Licensing Violations

If this is a set of builds provided by a seed and there are no additions to the source the this is compliant as the seed counts as the "source" for the build.

Please contact the FSF if you feel that this is really an issue, they have the right means to talk to people and reach an agreement. Trolling developers on forums is a terrible way to enforce the GPL.

1 Like

I don't see any trolling going on here. Jeff helpfully pointed out how easy it is to violate the GPL, and others got super defensive.

The GPL is explicit, you need to either distribute the code or give a 3-year guarantee.

5 Likes

FSF Licensing and Compliance...

https://www.fsf.org/licensing/

1 Like

how these discussions always have to end up so emotionally charge, ugh

thx, Jeff, for making us all aware.
I don't think he's trolling, he just wants to help the community to be more GPL compliant. (yes, they are no companies, but the GPL freedom comes with a price)

I know, not LEDE, but I was wondering lately, whether https://waifu2x.booru.pics/ is actually violating the MIT license, since it doesn't provide it to the user?
It very likely uses the code of:
https://github.com/nagadomi/waifu2x/blob/master/LICENSE
(that project's website is hosted on Amazon and therefore often down lately, because the free slots are used up, they don't pay Amazon for their gpu server, so the first link is a good alternative, it's just unknown by whom the website is and whether the code was used)

Websites are some sort of copies, right?

I have an interesting question now...

  • I download OpenWRT
  • I flash my router
  • The manufacturer no longer has a copy of the stock firmware available
  • I then sell my router
  • I realize that I never possessed the source code...nor do I know where to gather the exact versions, exact build scrips, patches, etc. to re-build it.

So:

Am I "distributing" the GPL software in this instance?

and

Would you all suggest that - to be safe in this instance, that I build a custom firmware in order to make a TAR of the build directory?

You might consider asking the FSF. Their contact info...

Have a question that you couldn’t find the answer to? For general free software licensing questions please email licensing@fsf.org

I would trust their judgement more than "some poster on the Internet".

2 Likes

Fom Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses:

I downloaded just the binary from the net. If I distribute copies, do I have to get the source and distribute that too?
Yes. The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where you received a written offer for source code is quite limited.

However, I do not think you need to build a custom firmware, as the sources for any release are quite easy to trace.

1 Like

I've seen that part of the FAQ...but this part becomes my concern:

So...what procedure exists for us to completely copy every source, patch and makefile - unless we attempt to build a custom firmware?

I don't believe you are distributing binaries, it is like selling a used PC with Ubuntu installed.

1 Like

i think that hit it on the nail

openwrt and lede comply and if anybody needs source it is available
i don't think the idea of GPL is to clog the internet with the same code over and over again

but is there a way to refer to lede or openwrt source code in a simple and legal way?
that would be nice and answer the question.

1 Like

For GPL You have to either provide the code for example on a CD or DVD, or provide a written offer to provide the code on request for 3 years... There's nothing mysterious here. If you don't want to offer a tarball on your website then you need to at least be willing and able to make one on demand for 3 years.

1 Like

So my question would be:

With every build there is a revision of the build
If we have a mechanism to retrieve this source code from GitHub We should be fine.

Is this something GitHub has as an option to do?

If yes we should be ok.
All we need to provide is a link to the revision source code (Maybe something we need to create)

It is self referencing. You are not distributing openWRT you are merely installing. This obviously only applies to binaries released by the project it self. Once you create your own binaries that no longer applies.

root@LEDE-DGN3500:/etc# cat device_info
DEVICE_MANUFACTURER='LEDE'
DEVICE_MANUFACTURER_URL='http://lede-project.org/'
DEVICE_PRODUCT='Generic'
DEVICE_REVISION='v0'
root@LEDE-DGN3500:/etc# cat openwrt_release
DISTRIB_ID='LEDE'
DISTRIB_RELEASE='17.01.4'
DISTRIB_REVISION='r3560-79f57e422d'
DISTRIB_CODENAME='reboot'
DISTRIB_TARGET='lantiq/xway'
DISTRIB_ARCH='mips_24kc'
DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION='LEDE Reboot 17.01.4 r3560-79f57e422d'
DISTRIB_TAINTS='no-all'

If you sell a router on which you have installed openwrt, then you ARE distributing it and you must supply source or a written guarantee to get the source for 3 years.

Greetings,

I believe that is nicely handled on the Openwrt.org main page.

Seems straightforward to me.

So does the wording in the README and LICENSE files that is prominently posted in each staged tree.

Reading the last paragraph of section 3. of the license file may provide insight for those questioning the "requirement" of supplying source:

https://git.openwrt.org/?p=openwrt/openwrt.git;a=blob_plain;f=LICENSE;hb=refs/tags/v17.01.4

In regards to the OP's statement - supplying a compiled target for personal use or evaluation in conjunction with a given project does not constitute "distributing". Further, you are FREE not to install, or otherwise utilize, said compiled target on your hardware.

This is called 'Freedom', as in right to choose: not 'Free', in regards to the GPL.

Unless you are a lawyer with extensive copyright law experience I seriously doubt this interpretation. Whenever one person gives a binary copy of the software to another person the first person is distributing the second person is receiving. It's the distributor who has obligations.

How? The author has freedom to make any changes privately to code (per the GPL), and is not required to release them - I cannot 'compel' the author to make said changes available, if the author chooses not to do so. Until the author decides to release the changes into the Public Domain in accordance with the GPL, they retain copyright.

I guess we are talking different use-cases here: downloading a compiled target for a specific platform, where the author has offered & posted the binary on a development forum for 'evalation and review' (read: not general Public Distribution) it is -my- decision to accept the offer to install and run the compiled target. I can always choose not to do so.

Yes as the person who downloads the software you have freedom to do what you like with it provided you don't transfer possession to a third party. However as the person who posts the software for download, as soon as someone else downloads it, the poster is distributing, and that person is required to offer the downloader the source either with the binary or for a period of 3 years, on demand.

so in otherwords, make your own firmware, or dont tell anyone where you got your source from :slight_smile:

If that was true, then OpenWrt would never have existed... This project was born when people noticed Linksys was selling a router (WRT54G) that contained an opensource-based firmware, and demanded the sorce code for it.

2 Likes