freebox possible GPL violation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
47 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freebox possible GPL violation

Stefan Smietanowski
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Emmanuel Fleury wrote:

> Helge Hafting wrote:
>
>>Interesting argument, but it breaks for at least two reasons: 1. You
>>can buy that box instead of just hiring it. That moves kernels
>>"outside the company", for money even.
>
>
> I might have misunderstood but I think that if you buy the hardware you
> cannot connect it to the DSLAM network anymore. So that only the boxes
> they own are connected to the DSLAM.

Get the box, turn it on, don't turn it off, pay the 400 EUR, own the box
LEAVING IT ON.

Result: You have a box that is _NOW_ running Linux and YOU own it.

If them placing the box at your place isn't considered distribution
(re: your mobile phone thing) then you BUYING it would need to,
due to transfer of ownership.

The fact that the box can't do what it's supposed to after you buy it
is irrelevant.

// Stefan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFDRYXYBrn2kJu9P78RAkOWAJ9WpWueLnpxMJYNqzvP7iguD76VmwCgnbXC
M7HrIV7fM5vsNXNzP0FY7MI=
=Yeav
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [hidden email]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freebox possible GPL violation

Pierre Michon
In reply to this post by Pierre Michon
> Helloooo !!! Have you proofs that they have ???
Could you just reply on the simple question : why the boot is not
stateless ?

>Just stick to the FACTS and if you want to argue on
>something, bring PROOFS !
In the fact (first mail) I give :

On [1] you could see 7 steps.
Step 1 to 5 is network initialisation (adsl synchronization, dhcp,
check on the dslam, ...)
Step 6 is software update
Step 7 is operationnal

When there are no firmware update the sequence is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
When there is a firmware update it is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7.

But you haven't a freebox, so how could you have seen this that ?
Even other people agree that may be a GPL firmware stored in the freebox
(see https://linuxfr.org/~crevetor/19607.html and the author of
http://www.f-b-x.net/ told me the same thing by mail [2])

>Nonsense, you are talking about cases of softwares which were sold to
>customers with GPL code inside. This is no such case here.
Have you read the mailling ?
it was about case were hardware was lended...


>You obviously need a brain, try to get one and come back after you
>learned to use it.
You need one too, you failed to read :
"Please let's continue on legal gpl-violations.org ML."...



[1] http://forums.grenouille.com/index.php?showtopic=14659
[2]

>Tout laisse a supposer que la freebox contient bien un systeme linux
> >>minimal, elle telecharge le reste (/usr, ...) lorsqu'elle se
> >>connecte >au serveur et en cas de mise a jour du fimware le system
> >>minimal est >ecrasse et on reboot...
>
non je me suis mal exprimé, elle garde le systéme sur sa rom et le met a
jour en cas de nouvelle version, du moins c est ce que je pense.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [hidden email]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: freebox possible GPL violation

JoelKatz
In reply to this post by Arjan van de Ven-4

> On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 14:02 +0200, Emmanuel Fleury wrote:
> > Arjan van de Ven wrote:

> > > that's not enough to satisfy the GPL conditions.

> > It is.

>   3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
> Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
>
>     a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
>     source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
>     1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;

        The Internet is a medium customarily used for software interchange, in
fact, it is most likely the most popular medium for that purpose. At the
time the GPL was written (June 1991), it arguably was not. So you will see a
lot of arguments that including a URL was not sufficient. However, now that
the Internet is the most popular medium for software interchange, offering a
URL is actually the *best* way to make the source code available.

        Anyone who argues otherwise is just looking to make trouble for no reason
whatsoever. There is no medium you could possibly include that is more
likely to be usable than a URL. The intent of this paragraph was that the
software be available and easily accessible. A URL does this better than
anything else.

        DS


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [hidden email]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freebox possible GPL violation

Graham Murray
"David Schwartz" <[hidden email]> writes:

> However, now that the Internet is the most popular medium for
> software interchange, offering a URL is actually the *best* way to
> make the source code available.

As long as you can guarantee that the URL remains valid for the
required 3 years, and that the exact source code used to build each
released binary version is available, not just the latest source.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [hidden email]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freebox possible GPL violation

Loic Dachary
In reply to this post by Pierre Michon
Pierre Michon writes:
 > 1) The freebox is an adsl gateway with VoIP, TV over ADSL and a optional
 > wifi bridge. The box is built and lended by an ADSL provider 'free'[0].

