Asus Corrects Eee PC Source Code Issue 157
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."
ASUS: Brilliant Marketing Strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Impatient, Are We? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right? (Score:3, Insightful)
They need to do more than calm down (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Impatient, Are We? (Score:3, Insightful)
[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.
Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
"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:They're going to release the SAME code, right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:just don't bother (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Free publicity (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they get free publicity for doing the right thing, which, unfortunately, is uncommon amongst the business world.
Re:They need to do more than calm down (Score:5, Insightful)
Left hand, right hand? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right? (Score:2, Insightful)
As it happens he is slightly incorrect, but his basic point -- that it is possible to resolve a GPL violation without releasing code -- is valid.
The situation is that a GPL violation is like any other copyright violation. It can be resolved in two ways: either the violator can obtain a license from the copyright holder, or the violator must cease and desist the violation and pay damages. In the case of GPL violations, what typically happens is that the copyright holder says "comply with the GPL and you will have a license to use this code", so the violator complies with the GPL and everyone's happy. But it is entirely plausible that a violation could be resolved by the violator withdrawing the product or rewriting code to remove the infringing sections. The only slight flaw in the GP's statement is that this in itself would not necessarily be the end of the story, because the copyright holders could still demand monetary damages to compensate them for the violation.
Re:They're going to release the SAME code, right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ASUS: Brilliant Marketing Strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
Re:Impatient, Are We? (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Last minute changes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That Extra Mile (Score:3, Insightful)
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 connects the binary-only component to the kernel is clearly a derived work, and those shims are GPL'd.
Even that case, however, hasn't survived a test in court. None of the Linux copyright holders have pressed the issue. If one of them did, it's not clear what would happen.
I agree, thought I wouldn't use the word "infection", because it's not accurate. It's not that being linked to the kernel forces the madwifi code to be distributed under the GPL's terms, it's that unless the madwifi code is distributed that way, the Linux kernel code can't be distributed. If anything, the "infection" goes the other direction. The presence of the madwifi code distributed without source "infects" the rest of the kernel it's connected to and cause the GPL to be inapplicable to it in this case. Without the GPL's permission, of course, Asus has no legal right to distribute the kernel code, even though they can distribute the madwifi code without source or an offer of source (in compliance with the BSD license).
Absolutely. I suspect they will, and probably without much -- if any -- fuss. That's the best outcome for everyone.
Re:They need to do more than calm down (Score:3, Insightful)
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 dialog, the other is making angry Slashdot posts -- I'm not certain the latter is in any position to give lectures about losing one's virginity.