Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/12/10/microsoft-gpl-enforcement.html

I’d like to
congratulate Rafael
Rivera on his successful GPL compliance work regarding the Microsoft
WUDT software, which is apparently used to make ISOs from stuff you
downloaded from Microsoft software.

I’m of course against the idea of using Microsoft Windows, and why
you’d ever want to make an ISO out of some Microsoft Windows stuff is
beyond my comprehension. However, Rafael identified that the WUDT was
based on some GPL’d software, and as such he was quite correct in
demanding that Microsoft comply with the terms of the GPL (as it has
done before, for example, with
its Windows
Services for Unix). Rafael was first to discover and point out this
violation. More importantly, he also did what we in the GPL enforcement
world call the “compliance engineering work”, which includes
confirming the violation exists by technical measures, and checking that
the complete and corresponding source code actually builds and
installs the binary as expected.

That importance of that latter part of the work is unfortunately not
often identified. GPL is designed to hook up the legal requirements of
a copyright license with certain technical requirements needed to allow
downstream users to modify and improve the software. This is the true
innovation of the GPL: to make copyright law into a tool that gives
users the actual means to improve and redistribute modified versions of
software.

When we check to see if someone is in compliance, it’s not merely about
seeing if they dumped a big pile of source onto the world. We also have
to check carefully that the source builds and that the process produces
a working binary that can be installed by the user. That’s why GPLv2
requires scripts to control compilation and installation of the
executable and what GPLv3 clarifies that requirement even further
into the formally defined Installation Information.

Thanks again to Rafael for doing this work. While everyone knows how
often I fault Microsoft, I have to say they did a timely job in this
particular case. A little under a month is actually the best one can
hope for from initial identification to a violator about a problem to
having in our hands complete and corresponding source code (or
“C&CS”, as we GPL enforcement geeks call it).
Microsoft should have known better than to screw this up after years of
working with the GPL, but everyone makes mistakes, and the real measure
of a company is how quickly they redress a mistake.

Now if we could just get Microsoft to stop the more harmful mistake of
attacking FLOSS with patents, but that’s a tougher problem to
solve…

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/12/10/microsoft-gpl-enforcement.html

I’d like to
congratulate Rafael
Rivera on his successful GPL compliance work regarding the Microsoft
WUDT software, which is apparently used to make ISOs from stuff you
downloaded from Microsoft software.

I’m of course against the idea of using Microsoft Windows, and why
you’d ever want to make an ISO out of some Microsoft Windows stuff is
beyond my comprehension. However, Rafael identified that the WUDT was
based on some GPL’d software, and as such he was quite correct in
demanding that Microsoft comply with the terms of the GPL (as it has
done before, for example, with
its Windows
Services for Unix). Rafael was first to discover and point out this
violation. More importantly, he also did what we in the GPL enforcement
world call the “compliance engineering work”, which includes
confirming the violation exists by technical measures, and checking that
the complete and corresponding source code actually builds and
installs the binary as expected.

That importance of that latter part of the work is unfortunately not
often identified. GPL is designed to hook up the legal requirements of
a copyright license with certain technical requirements needed to allow
downstream users to modify and improve the software. This is the true
innovation of the GPL: to make copyright law into a tool that gives
users the actual means to improve and redistribute modified versions of
software.

When we check to see if someone is in compliance, it’s not merely about
seeing if they dumped a big pile of source onto the world. We also have
to check carefully that the source builds and that the process produces
a working binary that can be installed by the user. That’s why GPLv2
requires scripts to control compilation and installation of the
executable and what GPLv3 clarifies that requirement even further
into the formally defined Installation Information.

Thanks again to Rafael for doing this work. While everyone knows how
often I fault Microsoft, I have to say they did a timely job in this
particular case. A little under a month is actually the best one can
hope for from initial identification to a violator about a problem to
having in our hands complete and corresponding source code (or
“C&CS”, as we GPL enforcement geeks call it).
Microsoft should have known better than to screw this up after years of
working with the GPL, but everyone makes mistakes, and the real measure
of a company is how quickly they redress a mistake.

Now if we could just get Microsoft to stop the more harmful mistake of
attacking FLOSS with patents, but that’s a tougher problem to
solve…

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/12/10/microsoft-gpl-enforcement.html

I’d like to
congratulate Rafael
Rivera on his successful GPL compliance work regarding the Microsoft
WUDT software, which is apparently used to make ISOs from stuff you
downloaded from Microsoft software.

I’m of course against the idea of using Microsoft Windows, and why
you’d ever want to make an ISO out of some Microsoft Windows stuff is
beyond my comprehension. However, Rafael identified that the WUDT was
based on some GPL’d software, and as such he was quite correct in
demanding that Microsoft comply with the terms of the GPL (as it has
done before, for example, with
its Windows
Services for Unix). Rafael was first to discover and point out this
violation. More importantly, he also did what we in the GPL enforcement
world call the “compliance engineering work”, which includes
confirming the violation exists by technical measures, and checking that
the complete and corresponding source code actually builds and
installs the binary as expected.

That importance of that latter part of the work is unfortunately not
often identified. GPL is designed to hook up the legal requirements of
a copyright license with certain technical requirements needed to allow
downstream users to modify and improve the software. This is the true
innovation of the GPL: to make copyright law into a tool that gives
users the actual means to improve and redistribute modified versions of
software.

When we check to see if someone is in compliance, it’s not merely about
seeing if they dumped a big pile of source onto the world. We also have
to check carefully that the source builds and that the process produces
a working binary that can be installed by the user. That’s why GPLv2
requires scripts to control compilation and installation of the
executable and what GPLv3 clarifies that requirement even further
into the formally defined Installation Information.

Thanks again to Rafael for doing this work. While everyone knows how
often I fault Microsoft, I have to say they did a timely job in this
particular case. A little under a month is actually the best one can
hope for from initial identification to a violator about a problem to
having in our hands complete and corresponding source code (or
“C&CS”, as we GPL enforcement geeks call it).
Microsoft should have known better than to screw this up after years of
working with the GPL, but everyone makes mistakes, and the real measure
of a company is how quickly they redress a mistake.

Now if we could just get Microsoft to stop the more harmful mistake of
attacking FLOSS with patents, but that’s a tougher problem to
solve…

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/12/06/anatomy-gpl-violation.html

I’ve been thinking the last few weeks about the evolution of the GPL
violation. After ten years of being involved with GPL enforcement, it
seems like a good time to think about how things have changed.

Roughly, the typical GPL violation tracks almost directly the adoption
and spread of Free Software. When I started finding GPL violations, it
was in a day when Big Iron Unix was still king (although it was only a
few years away from collapse), and the GNU tools were just becoming
state of the art. Indeed, as a sysadmin, I typically took a proprietary
Unix system, and built a /usr/local/ filled with the GNU tools, because
I hated POSIX tools that didn’t have all the GNU extensions.

At the time, many vendors were discovering the same frustrations I was
as a sysadmin. Thus, the typical violation in those days was a
third-party vendor incorporating some GNU tools into their products, for
use on some Big Iron Unix. This was the age of the violating backup
product; we saw frequently backup products that violated the GPL on GNU
tar in those days.

As times changed, and computers got truly smaller, the embedded
Unix-like system was born. GNU/Linux and (more commonly) BusyBox/Linux
were the perfect solutions for this space. What was once a joke on
comp.os.linux.advocacy in the 1990s began to turn into a reality: it was
actually nearly possible for Linux to run on your toaster.

The first class of embedded devices that were BusyBox/Linux-based were
the wireless routers. Throughout the 2000s, the typical violation was
always some wireless router. I still occasionally see those types of
products violating the GPL, but I think the near-constant enforcement
done by Erik Andersen, FSF, and Harald Welte throughout the 2000’s has
led the wireless router violation to become the exception rather than
the rule. That enforcement also led to the birth of community-focused
development of the OpenWRT and DD-WRT, that all started from that first
enforcement that we (Erik, Harald and FSF (where I was at the time)) all
did together in 2002 to ensure the WRT54G source release.

In 2009, there’s a general purpose computer in almost every electronics
product. Putting a computer with 8MB RAM and a reasonable processor in
a device is now a common default. Well, BusyBox/Linux was always the
perfect operating system for that type of computer! So, when you walk
through the aisles of the big electronics vendors today, it’s pretty
likely that many of the devices you see are BusyBox/Linux ones.

