Does the Asus EeePC violate the Linux GPL?

A group of Linux users have spoken out against Asus and their apparent non-compliance with certain aspects of the General Public License attached to Xandros Linux distro that comes with the Eee PC. This flustered controversy centers around Asus modifying a module of the Linux kernel without distributing the source code, something that breaks the rules of the license. Your average Eee PC owner isn't going to give a damn about such a trivial point, so end users can safely ignore this debate. As for whether Asus will step up and do what it should have done from day one, that'll depend on how loud the developers involved make their case. Type harder guys!

[Via Slashdot]

[john @ Nov 25th 2007 2:50PM]

There's also noise on the ClamAV mailing lists that Xandros bundles an anti-virus program that is basically ClamAV with the name changed ... and they don't distribute the source to that, EITHER.

[shamrock593 @ Nov 26th 2007 9:13AM]

Archos players also run Linux, and isn't distributed (well last time I checked anyway).

[Erwos @ Nov 25th 2007 2:52PM]

It'll depend on "how loud they make their case"? Those devs could take Asus to court over this and get an injunction against selling the eeePC. This is deadly serious stuff.

[arthur barnhouse @ Nov 25th 2007 3:00PM]

yeah, that completely untested GPL is going to knock asus right on its ass. Because it wouldn't cost millions of dollars to sue about this, so it should be pretty easy to get things started.

[OpenSource @ Nov 25th 2007 4:28PM]

@arthur barnhouse
You obviously have not been paying attention to the news and how the SFLC sued Monsoon Media for not redistributing their modified source code with their hardware.
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3973290690.html

[charlie @ Nov 25th 2007 5:28PM]

The GPL has been tested in court, see Drewtech vs SAE.

[applefreak @ Nov 25th 2007 3:01PM]

to steal a line from Bill Cosby
"You be got to be kidding me"

[brad @ Nov 25th 2007 3:09PM]

or
"kids say the darndest things"

[Mile @ Nov 25th 2007 3:58PM]

or
"Jello Pudding"

[bjrcboy @ Nov 25th 2007 4:23PM]

Or the pokey and the mon and the uh uh uh.

[Paris @ Nov 25th 2007 3:05PM]

Asus should do the descent thing and release the source code.

[BigBirdUK @ Nov 25th 2007 3:20PM]

I'm confused how Asus going subterranean would help matters in any shape or form?

[jordan @ Nov 25th 2007 3:08PM]

This is very similar to the Linksys wrt54g issue. when they first came out, they had some GPL'd software, and they were pressured to release the source (which they apparently did).

If Asus releases the source to what they changed averything will be good and Asus will be popular among linux users for the decision.

[thinmac @ Nov 25th 2007 3:14PM]

I don't think the "average EeePC user" should just ignore this debate. If you're aware that someone who makes a cool product which breaks the law in such a way that it stifles future cool products, people really ought to vote with their feet.

While I love the EeePC, and want to buy one myself, I won't be doing so until they step up and share their code, just like everyone else does. Unless people do that, linux (in the larger sense) stops working, and if it stops working it'll stop being a useful tool for companies like Asus, and for users in general, not just developers.

That said, I don't think you can expect any end users to care at all. Most folks these days are O.K. with turning a blind eye to human rights violations incurred in the process of producing the things we buy, so who's going to give a damn about software politics?

[tiuk @ Nov 25th 2007 3:36PM]

Couldn't agree more. It's a fine example of the many things that are wrong with this world.

[Matt @ Nov 25th 2007 3:53PM]

The GPL is not the law. It is a contract and licence, legally binding, yes, but not the law.

[Bootes @ Nov 26th 2007 2:02AM]

And breaking a contract is against the law.

[Zale @ Nov 25th 2007 3:33PM]

I thought that anything that challenged Microsoft's market share was a copyright violation in some form or fashion. It would not surprise me if Ballmer were stirring this up a bit.

Long live Tux!

[Randavance @ Nov 25th 2007 3:35PM]

This shouldn't even be a debate. This is theft. Asus needs to own up and dish out a little measly code if they want to use the hard work that was contributed by the community.

[Chris @ Nov 25th 2007 3:44PM]

Granted I don't know the ins-and-outs of GPL or GNU or whatever... but this seems to be popping up a little too much all over the tech nets for a Holiday weekend (or any weekend for the matter.) Slow news much?

You have a major company that's released an Ultra Portable Very Open Linux machine as a mass market device, and a few sites are going nuts over some technical point that the non-initiated can't even understand.

This is a corporation, why not wait for Monday or Tuesday before all you techno-elites get all up in arms.

Is there any reason why they shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt that they'll set things straight still at this point?

