernigk" on Slashdot: "OMG MOUTH-FROTHING AD-HOMINEM ATTACKS"

        One of us is involved in civil dia

        • Re:They need to do more than calm down (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday November 28 2007, @03:54PM (#21509635) Journal
          The point is, the GPL is not about extracting damages from people. It's not even about forcing people to give us their code. It's about ensuring code that is free remains free. If companies see GPL software as a legal trap where a simple mistake could leave them liable for thousand of dollars in fines, they're just going to avoid it completely. Which would kind of negate the entire purpose of sharing free software. Remember, the GPL is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
    • inflammatory stories with little merit generate a lot more page views than correct ones.

    • Re:Impatient, Are We? (Score:5, Informative)

      by cbiffle (211614) on Thursday November 29 2007, @01:51AM (#21515127)
      Hi. I'm the software engineer who initially brought all this to the community's attention. I assume I'm the scare-quoted critic you're referring to.

      I am not a GPL zealot (in point of fact I'm a BSD guy), and I have never used the term "sanctity of the GPL," except possibly in jest.

      I haven't seen anyone suggest that they were willfully withholding sources; in my original analysis I said that I suspected it was a mistake on their part. It's possible you read a sensationalized second-hand source (like iTwire), but all I noted was that they had shipped modified GPL binaries without source. As you say, the eee's been available for weeks now, which is weeks longer than the GPL permits you to distribute binaries without source.

      Had you read the initial analysis or the followups where I tested and verified ASUS's source releases, you would know this.

      Honestly, seems like anything can make 5/Insightful these days.
        • Question: If someone did strip the EULA and distributed (in violation of copyright, for sure) copies of Vista, while they would be liable what about the people who received copies? If they don't distribute, does oopyright have anything to say?
  • Now that the source code is available, is it irrational to expect that one or a group of folks will in the very near future, provide code in ISO format that I can use to install on my "ordinary" PC? Hope so. So, for those who can, go to work. A slashdotter is watching this space.

  • As a company that "Sells" Open source... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by houstonbofh (602064) on Wednesday November 28 2007, @02:17PM (#21508203)
    I work for a company that provides Open Source solutions. We are actively involved in several FOSS projects, and support the concept any way we can. That said, with the rapid advances of the base projects, and our changes to those projects, it is very easy to let publishing the source slip down the priority list. I have forgotten several times, and this has been on projects I develop for! (I fix it as soon as I realize...) I would bet many omissions can be attributed to overwork, and not malice.
    • It's actually not that difficult to make publishing the default. What version control system are you using? Most will allow public (read-only) access, either with their tool or via some web interface.
      • If you don't want to publish the latest unreleased version, you can use svnsync to create a public version with everything up to the latest release and just change the version it syncs with when you push out a new release.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by kfort (1132)
      According to section 3b of the GPL v2:

      b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

      The part about a written offer might be a minor quibble, but you should be in the cl

      • From the link in the original slashdot article, I thought it was stated that they did provide the offer. The problem was that they provided the original rather than the modified source code in their 1.8 MB zip.

  • That Extra Mile (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tundra_man (719419) on Wednesday November 28 2007, @02:24PM (#21508265)
    I have noted in the last few days the release of the various bits of source code and am happy to see Asus ensure that they are in compliance. Now I would love for them to go the extra mile and release the code changes to MadWifi to support the wireless. I know this is released under a BSD style license and they are not obligated but one of the biggest weaknesses of the Eee right now for me is the inability of their wpa_supplicant to offer enterprise encryption support. Something that is hard to change without the MadWifi source or switching to use NDISWrapper. The Eee is the best gadget but I want my wireless @ work.

    NOTE: I have asked Asus about enterprise encryption support and they have said it may be coming. I have also asked about the madwifi source but received no definitive answer yet.

    • In TFA (from the Asus website), they give you an email to Asus support. Tell them you (and many other Eee owners) would be much happier with the Eee if we had the madwifi drivers so we could use the Eee with whatever distro we wanted.