Some people think that a company can just get away with ignoring the
GPL and the requirements of copyleft. Perhaps if a company has five
customers total, and none of them ask for source, your violation may
never be discovered. But, if you produce a mass market product based on
BusyBox/Linux, some smart software developer is going to eventually buy
one. They are going to get curious, and when they poke, they’ll see
what you put in there. And, that developer’s next email is going to be
to me to tell me all about that device. In my ten years of enforcement
experience, I find that a company’s odds of “getting away”
with a GPL violation are incredibly low. The user community eventually
notices and either publicly shames the company (not my preferred
enforcement method), or they contact someone like me to pursue
enforcement privately and encourage the company in a friendly way to
join the FLOSS community rather than work against it.

I absolutely love that so many companies have adopted BusyBox/Linux as
their default platform for many new products. Since circa 1994 when I
first saw the “can my toaster run Linux?” joke, I’ve dreamed
of time when it would be impossible to buy a mass-market electronics
product without finding FLOSS inside. I’m delighted we’ve nearly
reached that era during my lifetime.

However, such innovation is made possible by the commons created by the
GPL. I have dedicated a large portion of my adult life to GPL
enforcement precisely because I believe deeply in the value of that
commons. As I find violator after violator, I look forward to welcoming
them to our community in a friendly way, and ask them to respect the
commons that gave them so much, and give their code back to the
community that got them started.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/12/06/anatomy-gpl-violation.html

I’ve been thinking the last few weeks about the evolution of the GPL
violation. After ten years of being involved with GPL enforcement, it
seems like a good time to think about how things have changed.

Roughly, the typical GPL violation tracks almost directly the adoption
and spread of Free Software. When I started finding GPL violations, it
was in a day when Big Iron Unix was still king (although it was only a
few years away from collapse), and the GNU tools were just becoming
state of the art. Indeed, as a sysadmin, I typically took a proprietary
Unix system, and built a /usr/local/ filled with the GNU tools, because
I hated POSIX tools that didn’t have all the GNU extensions.

At the time, many vendors were discovering the same frustrations I was
as a sysadmin. Thus, the typical violation in those days was a
third-party vendor incorporating some GNU tools into their products, for
use on some Big Iron Unix. This was the age of the violating backup
product; we saw frequently backup products that violated the GPL on GNU
tar in those days.

As times changed, and computers got truly smaller, the embedded
Unix-like system was born. GNU/Linux and (more commonly) BusyBox/Linux
were the perfect solutions for this space. What was once a joke on
comp.os.linux.advocacy in the 1990s began to turn into a reality: it was
actually nearly possible for Linux to run on your toaster.

The first class of embedded devices that were BusyBox/Linux-based were
the wireless routers. Throughout the 2000s, the typical violation was
always some wireless router. I still occasionally see those types of
products violating the GPL, but I think the near-constant enforcement
done by Erik Andersen, FSF, and Harald Welte throughout the 2000’s has
led the wireless router violation to become the exception rather than
the rule. That enforcement also led to the birth of community-focused
development of the OpenWRT and DD-WRT, that all started from that first
enforcement that we (Erik, Harald and FSF (where I was at the time)) all
did together in 2002 to ensure the WRT54G source release.

In 2009, there’s a general purpose computer in almost every electronics
product. Putting a computer with 8MB RAM and a reasonable processor in
a device is now a common default. Well, BusyBox/Linux was always the
perfect operating system for that type of computer! So, when you walk
through the aisles of the big electronics vendors today, it’s pretty
likely that many of the devices you see are BusyBox/Linux ones.

Some people think that a company can just get away with ignoring the
GPL and the requirements of copyleft. Perhaps if a company has five
customers total, and none of them ask for source, your violation may
never be discovered. But, if you produce a mass market product based on
BusyBox/Linux, some smart software developer is going to eventually buy
one. They are going to get curious, and when they poke, they’ll see
what you put in there. And, that developer’s next email is going to be
to me to tell me all about that device. In my ten years of enforcement
experience, I find that a company’s odds of “getting away”
with a GPL violation are incredibly low. The user community eventually
notices and either publicly shames the company (not my preferred
enforcement method), or they contact someone like me to pursue
enforcement privately and encourage the company in a friendly way to
join the FLOSS community rather than work against it.

I absolutely love that so many companies have adopted BusyBox/Linux as
their default platform for many new products. Since circa 1994 when I
first saw the “can my toaster run Linux?” joke, I’ve dreamed
of time when it would be impossible to buy a mass-market electronics
product without finding FLOSS inside. I’m delighted we’ve nearly
reached that era during my lifetime.

However, such innovation is made possible by the commons created by the
GPL. I have dedicated a large portion of my adult life to GPL
enforcement precisely because I believe deeply in the value of that
commons. As I find violator after violator, I look forward to welcoming
them to our community in a friendly way, and ask them to respect the
commons that gave them so much, and give their code back to the
community that got them started.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/12/06/anatomy-gpl-violation.html

I’ve been thinking the last few weeks about the evolution of the GPL
violation. After ten years of being involved with GPL enforcement, it
seems like a good time to think about how things have changed.

Roughly, the typical GPL violation tracks almost directly the adoption
and spread of Free Software. When I started finding GPL violations, it
was in a day when Big Iron Unix was still king (although it was only a
few years away from collapse), and the GNU tools were just becoming
state of the art. Indeed, as a sysadmin, I typically took a proprietary
Unix system, and built a /usr/local/ filled with the GNU tools, because
I hated POSIX tools that didn’t have all the GNU extensions.

At the time, many vendors were discovering the same frustrations I was
as a sysadmin. Thus, the typical violation in those days was a
third-party vendor incorporating some GNU tools into their products, for
use on some Big Iron Unix. This was the age of the violating backup
product; we saw frequently backup products that violated the GPL on GNU
tar in those days.

As times changed, and computers got truly smaller, the embedded
Unix-like system was born. GNU/Linux and (more commonly) BusyBox/Linux
were the perfect solutions for this space. What was once a joke on
comp.os.linux.advocacy in the 1990s began to turn into a reality: it was
actually nearly possible for Linux to run on your toaster.

The first class of embedded devices that were BusyBox/Linux-based were
the wireless routers. Throughout the 2000s, the typical violation was
always some wireless router. I still occasionally see those types of
products violating the GPL, but I think the near-constant enforcement
done by Erik Andersen, FSF, and Harald Welte throughout the 2000’s has
led the wireless router violation to become the exception rather than
the rule. That enforcement also led to the birth of community-focused
development of the OpenWRT and DD-WRT, that all started from that first
enforcement that we (Erik, Harald and FSF (where I was at the time)) all
did together in 2002 to ensure the WRT54G source release.

In 2009, there’s a general purpose computer in almost every electronics
product. Putting a computer with 8MB RAM and a reasonable processor in
a device is now a common default. Well, BusyBox/Linux was always the
perfect operating system for that type of computer! So, when you walk
through the aisles of the big electronics vendors today, it’s pretty
likely that many of the devices you see are BusyBox/Linux ones.

Some people think that a company can just get away with ignoring the
GPL and the requirements of copyleft. Perhaps if a company has five
customers total, and none of them ask for source, your violation may
never be discovered. But, if you produce a mass market product based on
BusyBox/Linux, some smart software developer is going to eventually buy
one. They are going to get curious, and when they poke, they’ll see
what you put in there. And, that developer’s next email is going to be
to me to tell me all about that device. In my ten years of enforcement
experience, I find that a company’s odds of “getting away”
with a GPL violation are incredibly low. The user community eventually
notices and either publicly shames the company (not my preferred
enforcement method), or they contact someone like me to pursue
enforcement privately and encourage the company in a friendly way to
join the FLOSS community rather than work against it.

I absolutely love that so many companies have adopted BusyBox/Linux as
their default platform for many new products. Since circa 1994 when I
first saw the “can my toaster run Linux?” joke, I’ve dreamed
of time when it would be impossible to buy a mass-market electronics
product without finding FLOSS inside. I’m delighted we’ve nearly
reached that era during my lifetime.