[kev @ Nov 25th 2007 3:48PM]

Mainly because there was licensing information in the code they modified, and they removed it. That shows intent, not an "oopsie".

[ryan @ Nov 25th 2007 3:53PM]

kev,

If they haven't released the source, how would you know if the license was removed from it?

[kev @ Nov 25th 2007 4:34PM]

ryan: disassembly

[theycallmetak @ Nov 25th 2007 5:49PM]

This is NOT some trifling technical point that the non-initiated cannot understand. Do like 10 seconds of research before you post nonsense like this.

Here, I'll save you the keystrokes:

The foundation of GPL,

* the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
* the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors,
* the freedom to change the software to suit your needs, and
* the freedom to share the changes you make.

Developers who write software can release it under the terms of the GNU GPL. When they do, it will be free software and stay free software, no matter who changes or distributes the program. We call this copyleft: the software is copyrighted, but instead of using those rights to restrict users like proprietary software does, we use them to ensure that every user has freedom.

Not that hard is it?

This info's been out since at least Wednesday. Not a long time, granted, but how long would it take to release the source code and attributions?

[hh @ Nov 25th 2007 6:09PM]

Agreed.

[ryan @ Nov 25th 2007 7:09PM]

kev

You can't recover comments through disassembly.

[kev @ Nov 25th 2007 9:22PM]

ryan: totally agree that comments won't show, but in the kernel module in question the info has been defined. the allegation is that they took asus_acpi.ko, modified it, renamed it, and removed the attribution strings which are in the kernel module itself (not as comments)

from the disassembled asus_acpi.ko from centos4

modinfo:080014A0 __mod_author74 db 'author=Julien Lerouge, Karol Kozimor',0
.modinfo:080014E0 __mod_description75 db 'description=Asus Laptop ACPI Extras Driver',0
.modinfo:0800150B __mod_license76 db 'license=GPL',0

[ryan @ Nov 26th 2007 9:03AM]

kev,

Ahh, I see. Gracias.

[dhughes @ Nov 25th 2007 3:46PM]

I wonder if Asus is going "Eeee!"

[kev @ Nov 25th 2007 3:46PM]

I think it's worse than just not releasing source, because they went so far as to strip the author and license information from the module(s). They created a derivative work and didn't even acknowledge it as such. That's kind of like taking the truck away from the kid who has the nice toy truck and is sharing it with every one else in the sandbox, and then kicking him in the balls for good measure.

Nice job, Asus.

[kristofer brozio @ Nov 25th 2007 4:02PM]

I don't get it really... *nux distros are getting some very big promotion lately from some big companies, and they are complaining about it more and more it seems.. Shouldn't they be happy with all the exposure they are getting, they're essentially finally going 'mainstream'. With a company like Asus widely promoting their product OS they now have a nice chance at getting some of the exposure and recognition they deserve. Yes I do understand that it's a violation of the GPL etc, but I think we're making a big deal of something that doesn't need to be such a big deal. Give Asus a chance to explain their actions before pulling out the torches and pitchforks. Also look at it this way, everyone is making such a big fuss about all of this, what could just be a mistake, other companies see this bad publicity and they might think twice about doing something similar with a linux distro and their products becuase they are afriad if they don't cross all the t's and dot all their i's they'll get the same condemnation from the community...

[kev @ Nov 25th 2007 4:10PM]

And most companies are not stupid enough to make a 'mistake' like that if they've got a strong foothold in the software industry. They'll go for LGPL-licensed code if they feel like modifying it to their heart's content and then releasing it as part of their package without the source.

The validity and authority of GPL must be kept at the highest level possible, for the sake of the software development world, and for the authors of the code. If they, the authors, wished for the code to be published, then their wishes should be recognized.

Any violations, even by those who may not produce nearly as much software as the bigger titans like MS, or the financial firms, must be reported. The use of the GPL-licensed Linux kernel is not an exception.

On a side note, there are more than one kevs? Yaay!

[kev @ Nov 25th 2007 4:35PM]

it's totally true. there are many. :)

(t'other kev)

[Julio Lajara @ Nov 25th 2007 4:09PM]

Has anyone posting comments or even the people here at engadget even taken a look at the license for Xandros? Its not the typical GPL license. Yes, most of the backend it uses is open sourced, however Xandros's developers have added portions on top of that which are not open source but their own proprietary work (contrary to open source ideology).

Thus if they do release the code to this, it will only be whatever code was open source already since this company seems to like making their stuff proprietary instead of open source, which they have the right to do on any code they develop themselves.

