headers
Harald Welte | 24 May 2005 16:04

Re: Status Buffalo

On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 03:26:50PM +0200, Hanno Mueller wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> > The Blog entry was not specifically about the TeraStation, but more
> > about their wireless product series.  I did not yet investigate
> > TeraStation further.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> > If you have any issues with the source code as shipped by Buffalo (i.e.
> > it doesn't match the binary firmware), then please let me know.
> 
> The main issue for me is that their source is pretty useless for me as a
> user. They do provide the full kernel sources, but they do not explain
> how to install my own kernel on the box's flash rom.

they do have to provide the "scripts to .. control installation of the
executable".  So if you don't have any scripts that install a modified
verision of the GPL licensed software on the device, they're GPL
incompliant.

--

-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge <at> gnumonks.org>          	        http://gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
                                                  (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Harald Welte | 24 May 2005 16:07

Belkin Toolchain Source

Hi!

My lawyer has forwarded me the latest letter from Belkin's legal
counsel.  With regard to my latest inquiry on the corresponding source
code to the toolchain, they stated they're now offering the toolchain
source at

http://www.belkin.com/support/gpl/TOOLSOURCE_2004_03_31.tgz

--

-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge <at> gnumonks.org>          	        http://gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
                                                  (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Waldemar Brodkorb | 18 May 2005 17:17

Re: Belkin Firmware Failures

Hi,

Can you all please stop this bullshit. Don't feed the trolls. 
Imre and Felix please do not waste your valuable time.
People who only talk, do not help.

bye
    Waldemar Brodkorb
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Quantum Scientific | 24 May 2005 16:38
Favicon

Re: Belkin Toolchain Source

On Tuesday 24 May 2005 9:07, Harald Welte wrote:
> With regard to my latest inquiry on the corresponding source
> code to the toolchain, they stated they're now offering the toolchain
> source at

Sure, you'd told me this off-line, earlier.

I have examined their toolchain, and found that the only specific 
modifications possible are to avert a bug in the 4710 processor.

But the firmware source is vastly incomplete, as I've said all along, and in 
fact has had certain critical functions removed, of which I'll advise you 
off-line.  The firmware source is completely unusable, and is a cynical 
end-run around the GPL.

Best,

Carl Cook
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
chip | 25 May 2005 23:23
Gravatar

Help needed dealing with ex-employer violating GPL

In the past I worked for Techguard Security, LLC. 
(http://www.techguardsecurity.com), in Chesterfield, Missouri.  While 
working for them I prototyped a netfilter firewall on Linux.   It was a 
collection of bash scripts calling iptables repeatedly to configure a 
firewall.  At the time I told them I suspected the work I was doing was 
subject to the GPL.  They denied that was the case.  

Now they are selling products based on the netfilter project I started.  
They make no mention of netfilter, Linux or the GPL and claim it as 
their proprietary development.  They are selling this firewall to medium 
to large corporations and the U.S. government.

Since working for them I have written from scratch my own netfilter 
based firewall scripts.  This has prompted Techguard without any 
evidence to file suit with the FBI claiming I have stolen their 
intellectual property.  

If I am interpreting the actions against Fortinet and Edimax correctly, 
all netfilter based firewalls are subjected to the GPL.  That means 
Techguard not only doesn't own the netfilter scripts I wrote, they are 
illegally claiming them as their own. 

Can anyone help me in dealing with my ex-employer's GPL violations and 
properly informing the FBI they are pursuing a claim of theft for 
something that was never owned?  Also a referral to an attorney who can 
properly advise me on the situation would be of great help also.

I would like to get this resolve ASAP because I feel that I am violating 
the GPL by not releasing the source code to the firewall I have since 
scripted, but I'm afraid of stirring a more volatile pot.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Andre Caldas | 26 May 2005 02:19
Picon

Re: Help needed dealing with ex-employer violating GPL

Hello!

chip <at> innovates.com wrote:
> In the past I worked for Techguard Security, LLC. 
> (http://www.techguardsecurity.com), in Chesterfield, Missouri.  While 
> working for them I prototyped a netfilter firewall on Linux.   It was a 
> collection of bash scripts calling iptables repeatedly to configure a 
> firewall.  At the time I told them I suspected the work I was doing was 
> subject to the GPL.  They denied that was the case.  
> 
> Now they are selling products based on the netfilter project I started.  
> They make no mention of netfilter, Linux or the GPL and claim it as 
> their proprietary development.  They are selling this firewall to medium 
> to large corporations and the U.S. government.

I am not really sure, but I belive your scripts need not be released
under the GPL, maybe unless they are distributed as part of netfilter,
for instance. Now, if this company is distributing GPL based software
they do need to comply. Do they distribute "linux", "netfilter", or
others? (this is where you have to start)

> Since working for them I have written from scratch my own netfilter 
> based firewall scripts.  This has prompted Techguard without any 
> evidence to file suit with the FBI claiming I have stolen their 
> intellectual property.  