However, such innovation is made possible by the commons created by the
GPL. I have dedicated a large portion of my adult life to GPL
enforcement precisely because I believe deeply in the value of that
commons. As I find violator after violator, I look forward to welcoming
them to our community in a friendly way, and ask them to respect the
commons that gave them so much, and give their code back to the
community that got them started.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/12/06/anatomy-gpl-violation.html

I’ve been thinking the last few weeks about the evolution of the GPL
violation. After ten years of being involved with GPL enforcement, it
seems like a good time to think about how things have changed.

Roughly, the typical GPL violation tracks almost directly the adoption
and spread of Free Software. When I started finding GPL violations, it
was in a day when Big Iron Unix was still king (although it was only a
few years away from collapse), and the GNU tools were just becoming
state of the art. Indeed, as a sysadmin, I typically took a proprietary
Unix system, and built a /usr/local/ filled with the GNU tools, because
I hated POSIX tools that didn’t have all the GNU extensions.

At the time, many vendors were discovering the same frustrations I was
as a sysadmin. Thus, the typical violation in those days was a
third-party vendor incorporating some GNU tools into their products, for
use on some Big Iron Unix. This was the age of the violating backup
product; we saw frequently backup products that violated the GPL on GNU
tar in those days.

As times changed, and computers got truly smaller, the embedded
Unix-like system was born. GNU/Linux and (more commonly) BusyBox/Linux
were the perfect solutions for this space. What was once a joke on
comp.os.linux.advocacy in the 1990s began to turn into a reality: it was
actually nearly possible for Linux to run on your toaster.

The first class of embedded devices that were BusyBox/Linux-based were
the wireless routers. Throughout the 2000s, the typical violation was
always some wireless router. I still occasionally see those types of
products violating the GPL, but I think the near-constant enforcement
done by Erik Andersen, FSF, and Harald Welte throughout the 2000’s has
led the wireless router violation to become the exception rather than
the rule. That enforcement also led to the birth of community-focused
development of the OpenWRT and DD-WRT, that all started from that first
enforcement that we (Erik, Harald and FSF (where I was at the time)) all
did together in 2002 to ensure the WRT54G source release.

In 2009, there’s a general purpose computer in almost every electronics
product. Putting a computer with 8MB RAM and a reasonable processor in
a device is now a common default. Well, BusyBox/Linux was always the
perfect operating system for that type of computer! So, when you walk
through the aisles of the big electronics vendors today, it’s pretty
likely that many of the devices you see are BusyBox/Linux ones.

Some people think that a company can just get away with ignoring the
GPL and the requirements of copyleft. Perhaps if a company has five
customers total, and none of them ask for source, your violation may
never be discovered. But, if you produce a mass market product based on
BusyBox/Linux, some smart software developer is going to eventually buy
one. They are going to get curious, and when they poke, they’ll see
what you put in there. And, that developer’s next email is going to be
to me to tell me all about that device. In my ten years of enforcement
experience, I find that a company’s odds of “getting away”
with a GPL violation are incredibly low. The user community eventually
notices and either publicly shames the company (not my preferred
enforcement method), or they contact someone like me to pursue
enforcement privately and encourage the company in a friendly way to
join the FLOSS community rather than work against it.

I absolutely love that so many companies have adopted BusyBox/Linux as
their default platform for many new products. Since circa 1994 when I
first saw the “can my toaster run Linux?” joke, I’ve dreamed
of time when it would be impossible to buy a mass-market electronics
product without finding FLOSS inside. I’m delighted we’ve nearly
reached that era during my lifetime.

However, such innovation is made possible by the commons created by the
GPL. I have dedicated a large portion of my adult life to GPL
enforcement precisely because I believe deeply in the value of that
commons. As I find violator after violator, I look forward to welcoming
them to our community in a friendly way, and ask them to respect the
commons that gave them so much, and give their code back to the
community that got them started.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/12/06/anatomy-gpl-violation.html

I’ve been thinking the last few weeks about the evolution of the GPL
violation. After ten years of being involved with GPL enforcement, it
seems like a good time to think about how things have changed.

Roughly, the typical GPL violation tracks almost directly the adoption
and spread of Free Software. When I started finding GPL violations, it
was in a day when Big Iron Unix was still king (although it was only a
few years away from collapse), and the GNU tools were just becoming
state of the art. Indeed, as a sysadmin, I typically took a proprietary
Unix system, and built a /usr/local/ filled with the GNU tools, because
I hated POSIX tools that didn’t have all the GNU extensions.

At the time, many vendors were discovering the same frustrations I was
as a sysadmin. Thus, the typical violation in those days was a
third-party vendor incorporating some GNU tools into their products, for
use on some Big Iron Unix. This was the age of the violating backup
product; we saw frequently backup products that violated the GPL on GNU
tar in those days.

As times changed, and computers got truly smaller, the embedded
Unix-like system was born. GNU/Linux and (more commonly) BusyBox/Linux
were the perfect solutions for this space. What was once a joke on
comp.os.linux.advocacy in the 1990s began to turn into a reality: it was
actually nearly possible for Linux to run on your toaster.

The first class of embedded devices that were BusyBox/Linux-based were
the wireless routers. Throughout the 2000s, the typical violation was
always some wireless router. I still occasionally see those types of
products violating the GPL, but I think the near-constant enforcement
done by Erik Andersen, FSF, and Harald Welte throughout the 2000’s has
led the wireless router violation to become the exception rather than
the rule. That enforcement also led to the birth of community-focused
development of the OpenWRT and DD-WRT, that all started from that first
enforcement that we (Erik, Harald and FSF (where I was at the time)) all
did together in 2002 to ensure the WRT54G source release.

In 2009, there’s a general purpose computer in almost every electronics
product. Putting a computer with 8MB RAM and a reasonable processor in
a device is now a common default. Well, BusyBox/Linux was always the
perfect operating system for that type of computer! So, when you walk
through the aisles of the big electronics vendors today, it’s pretty
likely that many of the devices you see are BusyBox/Linux ones.

Some people think that a company can just get away with ignoring the
GPL and the requirements of copyleft. Perhaps if a company has five
customers total, and none of them ask for source, your violation may
never be discovered. But, if you produce a mass market product based on
BusyBox/Linux, some smart software developer is going to eventually buy
one. They are going to get curious, and when they poke, they’ll see
what you put in there. And, that developer’s next email is going to be
to me to tell me all about that device. In my ten years of enforcement
experience, I find that a company’s odds of “getting away”
with a GPL violation are incredibly low. The user community eventually
notices and either publicly shames the company (not my preferred
enforcement method), or they contact someone like me to pursue
enforcement privately and encourage the company in a friendly way to
join the FLOSS community rather than work against it.

I absolutely love that so many companies have adopted BusyBox/Linux as
their default platform for many new products. Since circa 1994 when I
first saw the “can my toaster run Linux?” joke, I’ve dreamed
of time when it would be impossible to buy a mass-market electronics
product without finding FLOSS inside. I’m delighted we’ve nearly
reached that era during my lifetime.

However, such innovation is made possible by the commons created by the
GPL. I have dedicated a large portion of my adult life to GPL
enforcement precisely because I believe deeply in the value of that
commons. As I find violator after violator, I look forward to welcoming
them to our community in a friendly way, and ask them to respect the
commons that gave them so much, and give their code back to the
community that got them started.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/12/06/anatomy-gpl-violation.html

I’ve been thinking the last few weeks about the evolution of the GPL
violation. After ten years of being involved with GPL enforcement, it
seems like a good time to think about how things have changed.

Roughly, the typical GPL violation tracks almost directly the adoption
and spread of Free Software. When I started finding GPL violations, it
was in a day when Big Iron Unix was still king (although it was only a
few years away from collapse), and the GNU tools were just becoming
state of the art. Indeed, as a sysadmin, I typically took a proprietary
Unix system, and built a /usr/local/ filled with the GNU tools, because
I hated POSIX tools that didn’t have all the GNU extensions.

At the time, many vendors were discovering the same frustrations I was
as a sysadmin. Thus, the typical violation in those days was a
third-party vendor incorporating some GNU tools into their products, for
use on some Big Iron Unix. This was the age of the violating backup
product; we saw frequently backup products that violated the GPL on GNU
tar in those days.

