3 ms·

German router maker is latest company to inadvertently clarify the LGPL license

64 points by tapper 2y ago

tetris11 2y ago
Aren't firmwares for Fritzboxes provided by the Freetz-NG project? https://freetz-ng.github.io/freetz-ng/FIRMWARES.html https://freetz-ng.github.io/freetz-ng/FIRMWARES.html
- philkrylov 2y ago
  The link shows a list of firmwares. The actual sources are at https://github.com/Freetz-NG/freetz-ng https://github.com/Freetz-NG/freetz-ng - but it's not the original FritzBox firmware sources: > Freetz is a toolbox for developers and experienced users to build a modified firmware based on the original firmware for the DSL/LAN/WLAN/VoIP-Routers AVM Fritz!Box and T-Com Speedport (identical hardware) and to transfer this firmware to the device. There are many extension packages available, along with options to remove unwanted functionality from the original firmware.
- hulitu 2y ago
  No. Fritzbox is proprietary.
jcarrano 2y ago
I understand this is just the last instance of a series of (L)GPL violation on the part of AVM. The irony is that with each lost case, AVM strengthens the reputation of the Germany legal system in copyleft cases.
ksec 2y ago
>"The favorable result of this lawsuit exemplifies the power of copyleft—granting users the freedom to modify, repair, and secure the software on their own devices," I am not entirely sure that is what LGPL is about. Unless the router was specifically sold as Open Source. I thought the whole reason for LGPL is that you could use it with other proprietary code?
- rincebrain 2y ago
  In particular, (L)GPL3 require that you be able to reproduce the binaries that you were given, more or less - the anti-TiVo clauses. The article suggests that AVM provided some code but not the build tooling or scripts needed to produce a useful firmware image out of them, or documentation around various opaque variables required for the build, and since they're required to do that, here we are.
solarkraft 2y ago
It’s a bummer that AVM, while being actually very techie-friendly, is a bit weird about its firmware.

64 points by tapper 2y ago

Aren't firmwares for Fritzboxes provided by the Freetz-NG project? https://freetz-ng.github.io/freetz-ng/FIRMWARES.html https://freetz-ng.github.io/freetz-ng/FIRMWARES.html

philkrylov 2y ago
The link shows a list of firmwares. The actual sources are at https://github.com/Freetz-NG/freetz-ng https://github.com/Freetz-NG/freetz-ng - but it's not the original FritzBox firmware sources: > Freetz is a toolbox for developers and experienced users to build a modified firmware based on the original firmware for the DSL/LAN/WLAN/VoIP-Routers AVM Fritz!Box and T-Com Speedport (identical hardware) and to transfer this firmware to the device. There are many extension packages available, along with options to remove unwanted functionality from the original firmware.
hulitu 2y ago
No. Fritzbox is proprietary.

jcarrano 2y ago

I understand this is just the last instance of a series of (L)GPL violation on the part of AVM. The irony is that with each lost case, AVM strengthens the reputation of the Germany legal system in copyleft cases.

ksec 2y ago

>"The favorable result of this lawsuit exemplifies the power of copyleft—granting users the freedom to modify, repair, and secure the software on their own devices," I am not entirely sure that is what LGPL is about. Unless the router was specifically sold as Open Source. I thought the whole reason for LGPL is that you could use it with other proprietary code?

rincebrain 2y ago
In particular, (L)GPL3 require that you be able to reproduce the binaries that you were given, more or less - the anti-TiVo clauses. The article suggests that AVM provided some code but not the build tooling or scripts needed to produce a useful firmware image out of them, or documentation around various opaque variables required for the build, and since they're required to do that, here we are.

solarkraft 2y ago

It’s a bummer that AVM, while being actually very techie-friendly, is a bit weird about its firmware.