      Or you could go the OSS zealot route and tell them that if they don't release the source, you will send your Eee to Blendtec and ensure that no one you know will buy one. Of course, I'd go with the first route.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by swillden (191260)

          Kernel modules have definitely been a contentious issue vis-a-vis the GPL

          Yes, but I don't think I've ever seen someone try to argue that a kernel module linked directly to and distributed with the kernel isn't a derived work. The questionable cases have been, for example, the NVidia and ATI drivers. The argument in those cases is that the binary-only component is not a derived work of the Linux kernel, doesn't dynamically link directly to the kernel, doesn't use any Linux headers to be built and may even be usable without the kernel. The source-distributed shim that connect

  • Left hand, right hand? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kbahey (102895) on Wednesday November 28 2007, @04:31PM (#21510115) Homepage
    Some of the posters see conspiracies every where (marketing strategy, ...etc.).

    A simpler explanation is that in a large corporation, you have communication "issues" causing delays and lags. The technical folk may have finished their part of the project, but the web presence or product management folk has not gotten to publishing the source yet.

    This is the classic left hand does know what the right hand does ...

    Let us not assume bad intentions where no hard evidence exists.

  • Where's the story here (Score:5, Informative)

    by Eskarel (565631) on Thursday November 29 2007, @01:10AM (#21514897)
    The GPL requires distributors to provide source code upon request. Asus released some source code which was apparently out of date, someone requested the updated source code and Asus released it.

    They have no obligation to host the source code, nor to provide it for download, they merely have to provide it upon request, and they did. End of story.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by wizardforce (1005805)
      you didn't actually read the article did you? no where does it say anything implying that the source code was "cleaned up" in this case to avoid complying with the GPL. Secondly, had they done so as you point out the binaries would not be the same, surely someone would have noticed.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by norminator (784674)
      For a product that hasn't been out that long, I would think that as long as it matches the binaries they send out from this point on would suffice. I mean, maybe someone could go after them for what was previously released, but why bother?

    • Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kjella (173770) on Wednesday November 28 2007, @02:38PM (#21508427) Homepage

      They need to release the SAME source code that was used to create the binaries which they've already released and distributed, not just "cleaned-up" code, which generates different binaries.
      No, they don't. First of all, unless someone sues they won't need to do anything at all and even if someone did, they'd never be forced to release code but they might have to pay damages. Nor would releasing source free them from those damages. Legally it has no weight in one direction or the other. It's an olive branch, a token of good faith, a "settlement offer" - if I release this, are we cool? To which you can of course say "Not good enough" if you're legally entitled to sue. And quite frankly, unless they removed 99% of the secret source I think most would be happy with "umm we're not usre about the exact source version, but here's the complete source for our latest build with all enhancements and bug fixes we've done since". Anything else is a witchhunt in best RIAA-style.
      • Wow. I have mod points, but there is no "-1 where the hell did that come from" option. I do not disagree with your first sentence, but the remainder of your post is completely and utterly wrong, at least in how it pertains to Asus and this discussion.

        "A company may not be even in a position to release the source code as it may be owned by a third party." Fair enough, but this article is about a company distributing a GNU/Linux system with a modified kernel module that is GPL'd. There is no third party involved and even if there were, there is no way that Asus could both legally distribute their version of GNU/Linux in binary format (installed on the device) and simultaneously *not* release the modified source code; regardless of said third party's standing on distribution of the code. This is GPL 101 type stuff. Check it out. [gnu.org]

        "Releasing newly written code with equivalent functionality or even rewriting GPL code and keeping the product closed source is considered enough to cure a license violation." That is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. How about you come up with some citations for that asinine bit of trash? I feel dumber for having read that.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Haeleth (414428)

          "Releasing newly written code with equivalent functionality or even rewriting GPL code and keeping the product closed source is considered enough to cure a license violation." That is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. How about you come up with some citations for that asinine bit of trash? I feel dumber for having read that.

          Insulting people does not make you sound more authoritative. If you can't be polite, perhaps you should refrain from posting at all.

          As it happens he is slightly incorrect, but

          • Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right? (Score:5, Informative)

            by hacker (14635) <setuid@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 28 2007, @02:59PM (#21508797)

            It's because it's true. Duh.