As times changed, and computers got truly smaller, the embedded
Unix-like system was born. GNU/Linux and (more commonly) BusyBox/Linux
were the perfect solutions for this space. What was once a joke on
comp.os.linux.advocacy in the 1990s began to turn into a reality: it was
actually nearly possible for Linux to run on your toaster.

The first class of embedded devices that were BusyBox/Linux-based were
the wireless routers. Throughout the 2000s, the typical violation was
always some wireless router. I still occasionally see those types of
products violating the GPL, but I think the near-constant enforcement
done by Erik Andersen, FSF, and Harald Welte throughout the 2000’s has
led the wireless router violation to become the exception rather than
the rule. That enforcement also led to the birth of community-focused
development of the OpenWRT and DD-WRT, that all started from that first
enforcement that we (Erik, Harald and FSF (where I was at the time)) all
did together in 2002 to ensure the WRT54G source release.

In 2009, there’s a general purpose computer in almost every electronics
product. Putting a computer with 8MB RAM and a reasonable processor in
a device is now a common default. Well, BusyBox/Linux was always the
perfect operating system for that type of computer! So, when you walk
through the aisles of the big electronics vendors today, it’s pretty
likely that many of the devices you see are BusyBox/Linux ones.

Some people think that a company can just get away with ignoring the
GPL and the requirements of copyleft. Perhaps if a company has five
customers total, and none of them ask for source, your violation may
never be discovered. But, if you produce a mass market product based on
BusyBox/Linux, some smart software developer is going to eventually buy
one. They are going to get curious, and when they poke, they’ll see
what you put in there. And, that developer’s next email is going to be
to me to tell me all about that device. In my ten years of enforcement
experience, I find that a company’s odds of “getting away”
with a GPL violation are incredibly low. The user community eventually
notices and either publicly shames the company (not my preferred
enforcement method), or they contact someone like me to pursue
enforcement privately and encourage the company in a friendly way to
join the FLOSS community rather than work against it.

I absolutely love that so many companies have adopted BusyBox/Linux as
their default platform for many new products. Since circa 1994 when I
first saw the “can my toaster run Linux?” joke, I’ve dreamed
of time when it would be impossible to buy a mass-market electronics
product without finding FLOSS inside. I’m delighted we’ve nearly
reached that era during my lifetime.

However, such innovation is made possible by the commons created by the
GPL. I have dedicated a large portion of my adult life to GPL
enforcement precisely because I believe deeply in the value of that
commons. As I find violator after violator, I look forward to welcoming
them to our community in a friendly way, and ask them to respect the
commons that gave them so much, and give their code back to the
community that got them started.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/12/06/anatomy-gpl-violation.html

I’ve been thinking the last few weeks about the evolution of the GPL
violation. After ten years of being involved with GPL enforcement, it
seems like a good time to think about how things have changed.

Roughly, the typical GPL violation tracks almost directly the adoption
and spread of Free Software. When I started finding GPL violations, it
was in a day when Big Iron Unix was still king (although it was only a
few years away from collapse), and the GNU tools were just becoming
state of the art. Indeed, as a sysadmin, I typically took a proprietary
Unix system, and built a /usr/local/ filled with the GNU tools, because
I hated POSIX tools that didn’t have all the GNU extensions.

At the time, many vendors were discovering the same frustrations I was
as a sysadmin. Thus, the typical violation in those days was a
third-party vendor incorporating some GNU tools into their products, for
use on some Big Iron Unix. This was the age of the violating backup
product; we saw frequently backup products that violated the GPL on GNU
tar in those days.

As times changed, and computers got truly smaller, the embedded
Unix-like system was born. GNU/Linux and (more commonly) BusyBox/Linux
were the perfect solutions for this space. What was once a joke on
comp.os.linux.advocacy in the 1990s began to turn into a reality: it was
actually nearly possible for Linux to run on your toaster.

The first class of embedded devices that were BusyBox/Linux-based were
the wireless routers. Throughout the 2000s, the typical violation was
always some wireless router. I still occasionally see those types of
products violating the GPL, but I think the near-constant enforcement
done by Erik Andersen, FSF, and Harald Welte throughout the 2000’s has
led the wireless router violation to become the exception rather than
the rule. That enforcement also led to the birth of community-focused
development of the OpenWRT and DD-WRT, that all started from that first
enforcement that we (Erik, Harald and FSF (where I was at the time)) all
did together in 2002 to ensure the WRT54G source release.

In 2009, there’s a general purpose computer in almost every electronics
product. Putting a computer with 8MB RAM and a reasonable processor in
a device is now a common default. Well, BusyBox/Linux was always the
perfect operating system for that type of computer! So, when you walk
through the aisles of the big electronics vendors today, it’s pretty
likely that many of the devices you see are BusyBox/Linux ones.

Some people think that a company can just get away with ignoring the
GPL and the requirements of copyleft. Perhaps if a company has five
customers total, and none of them ask for source, your violation may
never be discovered. But, if you produce a mass market product based on
BusyBox/Linux, some smart software developer is going to eventually buy
one. They are going to get curious, and when they poke, they’ll see
what you put in there. And, that developer’s next email is going to be
to me to tell me all about that device. In my ten years of enforcement
experience, I find that a company’s odds of “getting away”
with a GPL violation are incredibly low. The user community eventually
notices and either publicly shames the company (not my preferred
enforcement method), or they contact someone like me to pursue
enforcement privately and encourage the company in a friendly way to
join the FLOSS community rather than work against it.

I absolutely love that so many companies have adopted BusyBox/Linux as
their default platform for many new products. Since circa 1994 when I
first saw the “can my toaster run Linux?” joke, I’ve dreamed
of time when it would be impossible to buy a mass-market electronics
product without finding FLOSS inside. I’m delighted we’ve nearly
reached that era during my lifetime.

However, such innovation is made possible by the commons created by the
GPL. I have dedicated a large portion of my adult life to GPL
enforcement precisely because I believe deeply in the value of that
commons. As I find violator after violator, I look forward to welcoming
them to our community in a friendly way, and ask them to respect the
commons that gave them so much, and give their code back to the
community that got them started.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/12/06/anatomy-gpl-violation.html

I’ve been thinking the last few weeks about the evolution of the GPL
violation. After ten years of being involved with GPL enforcement, it
seems like a good time to think about how things have changed.

Roughly, the typical GPL violation tracks almost directly the adoption
and spread of Free Software. When I started finding GPL violations, it
was in a day when Big Iron Unix was still king (although it was only a
few years away from collapse), and the GNU tools were just becoming
state of the art. Indeed, as a sysadmin, I typically took a proprietary
Unix system, and built a /usr/local/ filled with the GNU tools, because
I hated POSIX tools that didn’t have all the GNU extensions.

At the time, many vendors were discovering the same frustrations I was
as a sysadmin. Thus, the typical violation in those days was a
third-party vendor incorporating some GNU tools into their products, for
use on some Big Iron Unix. This was the age of the violating backup
product; we saw frequently backup products that violated the GPL on GNU
tar in those days.

As times changed, and computers got truly smaller, the embedded
Unix-like system was born. GNU/Linux and (more commonly) BusyBox/Linux
were the perfect solutions for this space. What was once a joke on
comp.os.linux.advocacy in the 1990s began to turn into a reality: it was
actually nearly possible for Linux to run on your toaster.

The first class of embedded devices that were BusyBox/Linux-based were
the wireless routers. Throughout the 2000s, the typical violation was
always some wireless router. I still occasionally see those types of
products violating the GPL, but I think the near-constant enforcement
done by Erik Andersen, FSF, and Harald Welte throughout the 2000’s has
led the wireless router violation to become the exception rather than
the rule. That enforcement also led to the birth of community-focused
development of the OpenWRT and DD-WRT, that all started from that first
enforcement that we (Erik, Harald and FSF (where I was at the time)) all
did together in 2002 to ensure the WRT54G source release.

In 2009, there’s a general purpose computer in almost every electronics
product. Putting a computer with 8MB RAM and a reasonable processor in
a device is now a common default. Well, BusyBox/Linux was always the
perfect operating system for that type of computer! So, when you walk
through the aisles of the big electronics vendors today, it’s pretty
likely that many of the devices you see are BusyBox/Linux ones.

