Hope you're not too sleepy, you hacker you, 'cause we've got a juicy one coming your way. No sooner did we find that the Netflix Player would be streaming content from other players in the industry later this year than Roku opens up the source code vault. You heard right -- the GPL code has now been posted for the world to see, meaning that there's just one link standing between you and umpteen delicious tarballs. Mmm, tarballs.

[Via Hack-A-Day]

Uh-oh, it looks like Verizon's been too busy ramping up speeds on its FiOS network to mind a little thing called the GPL -- the company has just been sued for using a GPL'd app called BusyBox in its FiOS routers but not providing the source code. BusyBox is a bundle of utilities used in embedded Linux applications, and the authors have been pretty vigilant in policing GPL-compliance in distributions that include it -- they've sued two other companies that have shipped devices with BusyBox, and gotten settlements both times. We're not sure what Verizon is doing with BusyBox on its routers or why it hasn't released the source, but expect this one to reach a resolution rather quickly.

Disclaimer: Although this post was written by an attorney, it is not meant as legal advice or analysis and should not be taken as such.

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]

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]

It looks like the open source community is about to head into some uncharted waters, with the first GPL-related lawsuit in the US now headed to court. At the center of this particular brouhaha is Hava-maker Monsoon Multimedia, who is being sued by the Software Freedom Law Center for alleged violations of the GNU General Public License (GPL). In particular, the SFLC says that Monsoon licensed the BusyBox software for embedded applications from its clients, yet failed to provide the underlying source code to its products in return, which is required under the GPLv2. Adding a bit more interest to the case, as Linux-Watch points out, is the fact that Monsoon is headed by a "highly experienced" lawyer named Graham Radstone, who apparently previously held the top legal spot at an unnamed "$1 billion private multinational company." For its part, the SFLC is seeking an injunction against Monsoon, and is asking for damages and litigation costs to be awarded to the plaintiffs.

[Via Slashdot]

It's been a week since version 3 of the GPL was released, and the ripple effect is starting to make some pretty big waves: Microsoft -- which has been essentially selling Novell's SUSE Linux since last year -- released a terse statement today claiming that neither it nor its customers are parties to any terms of the revised license. Furthermore, "to avoid any doubt or legal debate on this issue," Microsoft will decline to support any GPL v3 code that might be distributed with SUSE. Microsoft does have a point: since Linux remains under GPL v2 (and probably will for the foreseeable future), there's very little binding them to the terms of GPL v3 -- specifically, the patent protection terms that would essentially undo the major element of the whole MS / Novell agreement. How the inclusion of GPL v3 code with SUSE affects the overall license is another matter entirely -- one that will result in a lot of legal chest-pounding until the GPL finally gets tested in an American court.

Disclaimer: While the author of this post is a copyright attorney, its contents are not meant to constitute legal advice or analysis.

[Via CNET]

Although June 29, 2007 will probably be most remembered for the release of some cellphone, another release that will hugely affect the tech community went out on that fateful Friday -- version three of the GNU General Public License was officially released, revising the terms that govern the use and distribution of many open-source projects, including Linux. A major goal of the revisions was to prevent the use of free code in closed devices (known charmingly as "tivoization"), drawing criticism from Linus Torvalds, Tivo (naturally), and others, but the Free Software Foundation maintains that the changes will be beneficial to end users. We're all for device makers opening up their boxes, but we're not sure forcing them to do so via license restrictions is the way to do it -- we'll see how this plays out in the future.

Apple isn't the only one having trouble messing with intellectual property as it relates to its iPhone product. Cisco was apparently reprimanded in October by a certain Armijn Hemel over unreleased code which, under the GPL-license that the phone submits to due to its Linux underpinnings, is required to be made available publicly. After the chat in October, Cisco fixed a few of its other products that Mr. Hemel pointed out were in violation, but still hasn't come clean with certain bits of WIP300 iPhone code. "For someone talking about Apple using Cisco's property," said Hemel, "actually they're infringing on copyright themselves. So it's just a double standard." In a response on Saturday, Cisco's prolific blogger John Earnhard states: "Based on our investigation, Cisco is taking steps to resolve a single issue raised regarding this product's compliance with the GNU General Public License, or GPL." No word on when this will all be patched up, or whether Cisco's fixes will be sufficient, but for the moment it sounds like the GPL kids are going to get their way. Will the curse of the iPhone live on? Tune in next week for Pirates of the iPhone: Apple and Cisco At World's End.

[Via The Inquirer]

Read - Cisco's iPhone violates GPL, expert says
Read - Cisco responds