Wait. Just USING GPL software means you can get sued if the people that released it under the GPL don't think you're giving away the source? WTF?
FIOS router? The thing on the outside of the house? The broadband router they provide (which sits in the closet unused)? Some device in their data center?
I suspect this is the router they provide to end users. How is VZW responsible for that? It's just an Actiontec router. It's pretty good, but I don't use it.
Now I know how GPL "free" software guys make a living. Almost as bad as patent trolls. Or will the settlement go to just the lawyers? If so: GPL even more evil.
Hmm no its not just using, they're distributing these devices to end users, which contain the GPL'd code. And GPL states that if you redistribute software then under the GPL, you are obligated to release your changes under GPL, and release any changes to source code.
So if these guys take someone elses source code licensed under GPL, modify it, and re-distributed it, then they are 'obligated' to also release the source code.
don't "think"? This isn't that they don't think verizon is giving away the source, this is verizon not giving away the source. And unlike patent trolls, people who write code under the GPL don't want to make money, they just want their projects to not get stolen. Patent trolls say, please, someone don't notice that we have this ambiguous patent, GPL licensers say, please, notice that we wrote this and it's helpful but make sure everyone benefits from our work and not just you.
So Verizon delivers Actiontec routers to their users. A piece of hardware developed and sold by Actiontec yet Verizon is liable for the binaries that are on that piece of gear?
Let see. Who has the most money? Actiontec (or whoever builds the routers for VZ in this particular case) or Verizon? I guess that explains why they sue Verizon and not those who actually build the routers. Will they file against Newegg or BestBuy next?
Actually, that's a good point. The target of the lawsuit should obviously whoever is distributing the GPL'd binaries without distributing the source. It's plausible that the routers were supplied to Verizon with the binaries and no source, in which case Actiontec is at fault. Either way, the solution is simple: When you agree to a copyright licence (in this case, the GPL), do what you've agreed to do.
Unfortunately, just because Verizon wasn't told that there was GPL'd code in the routers, and they distributed them, they can be sued as if they intentionally did this themselves. Just like if you sold counterfeit merchandise purchased from an apparently legitimate reseller, you're still in trouble. Just like if I sold that actiontec router to a client to run in their offices, if I had enough assets to make suing me profitable, I could be a target. Just like when your supplier swaps your electrolyte and your capacitors explode after a year, you're the one sued. In none of these cases did the "middleman" do anything wrong, other than being duped by a supplier. In each of these cases, it's the middleman that gets the shaft, and if actiontec is a small company, Verizon can't even recover their losses.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Wait. Just USING GPL software means you can get sued if the people that released it under the GPL don't think you're giving away the source? WTF?
FIOS router? The thing on the outside of the house? The broadband router they provide (which sits in the closet unused)? Some device in their data center?
I suspect this is the router they provide to end users. How is VZW responsible for that? It's just an Actiontec router. It's pretty good, but I don't use it.
Now I know how GPL "free" software guys make a living. Almost as bad as patent trolls. Or will the settlement go to just the lawyers? If so: GPL even more evil.
Hmm no its not just using, they're distributing these devices to end users, which contain the GPL'd code. And GPL states that if you redistribute software then under the GPL, you are obligated to release your changes under GPL, and release any changes to source code.
So if these guys take someone elses source code licensed under GPL, modify it, and re-distributed it, then they are 'obligated' to also release the source code.
don't "think"? This isn't that they don't think verizon is giving away the source, this is verizon not giving away the source. And unlike patent trolls, people who write code under the GPL don't want to make money, they just want their projects to not get stolen. Patent trolls say, please, someone don't notice that we have this ambiguous patent, GPL licensers say, please, notice that we wrote this and it's helpful but make sure everyone benefits from our work and not just you.
Man, what is with these big companies not distributing their source code? First, ASUS, now Verizon.
So Verizon delivers Actiontec routers to their users. A piece of hardware developed and sold by Actiontec yet Verizon is liable for the binaries that are on that piece of gear?
Let see. Who has the most money? Actiontec (or whoever builds the routers for VZ in this particular case) or Verizon? I guess that explains why they sue Verizon and not those who actually build the routers. Will they file against Newegg or BestBuy next?
Actually, that's a good point. The target of the lawsuit should obviously whoever is distributing the GPL'd binaries without distributing the source. It's plausible that the routers were supplied to Verizon with the binaries and no source, in which case Actiontec is at fault. Either way, the solution is simple: When you agree to a copyright licence (in this case, the GPL), do what you've agreed to do.
Unfortunately, just because Verizon wasn't told that there was GPL'd code in the routers, and they distributed them, they can be sued as if they intentionally did this themselves. Just like if you sold counterfeit merchandise purchased from an apparently legitimate reseller, you're still in trouble. Just like if I sold that actiontec router to a client to run in their offices, if I had enough assets to make suing me profitable, I could be a target. Just like when your supplier swaps your electrolyte and your capacitors explode after a year, you're the one sued. In none of these cases did the "middleman" do anything wrong, other than being duped by a supplier. In each of these cases, it's the middleman that gets the shaft, and if actiontec is a small company, Verizon can't even recover their losses.
No, Verizon have actually altered the firmware to include a Verizon logo.