Some people think that a company can just get away with ignoring the
GPL and the requirements of copyleft. Perhaps if a company has five
customers total, and none of them ask for source, your violation may
never be discovered. But, if you produce a mass market product based on
BusyBox/Linux, some smart software developer is going to eventually buy
one. They are going to get curious, and when they poke, they’ll see
what you put in there. And, that developer’s next email is going to be
to me to tell me all about that device. In my ten years of enforcement
experience, I find that a company’s odds of “getting away”
with a GPL violation are incredibly low. The user community eventually
notices and either publicly shames the company (not my preferred
enforcement method), or they contact someone like me to pursue
enforcement privately and encourage the company in a friendly way to
join the FLOSS community rather than work against it.

I absolutely love that so many companies have adopted BusyBox/Linux as
their default platform for many new products. Since circa 1994 when I
first saw the “can my toaster run Linux?” joke, I’ve dreamed
of time when it would be impossible to buy a mass-market electronics
product without finding FLOSS inside. I’m delighted we’ve nearly
reached that era during my lifetime.

However, such innovation is made possible by the commons created by the
GPL. I have dedicated a large portion of my adult life to GPL
enforcement precisely because I believe deeply in the value of that
commons. As I find violator after violator, I look forward to welcoming
them to our community in a friendly way, and ask them to respect the
commons that gave them so much, and give their code back to the
community that got them started.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/12/06/anatomy-gpl-violation.html

I’ve been thinking the last few weeks about the evolution of the GPL
violation. After ten years of being involved with GPL enforcement, it
seems like a good time to think about how things have changed.

Roughly, the typical GPL violation tracks almost directly the adoption
and spread of Free Software. When I started finding GPL violations, it
was in a day when Big Iron Unix was still king (although it was only a
few years away from collapse), and the GNU tools were just becoming
state of the art. Indeed, as a sysadmin, I typically took a proprietary
Unix system, and built a /usr/local/ filled with the GNU tools, because
I hated POSIX tools that didn’t have all the GNU extensions.

At the time, many vendors were discovering the same frustrations I was
as a sysadmin. Thus, the typical violation in those days was a
third-party vendor incorporating some GNU tools into their products, for
use on some Big Iron Unix. This was the age of the violating backup
product; we saw frequently backup products that violated the GPL on GNU
tar in those days.

As times changed, and computers got truly smaller, the embedded
Unix-like system was born. GNU/Linux and (more commonly) BusyBox/Linux
were the perfect solutions for this space. What was once a joke on
comp.os.linux.advocacy in the 1990s began to turn into a reality: it was
actually nearly possible for Linux to run on your toaster.

The first class of embedded devices that were BusyBox/Linux-based were
the wireless routers. Throughout the 2000s, the typical violation was
always some wireless router. I still occasionally see those types of
products violating the GPL, but I think the near-constant enforcement
done by Erik Andersen, FSF, and Harald Welte throughout the 2000’s has
led the wireless router violation to become the exception rather than
the rule. That enforcement also led to the birth of community-focused
development of the OpenWRT and DD-WRT, that all started from that first
enforcement that we (Erik, Harald and FSF (where I was at the time)) all
did together in 2002 to ensure the WRT54G source release.

In 2009, there’s a general purpose computer in almost every electronics
product. Putting a computer with 8MB RAM and a reasonable processor in
a device is now a common default. Well, BusyBox/Linux was always the
perfect operating system for that type of computer! So, when you walk
through the aisles of the big electronics vendors today, it’s pretty
likely that many of the devices you see are BusyBox/Linux ones.

Some people think that a company can just get away with ignoring the
GPL and the requirements of copyleft. Perhaps if a company has five
customers total, and none of them ask for source, your violation may
never be discovered. But, if you produce a mass market product based on
BusyBox/Linux, some smart software developer is going to eventually buy
one. They are going to get curious, and when they poke, they’ll see
what you put in there. And, that developer’s next email is going to be
to me to tell me all about that device. In my ten years of enforcement
experience, I find that a company’s odds of “getting away”
with a GPL violation are incredibly low. The user community eventually
notices and either publicly shames the company (not my preferred
enforcement method), or they contact someone like me to pursue
enforcement privately and encourage the company in a friendly way to
join the FLOSS community rather than work against it.

I absolutely love that so many companies have adopted BusyBox/Linux as
their default platform for many new products. Since circa 1994 when I
first saw the “can my toaster run Linux?” joke, I’ve dreamed
of time when it would be impossible to buy a mass-market electronics
product without finding FLOSS inside. I’m delighted we’ve nearly
reached that era during my lifetime.

However, such innovation is made possible by the commons created by the
GPL. I have dedicated a large portion of my adult life to GPL
enforcement precisely because I believe deeply in the value of that
commons. As I find violator after violator, I look forward to welcoming
them to our community in a friendly way, and ask them to respect the
commons that gave them so much, and give their code back to the
community that got them started.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/12/06/anatomy-gpl-violation.html

I’ve been thinking the last few weeks about the evolution of the GPL
violation. After ten years of being involved with GPL enforcement, it
seems like a good time to think about how things have changed.

Roughly, the typical GPL violation tracks almost directly the adoption
and spread of Free Software. When I started finding GPL violations, it
was in a day when Big Iron Unix was still king (although it was only a
few years away from collapse), and the GNU tools were just becoming
state of the art. Indeed, as a sysadmin, I typically took a proprietary
Unix system, and built a /usr/local/ filled with the GNU tools, because
I hated POSIX tools that didn’t have all the GNU extensions.

At the time, many vendors were discovering the same frustrations I was
as a sysadmin. Thus, the typical violation in those days was a
third-party vendor incorporating some GNU tools into their products, for
use on some Big Iron Unix. This was the age of the violating backup
product; we saw frequently backup products that violated the GPL on GNU
tar in those days.

As times changed, and computers got truly smaller, the embedded
Unix-like system was born. GNU/Linux and (more commonly) BusyBox/Linux
were the perfect solutions for this space. What was once a joke on
comp.os.linux.advocacy in the 1990s began to turn into a reality: it was
actually nearly possible for Linux to run on your toaster.

The first class of embedded devices that were BusyBox/Linux-based were
the wireless routers. Throughout the 2000s, the typical violation was
always some wireless router. I still occasionally see those types of
products violating the GPL, but I think the near-constant enforcement
done by Erik Andersen, FSF, and Harald Welte throughout the 2000’s has
led the wireless router violation to become the exception rather than
the rule. That enforcement also led to the birth of community-focused
development of the OpenWRT and DD-WRT, that all started from that first
enforcement that we (Erik, Harald and FSF (where I was at the time)) all
did together in 2002 to ensure the WRT54G source release.

In 2009, there’s a general purpose computer in almost every electronics
product. Putting a computer with 8MB RAM and a reasonable processor in
a device is now a common default. Well, BusyBox/Linux was always the
perfect operating system for that type of computer! So, when you walk
through the aisles of the big electronics vendors today, it’s pretty
likely that many of the devices you see are BusyBox/Linux ones.

Some people think that a company can just get away with ignoring the
GPL and the requirements of copyleft. Perhaps if a company has five
customers total, and none of them ask for source, your violation may
never be discovered. But, if you produce a mass market product based on
BusyBox/Linux, some smart software developer is going to eventually buy
one. They are going to get curious, and when they poke, they’ll see
what you put in there. And, that developer’s next email is going to be
to me to tell me all about that device. In my ten years of enforcement
experience, I find that a company’s odds of “getting away”
with a GPL violation are incredibly low. The user community eventually
notices and either publicly shames the company (not my preferred
enforcement method), or they contact someone like me to pursue
enforcement privately and encourage the company in a friendly way to
join the FLOSS community rather than work against it.

I absolutely love that so many companies have adopted BusyBox/Linux as
their default platform for many new products. Since circa 1994 when I
first saw the “can my toaster run Linux?” joke, I’ve dreamed
of time when it would be impossible to buy a mass-market electronics
product without finding FLOSS inside. I’m delighted we’ve nearly
reached that era during my lifetime.