File a suit with the FBI? Ok...
I am supposing they are claiming you violate their copyright. If you
wrote your scripts from scratch, they have no saying about it. Copyright
does not cover ideas.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Quantum Scientific | 26 May 2005 18:30
Favicon

Re: Belkin Toolchain Source

Harald, will you be taking further action, or should we begin preparing our lawsuit?

Best,

Carl Cook

On Tuesday 24 May 2005 9:38, Quantum Scientific wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 May 2005 9:07, Harald Welte wrote:
> > With regard to my latest inquiry on the corresponding source
> > code to the toolchain, they stated they're now offering the toolchain
> > source at
> 
> Sure, you'd told me this off-line, earlier.
> 
> I have examined their toolchain, and found that the only specific 
> modifications possible are to avert a bug in the 4710 processor.
> 
> But the firmware source is vastly incomplete, as I've said all along, and in 
> fact has had certain critical functions removed, of which I'll advise you 
> off-line.  The firmware source is completely unusable, and is a cynical 
> end-run around the GPL.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Carl Cook
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Hongkun Yin | 30 May 2005 14:44
Picon
Favicon

Re: legal Digest, Vol 6, Issue 8

I just don't believe you actually did not read. 
Felix explained it in such a detail, and things are
quite clear, the parts you mentioned are not GPL
parts, you can not require so much from anybody, and
you have no right to ruin things and make the actual
contributors feel bad about GPL. 

The following pasted from Felix's last email,
hopefully you can read it.

More details:
> In compile:

> In Makefile.mimo:
> ifeq ($(MODEL),rt_ps)
> WWW_DIR = belkin
> ... so this directory is missing, since this is a
router:  
> src/router/www/belkin
Their web interface isn't licensed under the GPL - not
even the http 
daemon is - no violation there.

> In Makefile.mimo:
> DEFAULT_CONFIG is undefined.  Should =
default_belkin.  Whatever defines it is 
> missing.
Someone interested in making an alternative firmware
should be smart 
enough to deal with that kind of problem
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Quantum Scientific | 30 May 2005 15:20
Favicon

Re: Belkin's Legal Violations

I just don't believe how several people here are fighting my efforts to cause 
Belkin to release their proper source!  This is irrational, and in obvious 
contravention of the purpose of GPL-Violations.org .  

"Ruin things", LOL... what ever are you talking about?  'Fixing things' and 
standing up for the actual contributors is what I am doing. 

Why would you oppose, Belkin's being brought into compliance with the GPL?  
Belkin is breaking the law, and is actively trying to -deflect- corrective 
efforts!  This is why I believe exemplary damages would be awarded in this 
case.  I am gathering information now;  thanks for coming out.

If it were one person opposing us, I would say it's mental illness.  But since 
it's three+, it appears to be a coordinated effort by Belkin or Broadcom, and 
I think this deserves special scrutiny as these are corrupt and dishonest 
tactics.  I would submit to the DA, but the standard of proof is easier in a 
civil trial.

Carl Cook 

On Monday 30 May 2005 7:44, Hongkun Yin wrote:
> I just don't believe you actually did not read. 
> Felix explained it in such a detail, and things are
> quite clear, the parts you mentioned are not GPL
> parts, you can not require so much from anybody, and
> you have no right to ruin things and make the actual
> contributors feel bad about GPL.
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
codewarrior | 30 May 2005 22:33
Picon

regarding Cornell's qVIX/CU30 software and patents

Begin forwarded message:

> From: atdodd <at> eden.rutgers.edu
> Date: May 30, 2005 9:03:45 PM GMT+02:00
> To: marc <at> let.de
> Subject: qVIX, the GPL, and patents
>
> I just recently discovered a post of yours to an IETF mailing list at
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg03345.html,
> regarding Cornell's qVIX/CU30 software and patents.
>
> Yes, in the past the source was available.  I've noticed that the  
> link on
> sf.net is now broken, honestly that project has not been maintained or
> touched in over four years.  There's a good chance that SF may have  
> taken
> down the files due to inactivity or possibly a lost backup.  I  
> couldn't
> say, I haven't been involved with the qVIX/CU30 project since 2000  
> or so
> when I was an undergrad at Cornell.  Yes, I worked with Aron on the
> qVIX/CU30 porting project back then.  That really reminds me, I  
> should get
> in touch with him, I haven't really spoken to him since graduation in
> 2002.  :)
>
> Regarding the fact that the CU30 algorithm has patents that apply  
> to it -
> Along with the release of qVIX, Cornell granted a free license to  
> those
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |

Gmane