        I suggest you say :

"The box is built by an ADSL provider 'free'[0]. The box is located at
the user end of the ADSL line (i.e. in the appartement of an individual
or in the offices of a company). "

        Later on you could expand on how the box gets there, how
it is installed (lended or not) and the claim of Free that it is
not lended in any ways.


 > ==FREE and PRO-FREE CLAIMS (some claims could be find on [6])==
 >
 > A) The freebox is only lended, so the user can't ask for GPL source code.

        I insist that free does not even claim to lend the Freebox. They
claim that the freebox is a terminal equipement of their local network.

 > -> They forgot that for wifi feature, you have buy a pcmcia card and
 > that is card works wifi Linux driver. So according to GPL you could ask
 > for wifi driver source code and all the Linux source code ???
 > Also some people that don't return the freebox in time had to
 > paid 400 Euros and they became the owner of the freebox. Free send to a
 > client a letter [7] saying that if the user don't return the freebox,
 > free could bill it and then it becomes propriety of the user :
 > 'Nous vous rappelons que conformément aux Conditions Générales de Vente ,
 > en cas de non-restitution du modem, Free se réserve le droit de procéder
 > à la facturation de l'équipement terminal, au prix mentionné dans les CGV,
 > qui deviendra alors la *propriété* de l'Usager.'

        I believe that a customer could ask for the corresponding sources
to Free if she/he got a copy of the binary out of the freebox. Does anyone
have such a binary ?

 > the fimware. So we could assume that at least a mininal system (Linux
 > kernel + some utils) is keep in rom).

        Could someone provide a hard proof of this ?

 > C) 'Free' is a network operator and needs to keep secret some informations
 > in order to preserve security on its networks.
 >
 > -> Everybody know how security obscurity via is safe. Also I agree they
 > don't want to give their script or their configuration, but I fail to
 > see what could be a threat in the Linux kernel.

        I'd say this is more a debatable justification than a claim.

        Cheers,

--
Loic Dachary, 12 bd Magenta, 75010 Paris. Tel: 33 8 71 18 43 38
http://www.fsffrance.org/   http://www.dachary.org/loic/gpg.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [hidden email]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freebox possible GPL violation

Pierre Michon-3
Hi,

2005/10/15, Loic Dachary <[hidden email]>:
>         I believe that a customer could ask for the corresponding sources
> to Free if she/he got a copy of the binary out of the freebox. Does anyone
> have such a binary ?
But those ISP does everything in order the user couldn't touch the
firmware because they are frightened that the user could modify it and
does things that wasn't planed (record live tv stream for example).

For that they :
- disable all debug functions on customers boxes (serial port, jtag, ...).
- download the firmware via encrypted protocol (https, ...)
- check the integrity of the bootloader, firmware server, firmware.
- encrypted all rescue firmware that could be present on user computer.

So one way of recovering the firmware could be to unsold the flash
chip and read it on another board.

An other way will be to try to renable debug functions by soldering
component on the board.

But it will be very expensive and need special competences (and
without the datasheet of the board could be very hard...).


>
>  > the fimware. So we could assume that at least a mininal system (Linux
>  > kernel + some utils) is keep in rom).
>
>         Could someone provide a hard proof of this ?
>
No without reading the flash chip.

What I have seen for the boards like freebox in my company :
- the bootloader try to load the firmware in flash
- if it fails, it try to read a rescue firmware. That rescue firmware
is minimal and will only allow to enable ADSL line and download a new
firmware in the flash and reboot.
- if it fails, the bootloader will try to load a encrypted firmware
from local Ethernet LAN (bootp, ...) and reboot.

But there no way to know what exactly does the freebox (may be try to
find the flash chip and its size)...

Pierre

PS : Does we need the binary image in order to ask for the source code ?
In this case, with Embedded devices that hide the firmware it will be
very difficult to make GPL apply...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [hidden email]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: freebox possible GPL violation

Loic Dachary
Pierre Michon writes:
 > PS : Does we need the binary image in order to ask for the source code ?
 > In this case, with Embedded devices that hide the firmware it will be
 > very difficult to make GPL apply...

        It is not mandatory, it's just easier in this specific case.
If we knew for sure what the firmware contains, the box would be
enough.  But if someone is able to figure out exactly what the
firmware contains she/he will also be able to extract a tarball in
which case the box itself becomes useless to ask for the corresponding
sources ;-)

        Cheers,

--
Loic Dachary, 12 bd Magenta, 75010 Paris. Tel: 33 8 71 18 43 38
http://www.fsffrance.org/   http://www.dachary.org/loic/gpg.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [hidden email]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
123