This Linux developing company is very sketchy however, as they have one completely open source version of their OS, stripped of their proprietary components, yet when you ask to download it, they supply you with their propriety demo version and say the open source version is currently not available. Now theres one for another article Engadge, I dare you to try to get your hands on it... doubt you ever will!

[tuskentower @ Nov 27th 2007 12:05PM]

Has anyone posting comments or even the people here at engadget even taken a look at the license for Xandros?

Xandros's license has no bearing in this regard. If you use GPL'ed programs you must provide the source. No ifs ands or buts about it. The GPL is about making access to software source code free.

[jus10 @ Nov 25th 2007 5:09PM]

The asus_acpi module is in the linux kernel. The one on the eee is modified. The asus_acpi module is GPL licensed. The modifications must be released as part of the terms of the GPL.

Its not that complicated.

I purged Xandros off the eee about 5 minutes after I got it for Ubuntu. I have to use ndiswrapper but I haven't had any issues with it.

[ethana2 @ Nov 25th 2007 6:54PM]

acpi is pretty important. This Toshiba Satellite can't do power management correctly at all, and the sooner it gets fixed the better.

I fully expect that ASUS will release the code soon, and people will cool off. What we're doing right now is holding them accountable for their actions, and I don't see any reason why they wouldn't do what's right here. Give them a day or two.

[Tired_ @ Nov 25th 2007 5:14PM]

Is it possible they stripped the credits/attribution stuff out to make more room on that tiny SSD? When your OS takes up 3/4 of your non-expandable hard drive size, every little bit helps...

[matt @ Nov 25th 2007 5:15PM]

First of all, It is not the 'Linux GPL'. The GPL is used to licence many pieces of software, one of the most notable being the linux kernel.

This is an important issue, as IF there is infringing code, then that would be breaking the licence Asus entered into when they chose to use that code.

[akidan @ Nov 26th 2007 12:46AM]

Actually, it is the Linux GPL, matt. The Linux GPL is different, in that you are only allowed to use version 2 of the GPL. The standard GPL allows you to use version 2, or any higher version. So, most GPL software you can treat as v3 GPL even if it was licensed under v2, but not the Linux source.

[Paul @ Nov 25th 2007 5:34PM]

It only makes sense that as Linux is growing more and more popular that this kind of case would come up. Which is why it is even more crucial for Asus to release the code so that other cases can follow suit. This will only enable the power of Linux as time goes on.

[theycallmetak @ Nov 25th 2007 11:36PM]

Thanks for clarifying the inner workings of corporate America and how they do or do not work on holidays.

Asus is a Taiwanese company.

[Chris @ Nov 25th 2007 6:26PM]

Ok.

People some people here may not understand how corporations work. Ok, it's been known since Wednesday. Thursday through present is Thanksgiving in the US. They probably aren't going to do anything now that linux people are so excited without talking to US attorneys, which I imagine have been on vacation. So no time has yet passed in the Corporate World.

To the other point. Contracts do not equal Freedom. Contracts are usually binding. You can not be bound and still be free.

Doensn't mean the GPL ain't great. but freedom it ain't either.

Freedom sounds nice. But very few people seem to really want freedom.

[ToniCipriani @ Nov 25th 2007 6:10PM]

Page is in Chinese, but the links are the Eee PC source code for download...

http://vip.asus.com/forum/view.aspx?id=20071024134655015&board_id=20&model=Eee+PC+4G(701)&page=1&SLanguage=zh-tw

[bob @ Nov 25th 2007 11:25PM]

Nice find!

[theycallmetak @ Nov 25th 2007 11:41PM]

That was a nice find!

I think the problem wasn't finding it, it's finding the modifications and attributions...

[ToniCipriani @ Nov 25th 2007 11:49PM]

Well the thing is, were there requirements in GPL that states any changes must be documented? I thought it only says that the source code must be provided. I know Linksys has that, but AFAIK it's not documented.

[James @ Nov 25th 2007 8:22PM]

Entry!

[Lou @ Nov 25th 2007 10:55PM]

I don't see why people are whinnying. The Linux community is only trying to defend itself and the rules it's been playing by for the last decades while others didn't quite see the interest in it.

Now that MS is slowly dying, all of a sudden attention is going towards linux, witch I think is a good thing as it's a very viable option. The people protecting these licenses are basically making sure that the os (well mostly it's kernel) is still going for the public, not to big companies... as it could quite rapidly taken over.

[ByronGman @ Nov 26th 2007 12:30AM]

My friend, despite what you might think, Microsoft is far from dying or beginning to die.

I'll admit they have f#@$%! some stuff up recently, but honestly what company hasn't? And considering the potential inroads they can make with the Zune and Xbox franchises, the company is far from dead.