Linksys Releases GPLed Code for WRT54G 335
petree writes "I stumbled across this on the Linksys website. Linksys has apparently caved to community pressure and released the GPLed source for linux running on their WRT54G. Cool Beans!"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Linksys Releases GPLed Code for WRT54G
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein
Finally (Score:3, Insightful)
If they had not released the source would buy their products again, to be honest I certainly would because they are the cheapest.
If you would not, does their decision to release the source change your mind?
A wireless network. For a dorm room. (Score:5, Insightful)
Its nice to see (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nice, but not a ton of info from it. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Viral" GPL gobbling "I.P." like pac-man with melanoma? Not really!
Re:Not the full OS (Score:5, Insightful)
They complied with the GPL...they weren't required to do anything else, nor should a commercial enterpise be expected to do more if it doesn't aid their business.
-psy
Come out of the closet (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet you like playing raquetball in the closet, too, don'tcha?
Re:Not the full OS (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus, if people were able to reprogram the unit, I'm not sure how that'd really help the community. You'd probably see a bunch of people doing silly "hacks" with the system and a bunch of confused users not knowing what "distribution" to run on their Linksys access point.
-psy
Re:Nice, but not a ton of info from it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank them (Score:5, Insightful)
It really is the polite thing to do. Plus it always feels good to be appreciated, and that goes for people who run big companies.
Re:Nice, but not a ton of info from it. (Score:5, Insightful)
The original flash image was decoded (by Andrew Miklas) as a cramfs filesystem. We have *all* the components available in binary form. Unless there is crytographic checking in the bootloader (i.e. a signed flash image) we're all set to go make our own images complete with Linksys's proprietary binaries and our hacked/improved GPL binaries.
To my knowledge, nobody has done this yet. I hope that doesn't last long. These units will make lovely general-purpose embedded machines if we can put our own code in them. We'd have to rely on Linksys binaries for some of the hardware, but personally I have no ideological problem with that. What I want is to be able to fix some bugs of the bugs and interface stupidities in the darn thing, and to add some of my own functionality, such as being able to ssh into it. Of course, I'd like it even more if Linksys released the full hardware specs, but hey. It's a start.
Now, I see the kind of hacking I described above, and which I fully intend to get involved in, as nothing but good for Linksys. If it turns out we can reflash the unit as it appears we can, I for one will be in the market for a few more of these.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ah, Linksys (Score:2, Insightful)
People say they are an evil corporation trying to hide their secrets and prevent users of rare operating systems from using their product.
A company makes hardware, they release software & driver code to public.
People say they want others to do their coding.
You just can't win can you?
Re:gpl strikes again (Score:5, Insightful)
GPL: free as in 'we can use it but we have to share.'
"...NetBSD is the most supperior embeded Open Source OS on Earth which runs on over 35 architectures."
what does the number of architectures have to do with whether or not its good?
Impressive, but one doesn't mean the other.
I like BSD, but statements lke that are just irritating.
Now if you'll excuse be, I have a bike shed to paint.
Re:gpl strikes again (Score:5, Insightful)
Not very hard, is it?
Re:gpl strikes again (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, Linksys would have used BSD if BSD worked as well for them as Linux does. But Linux is better, supports more hardware, and supplies more of the features they need. That's because more programmers work on Linux, and that in turn is because of the licence - we know that our contributions to the public are going to *stay* public.
And by the way, I like BSD. I think there's some stuff in BSD that's better than Linux. I'm no fanatic, I'm just explaining the phenomenon.
Anyway, what's the big deal for Linksys if they accidently ended up letting everybody reprogram their hardware? It just means they sell more of it and make more money. That's gotta hurt, huh?
Binary modules are legal. (Score:4, Insightful)
Keeping IP in binary modules is fairly straght formward way to partition IP in kernel space and is fairly common in the embedded industry.
Now I know RMS and others frown on this, but it is not illegal.
Re:Nice, but not a ton of info from it. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is using Linksys software on the Linksys hardware that it was provided with. How is it copyright violation?
Still in violation -- I don't think so.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Paul Vixie's license perhaps?
I don't think so:
- Safe on this account -- you are reading the license itself, as redistributed
- Source appears to be unmodified -- all diffs that I can see are known patches.
- There it is, no problem
- Again, here's the source, compliant again.
The license as stated applies to Vixie Cron, not necessarily to the aggregation of parts that is the entire product. IANAL so interpret this with council if it matters to you.Calm down, folks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Linksys got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They probably didn't think twice about using embedded Linux; in fact, they may not have even made the decision themselves.
When the problem was pointed out to them, they gave several weeks of no conclusive answers, and now they've put up a simple web page with some source tarballs, all or none of which may be what's actually running on the APs. You can't even FIND the page using their support search engine (a search on GPL shows no hits), and they're certainly not announcing it anywhere I've seen.
It's the least they could do. Approximately.
Re:Not the full OS (Score:3, Insightful)
Several companies have released (under GPL or otherwise) software that they don't legally have to. Apple (Darwin) is a prominent example.
Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)
If they had not released the source would buy their products again...
If they had not released the source, they would be breaking the law. The world is still holding its breath for the first case of the FSF kicking ass in court.
Wireless is subject to FCC regulations (Score:5, Insightful)
What I want, and what I know many other people want, is an 802.11g driver.
