Verizon Vs. The GPL - InformationWeek

InformationWeek is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

IoT
IoT
Government // Enterprise Architecture
Commentary
12/10/2007
01:05 PM
Serdar Yegulalp
Serdar Yegulalp
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Verizon Vs. The GPL

And now Verizon seems to have run afoul of the requirements of the GPL, although I'm betting this won't play out anywhere nearly as smoothly as Asus's kerfuffle with the Eee PC's source code.

And now Verizon seems to have run afoul of the requirements of the GPL, although I'm betting this won't play out anywhere nearly as smoothly as Asus's kerfuffle with the Eee PC's source code.

According to a lawsuit filed by the Software Freedom Law Center (the full complaint is here), the Actiontech MI414WR wireless router Verizon supplies for its FiOS broadband service contains a modified version of an open source application called BusyBox. According to the BusyBox site, this app "combines tiny versions of many common Unix utilities into a single small executable" -- a sort of command-line Swiss Army knife. Since BusyBox is licensed under the GPL version 2, anyone who ships BusyBox as part of a larger product is obliged to distribute the source code for BusyBox with it. The suit alleges that Verizon distributed the firmware for the router, but not the BusyBox source.

BusyBox has been licensed properly by many people. It's also been licensed improperly by quite a few others -- and while the authors of BusyBox used to just shame offenders publicly, they now turn the culprits over to the SFLC. I read over the list of shamed offenders, and much to my dismay a few of the names stood out: Monsoon Multimedia, Sigma Designs, Lite-On, Happauge . . . .

I say "to my dismay" because, frankly, I'm amazed that any company making a product -- and that has a legal team -- would try to get away with something like this. But it does happen. As with Asus, I'd like to think that when it does happen, it's not something malicious -- it's an oversight, a misunderstanding stemming from the way open source in general can be misunderstood.

But maybe not this time.  In the text of the suit, the SFLC claims it tried to contact Verizon about the problem and hasn't yet received an answer. If it takes a lawsuit to make Verizon realize the GPL isn't simply for show, then maybe that's what it takes. That or they're just really slow to come up with an answer. There's no reason both of those things can't be true at once.

We welcome your comments on this topic on our social media channels, or [contact us directly] with questions about the site.
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
InformationWeek Is Getting an Upgrade!

Find out more about our plans to improve the look, functionality, and performance of the InformationWeek site in the coming months.

News
Becoming a Self-Taught Cybersecurity Pro
Jessica Davis, Senior Editor, Enterprise Apps,  6/9/2021
News
Ancestry's DevOps Strategy to Control Its CI/CD Pipeline
Joao-Pierre S. Ruth, Senior Writer,  6/4/2021
Slideshows
IT Leadership: 10 Ways to Unleash Enterprise Innovation
Lisa Morgan, Freelance Writer,  6/8/2021
White Papers
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
Video
Current Issue
Planning Your Digital Transformation Roadmap
Download this report to learn about the latest technologies and best practices or ensuring a successful transition from outdated business transformation tactics.
Slideshows
Flash Poll