[luau] that crazy GPL stuff...

[kmayer at bitwrangler.com]

Charles Lockhart <lockhart at jeans.ifa.hawaii.edu> wrote:

> q1. ... What I'm not understanding is the context for this case: the
> code is running on Linksys routers, it's not like they're releasing a
> software product.  It's an integrated package, the software in
> question wouldn't be run by a user.  Ultimately, I don't understand
> it, but is that the same thing as somebody writing a software program
> meant for distribution and violating the GPL?

[ I had to go and read the Forbes article -- Cisco bought Linksys,
Linksys is using a Broadcom chip, which has some GPL'd code on it -- FSF
wants all the players to abide by the GPL or remove the GPL'd code. I'd
say that is standard operating procedure for FSF ]

Some of this might be in the GPL FAQ, but the essentials are that some
code written by Broadcom is derived from GPL'd code, therefore
Broadcom's code is also GPL'd. They must release it. It doesn't matter
whether the code runs on embedded hardware or off the shelf ix86
parts. They are obligated to release the source code (that doesn't mean
they have to make it portable to other hardware, but they are giving
away intellectual property that they, Broadcom, developed).

Cisco, of course, would rather not give away the intellectual property
that they paid $500 million for.

> So am I right in thinking that if a group (such as Cisco/Linksys in
> this case) violates the GPL, it's known, and nobody does anything
> about it, it sort of invalidates the GPL, at least maybe for that
> particular thing, and maybe just overall?  And so the FSF pretty much
> has to go after anybody they know who violates the GPL, in order to
> maintain it's validity?

Yeah, you have to enforce your copyrights. But that's what the FSF is
there for.

I think the Forbes article was pretty heavy handed. Broadcom got a free
ride on what is arguably millions of dollars of technology, and now
they're balking at the terms.