Many makers of 802.11g cards cannot lawfully provide such a driver under various radio frequency emission regulations. Because it's more expensive to build interlocks that prevent over-powered transmissions in hardware than in software, many cards implement the interlocks only in the driver. This makes it a bit harder to justify getting FCC approval for a driver for each platform.
Linksys has one. They choose not to release it?
Is it Linksys's choice, or is the Federal Communications Commission's choice to delay approval?
Re:Not the full OS (Score:3, Insightful)
How else is Linksys going to distinguish itself from the rest of the Taiwanese crowd?
Re:gpl strikes again (Score:5, Insightful)
BSD: free as in 'Look someone else did our work for us, and we don't have to give anything back'
Umm. Look, this is EXACTLY what BSD developers expect. This why it's released BSD. Shall I break out the dictionary definition of free? I'll give you a hint, it means having no restrictions. The GPL is very much a restriction. It is a very different philosophy than BSD and public domain code. It is in no way free as in the definition of the word.
Rather, it caters to a specific ideology, namely that of the FSF. Granted, you may consider GPL to be free, and it is certainly freer than proprietary software, but it is not quite as free as BSD and public domain.
You can be selfish and require people to share with you if you like. But, statements like yours are really irritating to those of us who want to give our code away for free.
The guys comment was very informative given the news story. Linksys doesn't want to 'share' with you. They shouldn't have used GPL code then, but rather BSD code. Right?
And please don't go on about how they *should* share. They are under no obligation to do so, if they did the country they operate from would certainly not be considered a free country anymore.
Re:gpl strikes again (Score:1, Insightful)
Freedom is created by having laws/rules. Without laws/rules there is no such thing as freedom because someone can trample another with no consequences.
If you want to enjoy the freedoms of a society then you are expected to contribute to that society by paying taxes, upholding the laws, etc. It is dishonest to expect to enjoy freedoms of speech, religion, etc. without being required to obey the laws that create that freedom.
The rule that creates the freedom of the GPL is that distributed binaries must be accompanied by the source.
If you want to have the freedom to use the source in your product then you have to play by the rules. Linksys is playing by the rules because they want the freedom to use the source in their product.
If you don't want to play by the rules then find another sandbox to play in - just don't expect the same freedom there.
Re:A wireless network. For a dorm room. (Score:3, Insightful)
I often use my wireless connection sitting just a few yards from my access point. Sure beats dealing with a cable.
Re:gpl strikes again (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know if I'd consider that too selfish. Sometimes, code takes a lot of effort to design, write, test etc. And I think some return on that investment is not an unreasonable desire. Is it selfish to go to your employer at the end of the day and ask for a paycheck? A share of the value that both of you have produced together?
Some software I release under the BSD license. I do this when I don't ever want to hear from that particular piece of software again. Some software is released under the GPL. Still other stuff goes out as Public Domain. But please don't tell me I'm selfish because I sometimes want the user community to share back with me what I've shared with them in the first place.
I don't understand how people get into mildly flamey discussions like this. Nobody asked or forced Linksys to use Linux and other GPL'd software as the basis of their AP. They chose to do it, nodoubt for reasons of their own, and initially at least, decided not to stick to the letter with the terms of the license. They could have chosen BSD. They didn't. I'm sure they were aware of the licensing differences at the time.
Now, hypothetically, do you think if they'd used BSD, they would have been good little angels, dilligently having their binaries displaying your copyright notice as clause two mandates? I honestly don't think so. I think they would have just appropriated the source as 'freeware', which it certainly isn't, and then we might have had the same scenes we're seeing here, but a little more low key.
YLFI
P.S.: I like *BSD. I like the license too. But I feel that the attitude behind the license is largely influenced by its tumultuous history intertwined with AT&T up until 1988. I think the fact that the BSD folks got to bootstrap their way up from earlier Unix sources ( and the misappropriation by AT&T of same BSD sources ) has led to a somewhat fuzzier perception of where their work ends and the work of others begins, and a less territorial mentality than the second wave GPL developers.
These are just some thoughts. I apologise for any factual innacuracies in the above... I believe I was still playing cricket in the backyard and jumping off wharves when all this was going on.
Re:Nice, but not a ton of info from it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Provided you are modifying the unit for your own purposes and not redistributing the Liksys binary code, how exactly does this qualify as pirating?
Personally, I run my business on Linux and have implemented it in several companies where the Linux system itself was replacing a pirated copy of Linux.
I can only assume you are trolling here...
Re:Nice, but not a ton of info from it. (Score:5, Insightful)
They should've used NetBSD if they don't like the GPL and releasing the source.
Re:What linksys didnt release is... (Score:3, Insightful)
GCC: (GNU) 3.0 20010422 (prerelease) with bcm4710a0 modifications
I don't follow GCC versions that closely. Does that indicate a customized (non-public) version of GCC?
Any reason to think that a current GCC 3.xx won't work with this target hardware?
Re:Ah, Linksys (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wireless is subject to FCC regulations (Score:4, Insightful)
Irrelevant. The ISDN subsystem of Linux has exactly the same problem (well, even worse, regulation is stricter in the old telco world), and there is source code. Some versions have even been certified, and it's legal to run them on public networks.
great, but what about the WPC54G? (Score:3, Insightful)