            Not quite, see below.

            In order to come into compliance, one thing you can do is stop shipping the product. You are then in compliance again.

            And you are still in violation of the license. How do you handle the penalties for your existing violation?

            Then, you re-write the pieces that were causing the problem, and you start shipping the product again with the newly re-written pieces.

            And you still have not released the source that is mated to the version you've already shipped. Where is the source that goes with version 1.0? If you release version 2.0 with "cleaned-up" source code, you are still required to release sources for version 1.0, as well as atone for your prior violation with that version. Just because you complied at version v2.0 doesn't mean your violation with v1.0 goes away.

            Sony tried this game with their version of the POSE FLOSS project. They would release v1.0 in binary, then release 2.0 binaries, with v1.0 source code, and so on. Always keeping the source 1 release behind. They were in direct violation of the letter and spirit of the GPL license.

            Now, if you happen to be able to re-write those pieces so that you can stop/start shipping on the same day, well, that's ok too, you are still in compliance.

            You are assumed to be in compliance with the GPL for version 2.0 of your product, but you are still in violation of version 1.0 of your product. What do you do for all of the units already out in the hands of consumers?

            Each unit is now subject to US Copyright violation penalties, which vary from $20k to $200k per-unit (look it up). If you shipped 1,000 units, that's a $20M penalty at the low end of that scale.

            Read the license - it's in there.

            It sure is, and you've misinterpreted it very nicely.

            • Its nice to hear some GPL sense on Slashdot for once.

              Companies still irritate the hell out of me with GPL code.
              They always make their product and release the source as a after thought.
              So they are all violating for a period of time.
          • I am not sure of the point you are trying to make. None of the examples you give are GPL violations.

            1. Microsoft violated Eolas' patent. Microsoft has no obligation to release source code for IE as they own the copyright to that source code.
            2. See above.
            3. Please give me an example of SCO code that is illegally included in Linux. The SCO group never could.
            4. Trademark != copyright.
            5. The Apple Music store thing was a private contract between Apple records and Apple computer.
            6. Lindows was renamed due to a trademark violation. Refer to #4 above.

            None of your examples have anything to do with the GPL or even copyright.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by AusIV (950840)

              6. Lindows was renamed due to a trademark violation. Refer to #4 above.

              That's not really accurate. Microsoft brought a suit against Lindows for trademark violation. After several court decisions made it look like they might lose their claim on the Windows trademark (because it was too generic), Microsoft bought the Lindows trademark from the company that is now Linspire for $24 Million.

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by iamacat (583406)
                  And yet courts have been known to impose no or minimal penalties for patent infringement (if accidental and quickly corrected), trademark infringement (ditto), theft (if getting essential food and medicine in a disaster zone) and assault (if the defendant had reasons to believe that the victim posed an immediate physical threat). Why are you so sure that an accidental, small in scope and promptly corrected copyright violation will not be handled in a similar manner?

      • Releasing newly written code with equivalent functionality or even rewriting GPL code and keeping the product closed source is considered enough to cure a license violation.

        Considered enough by who? GPL-violators hoping to get away with it, but happy to comply with the license as "punishment" if they get caught?

        Sure, in practice copyright holders are frequently nice and decline to sue if the violator quickly comes into compliance. But there's no guarantee of that - if any copyright holder in a GPLed work

        • "Considered enough by who?"

          The Judge hearing your lawsuit. The point is if you appear to have made a reasonable mistake, and make a reasonable attempt to remedy it promptly, a reasonable judge is not going to impose any sort of unreasonable penalties. Whether the rights holder wants to be nice or not, a minor infraction doesn't mean they can burn the infringer's business down.

    • Re:just don't bother (Score:5, Insightful)

      by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Wednesday November 28 2007, @02:38PM (#21508441)
      That's not what it was designed to be. Picture a sales force or service technicians armed with these. Calendar, Google maps, IM, Open Office and Skype in less than a Kg. This is the unit that's going to put linux in a LOT of peoples hands. And who knows? Once they get used to Linux on the road, they might want it at home and the office.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.