However, such innovation is made possible by the commons created by the
GPL. I have dedicated a large portion of my adult life to GPL
enforcement precisely because I believe deeply in the value of that
commons. As I find violator after violator, I look forward to welcoming
them to our community in a friendly way, and ask them to respect the
commons that gave them so much, and give their code back to the
community that got them started.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/12/06/anatomy-gpl-violation.html

I’ve been thinking the last few weeks about the evolution of the GPL
violation. After ten years of being involved with GPL enforcement, it
seems like a good time to think about how things have changed.

Roughly, the typical GPL violation tracks almost directly the adoption
and spread of Free Software. When I started finding GPL violations, it
was in a day when Big Iron Unix was still king (although it was only a
few years away from collapse), and the GNU tools were just becoming
state of the art. Indeed, as a sysadmin, I typically took a proprietary
Unix system, and built a /usr/local/ filled with the GNU tools, because
I hated POSIX tools that didn’t have all the GNU extensions.

At the time, many vendors were discovering the same frustrations I was
as a sysadmin. Thus, the typical violation in those days was a
third-party vendor incorporating some GNU tools into their products, for
use on some Big Iron Unix. This was the age of the violating backup
product; we saw frequently backup products that violated the GPL on GNU
tar in those days.

As times changed, and computers got truly smaller, the embedded
Unix-like system was born. GNU/Linux and (more commonly) BusyBox/Linux
were the perfect solutions for this space. What was once a joke on
comp.os.linux.advocacy in the 1990s began to turn into a reality: it was
actually nearly possible for Linux to run on your toaster.

The first class of embedded devices that were BusyBox/Linux-based were
the wireless routers. Throughout the 2000s, the typical violation was
always some wireless router. I still occasionally see those types of
products violating the GPL, but I think the near-constant enforcement
done by Erik Andersen, FSF, and Harald Welte throughout the 2000’s has
led the wireless router violation to become the exception rather than
the rule. That enforcement also led to the birth of community-focused
development of the OpenWRT and DD-WRT, that all started from that first
enforcement that we (Erik, Harald and FSF (where I was at the time)) all
did together in 2002 to ensure the WRT54G source release.

In 2009, there’s a general purpose computer in almost every electronics
product. Putting a computer with 8MB RAM and a reasonable processor in
a device is now a common default. Well, BusyBox/Linux was always the
perfect operating system for that type of computer! So, when you walk
through the aisles of the big electronics vendors today, it’s pretty
likely that many of the devices you see are BusyBox/Linux ones.

Some people think that a company can just get away with ignoring the
GPL and the requirements of copyleft. Perhaps if a company has five
customers total, and none of them ask for source, your violation may
never be discovered. But, if you produce a mass market product based on
BusyBox/Linux, some smart software developer is going to eventually buy
one. They are going to get curious, and when they poke, they’ll see
what you put in there. And, that developer’s next email is going to be
to me to tell me all about that device. In my ten years of enforcement
experience, I find that a company’s odds of “getting away”
with a GPL violation are incredibly low. The user community eventually
notices and either publicly shames the company (not my preferred
enforcement method), or they contact someone like me to pursue
enforcement privately and encourage the company in a friendly way to
join the FLOSS community rather than work against it.

I absolutely love that so many companies have adopted BusyBox/Linux as
their default platform for many new products. Since circa 1994 when I
first saw the “can my toaster run Linux?” joke, I’ve dreamed
of time when it would be impossible to buy a mass-market electronics
product without finding FLOSS inside. I’m delighted we’ve nearly
reached that era during my lifetime.

However, such innovation is made possible by the commons created by the
GPL. I have dedicated a large portion of my adult life to GPL
enforcement precisely because I believe deeply in the value of that
commons. As I find violator after violator, I look forward to welcoming
them to our community in a friendly way, and ask them to respect the
commons that gave them so much, and give their code back to the
community that got them started.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/12/06/anatomy-gpl-violation.html

I’ve been thinking the last few weeks about the evolution of the GPL
violation. After ten years of being involved with GPL enforcement, it
seems like a good time to think about how things have changed.

Roughly, the typical GPL violation tracks almost directly the adoption
and spread of Free Software. When I started finding GPL violations, it
was in a day when Big Iron Unix was still king (although it was only a
few years away from collapse), and the GNU tools were just becoming
state of the art. Indeed, as a sysadmin, I typically took a proprietary
Unix system, and built a /usr/local/ filled with the GNU tools, because
I hated POSIX tools that didn’t have all the GNU extensions.

At the time, many vendors were discovering the same frustrations I was
as a sysadmin. Thus, the typical violation in those days was a
third-party vendor incorporating some GNU tools into their products, for
use on some Big Iron Unix. This was the age of the violating backup
product; we saw frequently backup products that violated the GPL on GNU
tar in those days.

As times changed, and computers got truly smaller, the embedded
Unix-like system was born. GNU/Linux and (more commonly) BusyBox/Linux
were the perfect solutions for this space. What was once a joke on
comp.os.linux.advocacy in the 1990s began to turn into a reality: it was
actually nearly possible for Linux to run on your toaster.

The first class of embedded devices that were BusyBox/Linux-based were
the wireless routers. Throughout the 2000s, the typical violation was
always some wireless router. I still occasionally see those types of
products violating the GPL, but I think the near-constant enforcement
done by Erik Andersen, FSF, and Harald Welte throughout the 2000’s has
led the wireless router violation to become the exception rather than
the rule. That enforcement also led to the birth of community-focused
development of the OpenWRT and DD-WRT, that all started from that first
enforcement that we (Erik, Harald and FSF (where I was at the time)) all
did together in 2002 to ensure the WRT54G source release.

In 2009, there’s a general purpose computer in almost every electronics
product. Putting a computer with 8MB RAM and a reasonable processor in
a device is now a common default. Well, BusyBox/Linux was always the
perfect operating system for that type of computer! So, when you walk
through the aisles of the big electronics vendors today, it’s pretty
likely that many of the devices you see are BusyBox/Linux ones.

Some people think that a company can just get away with ignoring the
GPL and the requirements of copyleft. Perhaps if a company has five
customers total, and none of them ask for source, your violation may
never be discovered. But, if you produce a mass market product based on
BusyBox/Linux, some smart software developer is going to eventually buy
one. They are going to get curious, and when they poke, they’ll see
what you put in there. And, that developer’s next email is going to be
to me to tell me all about that device. In my ten years of enforcement
experience, I find that a company’s odds of “getting away”
with a GPL violation are incredibly low. The user community eventually
notices and either publicly shames the company (not my preferred
enforcement method), or they contact someone like me to pursue
enforcement privately and encourage the company in a friendly way to
join the FLOSS community rather than work against it.

I absolutely love that so many companies have adopted BusyBox/Linux as
their default platform for many new products. Since circa 1994 when I
first saw the “can my toaster run Linux?” joke, I’ve dreamed
of time when it would be impossible to buy a mass-market electronics
product without finding FLOSS inside. I’m delighted we’ve nearly
reached that era during my lifetime.

However, such innovation is made possible by the commons created by the
GPL. I have dedicated a large portion of my adult life to GPL
enforcement precisely because I believe deeply in the value of that
commons. As I find violator after violator, I look forward to welcoming
them to our community in a friendly way, and ask them to respect the
commons that gave them so much, and give their code back to the
community that got them started.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/12/06/anatomy-gpl-violation.html

I’ve been thinking the last few weeks about the evolution of the GPL
violation. After ten years of being involved with GPL enforcement, it
seems like a good time to think about how things have changed.

Roughly, the typical GPL violation tracks almost directly the adoption
and spread of Free Software. When I started finding GPL violations, it
was in a day when Big Iron Unix was still king (although it was only a
few years away from collapse), and the GNU tools were just becoming
state of the art. Indeed, as a sysadmin, I typically took a proprietary
Unix system, and built a /usr/local/ filled with the GNU tools, because
I hated POSIX tools that didn’t have all the GNU extensions.

At the time, many vendors were discovering the same frustrations I was
as a sysadmin. Thus, the typical violation in those days was a
third-party vendor incorporating some GNU tools into their products, for
use on some Big Iron Unix. This was the age of the violating backup
product; we saw frequently backup products that violated the GPL on GNU
tar in those days.

