[pp.int.general] Significance of use of Free and proprietary software in a political context

[Per von Zweigbergk]

29 jan 2009 kl. 15.31 skrev Richard M Stallman:

> There are other ways to run Linux just as there are other ways to run
> Bash, other ways to run GNOME, other ways to run GCC, and other ways
> to run GNU Chess.  But why attach special importance to the first of
> these facts?


The reason is that I'm trying to fight the common meme that anything  
that uses Linux is automatically GNU/Linux, and for people to stop and  
think when they use the term GNU/Linux. The GNU part actually *means*  
something, and is not just a prefix that should be tagged on before  
any instance of "Linux" to placate RMS. :-)

An interesting case would be some of Linksys router products. I  
understand the Free Software Foundation is currently suing Linksys for  
persistent GPL violations. While I'm not at all up to the details of  
the case, from hacking around with my Linksys WRT54GL, which I bought  
specifically for its compatibility with Free Software[*], I have the  
distinct impression that the WRT54GL (I can't speak for the rest of  
the products) does not actually use any GNU software, but rather uses  
Linux, Busybox, and builds a non-GNU system using that.

So I hope that, since the foundation of the GNU GPL is copyright, and  
that any case for license violation would be in scope of copyright  
law, that one of these three statements are true:

- There is in fact some software being distributed in violation of the  
GPL, to which the Free Software Foundation owns the copyright. Maybe  
not all their products are like the WRT54GL. The libc might actually  
be GNU libc for example, I don't remember. It would make more sense to  
use something like uClibc in this application though.
- You have received permission from one of the authors of the GPL- 
licensed software distributed by Linksys. This might be somebody on  
the Busybox theme or somebody developing Linux.
- The law in whatever jurisdiction you're suing Linksys in (I'm  
assuming the US) permits third parties to sue for copyright  
infringement. (Which would be quite strange.)

By the way, how much GNU does there have to be in GNU/Linux for it to  
be considered a GNU system and merit being called GNU/Linux? Just a  
single library?

The reason I've been thinking about this stuff is not just  
hypothetical trolling, contrairism and pedantry on my part. I recently  
ran into a GPL violation in an embedded system I have at home. I'm not  
naming the product here, because I want to give original copyright  
holders for some of the components to get a chance to purchase one of  
these systems to prove the GPL violation, and the investigation is  
still pending. I wasn't able to find a single trace of any GNU  
software anywhere on it. That's why the FSF hasn't heard from me on  
this issue.

[*] The WRT54GL is actually a re-badged version of a version 4 WRT54G.  
The version 5 and later WRT54G used less memory and were therefore  
incompatible with any useful modern Linux-based system. It instead  
used VXworks. The WRT54GL was manufactured in response to the market  
for using custom software on wireless access points.

-- 
Per von Zweigbergk

VARNING: E-post till och från Sverige, eller som passerar servrar i  
Sverige, avlyssnas av Försvarets Radioanstalt, FRA.
WARNING: E-mail to and from Sweden, or via servers in Sweden, is  
intercepted by the Swedish National Defense Radio Establishment.