4 ms·

In Germany, Harald Welte has taken on several hardware vendors over GPL violations. I wonder why vendors that build, like, SOHO routers and Wifi access points

by krylon 11y ago

In Germany, Harald Welte has taken on several hardware vendors over GPL violations. I wonder why vendors that build, like, SOHO routers and Wifi access points go through the effort it takes to violate the GPL instead of using a BSD base (where making modifications to the codebase and keeping them closed is at least legal). It's kind of like breaking into bank while next door there is a guy giving money away for free.

jordigh 11y ago
As I was reading your sentence "go through the effort it takes to violate the GPL instead of..." I was expecting the "instead of" to be just publish the necessary source code. That seems pretty easy to me. It's probably easier than trying to get non-GPL versions of things like Linux, which tends to have more widespread hardware support (like, a full set of drivers) than, say, NetBSD. And I say "probably" because I expect these companies have been taking the easy way out. The BSDs still have to rely on Linux compatibility layers in order to use Linux drivers, right?
- chei0aiV 11y ago
  The BSDs have their own drivers, they don't use Linux drivers.
  - jordigh 11y ago
    Isn't the nvidia blob used through a Linux compatibility layer?
SwellJoe 11y ago
Because Linux has a stronger ecosystem for many tasks, and the kind of people that don't want to put forth any effort to comply with the license is highly correlated with being the kind of person who doesn't want to work on anything hard. If Linux has the radio driver already and BSD doesn't, the decision is already made, from their perspective. There are other factors, sure, and if I were a company that didn't want to comply with the GPL, I'd certainly be using BSD code instead. But, if the "free money" at the bank next door requires them to work, they aren't doing it. They seem to reckon that stealing GPL code is the path of least resistance. Which, I guess, is why enforcement of the GPL is so important; without making it cost something to violate the GPL, there's no motivation for companies to be good citizens in the Free software community. It also seems like enforcement of the GPL is good for BSD (or, at least, good for BSD adoption, if not for contribution, since these are folks who don't want to expend even a tiny amount of effort/money to contribute back, which is why there's a violation in the first place), since the effort/cost for making BSD-licensed stuff work for these companies doesn't change as the cost of making GPL work goes up.

by krylon 11y ago

jordigh 11y ago

As I was reading your sentence "go through the effort it takes to violate the GPL instead of..." I was expecting the "instead of" to be just publish the necessary source code. That seems pretty easy to me. It's probably easier than trying to get non-GPL versions of things like Linux, which tends to have more widespread hardware support (like, a full set of drivers) than, say, NetBSD. And I say "probably" because I expect these companies have been taking the easy way out. The BSDs still have to rely on Linux compatibility layers in order to use Linux drivers, right?

chei0aiV 11y ago
The BSDs have their own drivers, they don't use Linux drivers.
- jordigh 11y ago
  Isn't the nvidia blob used through a Linux compatibility layer?

SwellJoe 11y ago

Because Linux has a stronger ecosystem for many tasks, and the kind of people that don't want to put forth any effort to comply with the license is highly correlated with being the kind of person who doesn't want to work on anything hard. If Linux has the radio driver already and BSD doesn't, the decision is already made, from their perspective. There are other factors, sure, and if I were a company that didn't want to comply with the GPL, I'd certainly be using BSD code instead. But, if the "free money" at the bank next door requires them to work, they aren't doing it. They seem to reckon that stealing GPL code is the path of least resistance. Which, I guess, is why enforcement of the GPL is so important; without making it cost something to violate the GPL, there's no motivation for companies to be good citizens in the Free software community. It also seems like enforcement of the GPL is good for BSD (or, at least, good for BSD adoption, if not for contribution, since these are folks who don't want to expend even a tiny amount of effort/money to contribute back, which is why there's a violation in the first place), since the effort/cost for making BSD-licensed stuff work for these companies doesn't change as the cost of making GPL work goes up.