Asus clarifies Eee PC GPL issues, says omission was a mistake
By Nilay Patel 
posted Nov 28th 2007 1:09PM
posted Nov 28th 2007 1:09PM
We never really assumed foul play by Asus when it was discovered that the Eee's Linux source package was missing the ACPI module, especially after Asus released it with little fanfare soon after it was first noticed -- and now the company has released a statement formally calling the omission a mistake. Asus also said it's working to publish all the Eee's source in the appropriate forums, and that it intends to respect "the spirit of the GPL." Which is great and all, but considering how much time Asus had to sort this out, you'd think they'd have their ducks in a row.[Via TG Daily]
I'm confused. Isn't Linux GPL v2 and thus nobody is bound to release their sourcecode for it.
And does GPL v3 mean that if I write an app that runs on Ubuntu (for example) I'm going to be forced to release the sourcecode?
This is exactly why I don't use anything GPL in any of my projects commercial or for fun.
As for your GPLv3 comment I seem to remember Linus Torvalds saying he had no plans in taking Linux to GPL v3 (I could be wrong). The folks wouldn't be able to re-release GPL v2 as GPLv3, only code they "own"
Linux the kernel is GPL v2, not Linux the operating system
if i am not mistaken. GPL means you MUST show source code. that is the point of GPL!
as for GPLv3, i think it has to do with opening specs for hardware as well... but i could be wrong...
If you create applications that run on Ubuntu (or any other Linux distro), you don't have to release the source code. You can use whatever license you want with your applications.
However, if you use the source code of a GPL'ed application in your own application, you must release your own application under GPL, too (and release the source). Same goes if you modify a GPL'ed program and release the it (which is what Asus has basiaclly done)
There's no such thing as "Linux the operating system"...
I'm confused. Isn't Linux GPL v2 and thus nobody is bound to release their sourcecode for it.
You are confused. All iterations of the GPL require that source code be made available to all people that are given access to the binaries of GPL'd code and its derivatives, and that all derivative works be licensed under the GPL.
Oh god, this is a complex beast.
When you write code, you have a number of licenses to release it under (some popular ones are GPL, LGPL, BSD (and its variants), etc). You can also write your own license if you so choose - YOU get to decide if/how other people get to use your software.
If you license your code under GPL, and somebody builds a program using your GPL'd code, they will have to:
a) Release the code they write under GPL as well
b) Negotiate a different commercial licensing deal with you, if they don't want to release their code (like when commercial products use GPL'd code)
c) Ignore the license, and you deal with them in court
If you write a library and license it under the LGPL, and somebody uses your library, then they don't have to release their own code - they only have to release modifications they make to your code. That's why it is called either the "Lesser GPL" or "Library GPL."
GPLv2 and GPLv3 are different licenses with different restrictions - explaining them is outside the scope of this discussion. Tthough, for the purpose of this discussion, the intent of GPLv2 and GPLv3 are the same. The Linux kernel is released under GPLv2 because Linus Torvalds (who wrote the original kernel and is still its maintainer) has a few problems with GPLv2.
Thanks guys
OK, let's do the quick summary of the GPL.
The only time you have to apply the GPL to code you've written is when you have incorporated into your appplication code which is itself licensed under the GPL; and then distributed your application to someone else.
If you don't distribute your application then you can do what you like.
If you don't include or link to GPL code you can do what you like.
Running on a GPL kernel doesn't count. Using a GPL compiler doesn't count. Even if you link to a GPL library then most are actually LGPL which is the GPL with an exemption for code which merely links to the library (so again you can do what you like). GPL isn't nearly as viral or pervasive as people seem to think.
GPL v2 and v3 are essentially the same. The major changes in v3 are simply there to tighten the principles already laid out in v2.
The change people seem to get worked up about is the 'Tivoisation' clause. This says that you can't use DRM technologies to prevent someone modifying code on a hardware device.
Eg If I release a set top box running GPLv3 code I can't require that code to be signed with a particular encryption key in order to run. I *can* require the code to be signed with a particular key in order to be supported or to connect to any other services I might provide (eg TV listings), but I can't just lock the device down wholesale. The reason for this is the GPL authors take the view that having the freedom to modify code isn't much use if you aren't actually able to run the modified version. For what it's worth I tend to agree.
Go Asus! Ra!
AsusMaryJoseph!
I suspect this falls under, "It's easier to get forgiveness then permission". They probably planed to release it if and only if pressured.
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.
C'mon, seriously? They forgot to release the code for ONE module - and of all things, it's the ACPI module (which controls power management and is probably heavily modified to run on this specific lightweight hardware). Think about it - what would they have gained had nobody ever noticed the code wasn't there? What have they lost now that people do have the code?
Believe it or not, not all big companies are out to screw up the GPL.
You answer your own question:
"probably heavily modified to run on this specific lightweight hardware".
They aren't the only ones in this market space.
I attribute their actions to neither malice or incompetence.
Yes, but they're the only ones with this particular hardware setup in this market space. I'd wager that anybody looking at this code wouldn't be able to apply much or any of it to the ACPI module in, say, the OLPC.
Moreover, if they wanted to suppress their competition in this marketspace, they could have done a LOT more - heck, they could've made the entire system closed and gone with Windows, or paid Xandros to use the software without having to distribute the code.
Again, it's just ONE module - look at what they would've gained by not distributing, and/or what they lost by distributing. It doesn't equate to suppression of competition - it equates to somebody missing a package or two in the public eeePC source repository.
Well stated. I concede the point.
move along.. nothing to see here
First article:
"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!"
Today's article:
"We never really assumed foul play by Asus when it was discovered that the Eee's Linux source package was missing the ACPI module"
This is the same flip-flopping shenanigan I called you guys out on the other day with the XP SP3/Vista SP1 articles.
I'm just looking for a little consistency, that's all. I think I might cry. :-(
This omission is getting them great PR (advertising).
ASUS made changes to the acpi_asus kernel module for Linux kernel without posting the modifications. The actual code is licensed under BSD and GPLv2. Since this is the Linux variant that was affected GPLv2 rules apply.
Linux is a kernel and an operating system. Fedora or Ubuntu would be a Linux distribution that comes with other software packages that interface with the kernel. Check your sources people.
The linux community is really shaming themselves..
Do you *really* think Asus did this maliciously?
And yet, everyone jumps down Asus's throat, even though they are doing the biggest contribution here, HARDWARE to run *your* shitty software on.
Way to go, I bet other companies trying to enter your space just can't wait to be stepped all over.
So you release your code under GPL because you expect freedom to be propagated. ASUS, for whatever reason (probably just laziness or forgot), did not respect that license. So you call them out on it...The internet, with its share of zealous crowd, cries foul of ASUS.
The process worked exactly as it should and demonstrated the power and intent of the GPL license.
If you are not ready to accept GPL, don't drink the cool-aid, but don't expect on using the powerful software library that's been developed under it without respecting it either.
It runs windows. Who gives a fuck at this point.
fuck that made me laugh.
thanks asus - now can we stay up with the demand?
OLPC you getting some wind with these full sails? shoulda made your system available to all hardware outlets - would have boosted everybody in this niche.