As times changed, and computers got truly smaller, the embedded
Unix-like system was born. GNU/Linux and (more commonly) BusyBox/Linux
were the perfect solutions for this space. What was once a joke on
comp.os.linux.advocacy in the 1990s began to turn into a reality: it was
actually nearly possible for Linux to run on your toaster.

The first class of embedded devices that were BusyBox/Linux-based were
the wireless routers. Throughout the 2000s, the typical violation was
always some wireless router. I still occasionally see those types of
products violating the GPL, but I think the near-constant enforcement
done by Erik Andersen, FSF, and Harald Welte throughout the 2000’s has
led the wireless router violation to become the exception rather than
the rule. That enforcement also led to the birth of community-focused
development of the OpenWRT and DD-WRT, that all started from that first
enforcement that we (Erik, Harald and FSF (where I was at the time)) all
did together in 2002 to ensure the WRT54G source release.

In 2009, there’s a general purpose computer in almost every electronics
product. Putting a computer with 8MB RAM and a reasonable processor in
a device is now a common default. Well, BusyBox/Linux was always the
perfect operating system for that type of computer! So, when you walk
through the aisles of the big electronics vendors today, it’s pretty
likely that many of the devices you see are BusyBox/Linux ones.

Some people think that a company can just get away with ignoring the
GPL and the requirements of copyleft. Perhaps if a company has five
customers total, and none of them ask for source, your violation may
never be discovered. But, if you produce a mass market product based on
BusyBox/Linux, some smart software developer is going to eventually buy
one. They are going to get curious, and when they poke, they’ll see
what you put in there. And, that developer’s next email is going to be
to me to tell me all about that device. In my ten years of enforcement
experience, I find that a company’s odds of “getting away”
with a GPL violation are incredibly low. The user community eventually
notices and either publicly shames the company (not my preferred
enforcement method), or they contact someone like me to pursue
enforcement privately and encourage the company in a friendly way to
join the FLOSS community rather than work against it.

I absolutely love that so many companies have adopted BusyBox/Linux as
their default platform for many new products. Since circa 1994 when I
first saw the “can my toaster run Linux?” joke, I’ve dreamed
of time when it would be impossible to buy a mass-market electronics
product without finding FLOSS inside. I’m delighted we’ve nearly
reached that era during my lifetime.

However, such innovation is made possible by the commons created by the
GPL. I have dedicated a large portion of my adult life to GPL
enforcement precisely because I believe deeply in the value of that
commons. As I find violator after violator, I look forward to welcoming
them to our community in a friendly way, and ask them to respect the
commons that gave them so much, and give their code back to the
community that got them started.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/12/06/anatomy-gpl-violation.html

I’ve been thinking the last few weeks about the evolution of the GPL
violation. After ten years of being involved with GPL enforcement, it
seems like a good time to think about how things have changed.

Roughly, the typical GPL violation tracks almost directly the adoption
and spread of Free Software. When I started finding GPL violations, it
was in a day when Big Iron Unix was still king (although it was only a
few years away from collapse), and the GNU tools were just becoming
state of the art. Indeed, as a sysadmin, I typically took a proprietary
Unix system, and built a /usr/local/ filled with the GNU tools, because
I hated POSIX tools that didn’t have all the GNU extensions.

At the time, many vendors were discovering the same frustrations I was
as a sysadmin. Thus, the typical violation in those days was a
third-party vendor incorporating some GNU tools into their products, for
use on some Big Iron Unix. This was the age of the violating backup
product; we saw frequently backup products that violated the GPL on GNU
tar in those days.

As times changed, and computers got truly smaller, the embedded
Unix-like system was born. GNU/Linux and (more commonly) BusyBox/Linux
were the perfect solutions for this space. What was once a joke on
comp.os.linux.advocacy in the 1990s began to turn into a reality: it was
actually nearly possible for Linux to run on your toaster.

The first class of embedded devices that were BusyBox/Linux-based were
the wireless routers. Throughout the 2000s, the typical violation was
always some wireless router. I still occasionally see those types of
products violating the GPL, but I think the near-constant enforcement
done by Erik Andersen, FSF, and Harald Welte throughout the 2000’s has
led the wireless router violation to become the exception rather than
the rule. That enforcement also led to the birth of community-focused
development of the OpenWRT and DD-WRT, that all started from that first
enforcement that we (Erik, Harald and FSF (where I was at the time)) all
did together in 2002 to ensure the WRT54G source release.

In 2009, there’s a general purpose computer in almost every electronics
product. Putting a computer with 8MB RAM and a reasonable processor in
a device is now a common default. Well, BusyBox/Linux was always the
perfect operating system for that type of computer! So, when you walk
through the aisles of the big electronics vendors today, it’s pretty
likely that many of the devices you see are BusyBox/Linux ones.

Some people think that a company can just get away with ignoring the
GPL and the requirements of copyleft. Perhaps if a company has five
customers total, and none of them ask for source, your violation may
never be discovered. But, if you produce a mass market product based on
BusyBox/Linux, some smart software developer is going to eventually buy
one. They are going to get curious, and when they poke, they’ll see
what you put in there. And, that developer’s next email is going to be
to me to tell me all about that device. In my ten years of enforcement
experience, I find that a company’s odds of “getting away”
with a GPL violation are incredibly low. The user community eventually
notices and either publicly shames the company (not my preferred
enforcement method), or they contact someone like me to pursue
enforcement privately and encourage the company in a friendly way to
join the FLOSS community rather than work against it.

I absolutely love that so many companies have adopted BusyBox/Linux as
their default platform for many new products. Since circa 1994 when I
first saw the “can my toaster run Linux?” joke, I’ve dreamed
of time when it would be impossible to buy a mass-market electronics
product without finding FLOSS inside. I’m delighted we’ve nearly
reached that era during my lifetime.

However, such innovation is made possible by the commons created by the
GPL. I have dedicated a large portion of my adult life to GPL
enforcement precisely because I believe deeply in the value of that
commons. As I find violator after violator, I look forward to welcoming
them to our community in a friendly way, and ask them to respect the
commons that gave them so much, and give their code back to the
community that got them started.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/12/06/anatomy-gpl-violation.html

I’ve been thinking the last few weeks about the evolution of the GPL
violation. After ten years of being involved with GPL enforcement, it
seems like a good time to think about how things have changed.

Roughly, the typical GPL violation tracks almost directly the adoption
and spread of Free Software. When I started finding GPL violations, it
was in a day when Big Iron Unix was still king (although it was only a
few years away from collapse), and the GNU tools were just becoming
state of the art. Indeed, as a sysadmin, I typically took a proprietary
Unix system, and built a /usr/local/ filled with the GNU tools, because
I hated POSIX tools that didn’t have all the GNU extensions.

At the time, many vendors were discovering the same frustrations I was
as a sysadmin. Thus, the typical violation in those days was a
third-party vendor incorporating some GNU tools into their products, for
use on some Big Iron Unix. This was the age of the violating backup
product; we saw frequently backup products that violated the GPL on GNU
tar in those days.

As times changed, and computers got truly smaller, the embedded
Unix-like system was born. GNU/Linux and (more commonly) BusyBox/Linux
were the perfect solutions for this space. What was once a joke on
comp.os.linux.advocacy in the 1990s began to turn into a reality: it was
actually nearly possible for Linux to run on your toaster.

The first class of embedded devices that were BusyBox/Linux-based were
the wireless routers. Throughout the 2000s, the typical violation was
always some wireless router. I still occasionally see those types of
products violating the GPL, but I think the near-constant enforcement
done by Erik Andersen, FSF, and Harald Welte throughout the 2000’s has
led the wireless router violation to become the exception rather than
the rule. That enforcement also led to the birth of community-focused
development of the OpenWRT and DD-WRT, that all started from that first
enforcement that we (Erik, Harald and FSF (where I was at the time)) all
did together in 2002 to ensure the WRT54G source release.

In 2009, there’s a general purpose computer in almost every electronics
product. Putting a computer with 8MB RAM and a reasonable processor in
a device is now a common default. Well, BusyBox/Linux was always the
perfect operating system for that type of computer! So, when you walk
through the aisles of the big electronics vendors today, it’s pretty
likely that many of the devices you see are BusyBox/Linux ones.

Some people think that a company can just get away with ignoring the
GPL and the requirements of copyleft. Perhaps if a company has five
customers total, and none of them ask for source, your violation may
never be discovered. But, if you produce a mass market product based on
BusyBox/Linux, some smart software developer is going to eventually buy
one. They are going to get curious, and when they poke, they’ll see
what you put in there. And, that developer’s next email is going to be
to me to tell me all about that device. In my ten years of enforcement
experience, I find that a company’s odds of “getting away”
with a GPL violation are incredibly low. The user community eventually
notices and either publicly shames the company (not my preferred
enforcement method), or they contact someone like me to pursue
enforcement privately and encourage the company in a friendly way to
join the FLOSS community rather than work against it.

I absolutely love that so many companies have adopted BusyBox/Linux as
their default platform for many new products. Since circa 1994 when I
first saw the “can my toaster run Linux?” joke, I’ve dreamed
of time when it would be impossible to buy a mass-market electronics
product without finding FLOSS inside. I’m delighted we’ve nearly
reached that era during my lifetime.

However, such innovation is made possible by the commons created by the
GPL. I have dedicated a large portion of my adult life to GPL
enforcement precisely because I believe deeply in the value of that
commons. As I find violator after violator, I look forward to welcoming
them to our community in a friendly way, and ask them to respect the
commons that gave them so much, and give their code back to the
community that got them started.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/12/06/anatomy-gpl-violation.html

I’ve been thinking the last few weeks about the evolution of the GPL
violation. After ten years of being involved with GPL enforcement, it
seems like a good time to think about how things have changed.

Roughly, the typical GPL violation tracks almost directly the adoption
and spread of Free Software. When I started finding GPL violations, it
was in a day when Big Iron Unix was still king (although it was only a
few years away from collapse), and the GNU tools were just becoming
state of the art. Indeed, as a sysadmin, I typically took a proprietary
Unix system, and built a /usr/local/ filled with the GNU tools, because
I hated POSIX tools that didn’t have all the GNU extensions.

At the time, many vendors were discovering the same frustrations I was
as a sysadmin. Thus, the typical violation in those days was a
third-party vendor incorporating some GNU tools into their products, for
use on some Big Iron Unix. This was the age of the violating backup
product; we saw frequently backup products that violated the GPL on GNU
tar in those days.

As times changed, and computers got truly smaller, the embedded
Unix-like system was born. GNU/Linux and (more commonly) BusyBox/Linux
were the perfect solutions for this space. What was once a joke on
comp.os.linux.advocacy in the 1990s began to turn into a reality: it was
actually nearly possible for Linux to run on your toaster.

The first class of embedded devices that were BusyBox/Linux-based were
the wireless routers. Throughout the 2000s, the typical violation was
always some wireless router. I still occasionally see those types of
products violating the GPL, but I think the near-constant enforcement
done by Erik Andersen, FSF, and Harald Welte throughout the 2000’s has
led the wireless router violation to become the exception rather than
the rule. That enforcement also led to the birth of community-focused
development of the OpenWRT and DD-WRT, that all started from that first
enforcement that we (Erik, Harald and FSF (where I was at the time)) all
did together in 2002 to ensure the WRT54G source release.

In 2009, there’s a general purpose computer in almost every electronics
product. Putting a computer with 8MB RAM and a reasonable processor in
a device is now a common default. Well, BusyBox/Linux was always the
perfect operating system for that type of computer! So, when you walk
through the aisles of the big electronics vendors today, it’s pretty
likely that many of the devices you see are BusyBox/Linux ones.

Some people think that a company can just get away with ignoring the
GPL and the requirements of copyleft. Perhaps if a company has five
customers total, and none of them ask for source, your violation may
never be discovered. But, if you produce a mass market product based on
BusyBox/Linux, some smart software developer is going to eventually buy
one. They are going to get curious, and when they poke, they’ll see
what you put in there. And, that developer’s next email is going to be
to me to tell me all about that device. In my ten years of enforcement
experience, I find that a company’s odds of “getting away”
with a GPL violation are incredibly low. The user community eventually
notices and either publicly shames the company (not my preferred
enforcement method), or they contact someone like me to pursue
enforcement privately and encourage the company in a friendly way to
join the FLOSS community rather than work against it.

I absolutely love that so many companies have adopted BusyBox/Linux as
their default platform for many new products. Since circa 1994 when I
first saw the “can my toaster run Linux?” joke, I’ve dreamed
of time when it would be impossible to buy a mass-market electronics
product without finding FLOSS inside. I’m delighted we’ve nearly
reached that era during my lifetime.

However, such innovation is made possible by the commons created by the
GPL. I have dedicated a large portion of my adult life to GPL
enforcement precisely because I believe deeply in the value of that
commons. As I find violator after violator, I look forward to welcoming
them to our community in a friendly way, and ask them to respect the
commons that gave them so much, and give their code back to the
community that got them started.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/12/06/anatomy-gpl-violation.html

I’ve been thinking the last few weeks about the evolution of the GPL
violation. After ten years of being involved with GPL enforcement, it
seems like a good time to think about how things have changed.

Roughly, the typical GPL violation tracks almost directly the adoption
and spread of Free Software. When I started finding GPL violations, it
was in a day when Big Iron Unix was still king (although it was only a
few years away from collapse), and the GNU tools were just becoming
state of the art. Indeed, as a sysadmin, I typically took a proprietary
Unix system, and built a /usr/local/ filled with the GNU tools, because
I hated POSIX tools that didn’t have all the GNU extensions.

At the time, many vendors were discovering the same frustrations I was
as a sysadmin. Thus, the typical violation in those days was a
third-party vendor incorporating some GNU tools into their products, for
use on some Big Iron Unix. This was the age of the violating backup
product; we saw frequently backup products that violated the GPL on GNU
tar in those days.

As times changed, and computers got truly smaller, the embedded
Unix-like system was born. GNU/Linux and (more commonly) BusyBox/Linux
were the perfect solutions for this space. What was once a joke on
comp.os.linux.advocacy in the 1990s began to turn into a reality: it was
actually nearly possible for Linux to run on your toaster.

The first class of embedded devices that were BusyBox/Linux-based were
the wireless routers. Throughout the 2000s, the typical violation was
always some wireless router. I still occasionally see those types of
products violating the GPL, but I think the near-constant enforcement
done by Erik Andersen, FSF, and Harald Welte throughout the 2000’s has
led the wireless router violation to become the exception rather than
the rule. That enforcement also led to the birth of community-focused
development of the OpenWRT and DD-WRT, that all started from that first
enforcement that we (Erik, Harald and FSF (where I was at the time)) all
did together in 2002 to ensure the WRT54G source release.

In 2009, there’s a general purpose computer in almost every electronics
product. Putting a computer with 8MB RAM and a reasonable processor in
a device is now a common default. Well, BusyBox/Linux was always the
perfect operating system for that type of computer! So, when you walk
through the aisles of the big electronics vendors today, it’s pretty
likely that many of the devices you see are BusyBox/Linux ones.

Some people think that a company can just get away with ignoring the
GPL and the requirements of copyleft. Perhaps if a company has five
customers total, and none of them ask for source, your violation may
never be discovered. But, if you produce a mass market product based on
BusyBox/Linux, some smart software developer is going to eventually buy
one. They are going to get curious, and when they poke, they’ll see
what you put in there. And, that developer’s next email is going to be
to me to tell me all about that device. In my ten years of enforcement
experience, I find that a company’s odds of “getting away”
with a GPL violation are incredibly low. The user community eventually
notices and either publicly shames the company (not my preferred
enforcement method), or they contact someone like me to pursue
enforcement privately and encourage the company in a friendly way to
join the FLOSS community rather than work against it.

I absolutely love that so many companies have adopted BusyBox/Linux as
their default platform for many new products. Since circa 1994 when I
first saw the “can my toaster run Linux?” joke, I’ve dreamed
of time when it would be impossible to buy a mass-market electronics
product without finding FLOSS inside. I’m delighted we’ve nearly
reached that era during my lifetime.

However, such innovation is made possible by the commons created by the
GPL. I have dedicated a large portion of my adult life to GPL
enforcement precisely because I believe deeply in the value of that
commons. As I find violator after violator, I look forward to welcoming
them to our community in a friendly way, and ask them to respect the
commons that gave them so much, and give their code back to the
community that got them started.