Linksys on-going violation of the GPL

[Mr Smith]

I have a Linksys WRT54G v2.0.  I went to upgrade it and found that the 
Linksys firmware download page for this model has "GPL code" grayed out.  
The web page explains that "grayed out options are unavailable" which to me 
is a clear indication that Linksys is sending the message that the firmware 
does not contain GPL or LGPL covered code.  This surprised me since it was 
my understanding this model uses Linux.  So, I download the update which is 
a ZIP archive.

The ZIP contains three files:
  WRT54G_4.30.5_US_code.bin
  wrt54g_ver.txt
  Readme.txt

The bin file contains a 60 byte header followed by a gzip header.  The file 
can be stripped down to the gzip header using the standard *nix (or cygwin) 
dd command as follows:

dd if=WRT54G_4.30.5_US_code.bin of=testfile.gz bs=1 skip=60

The resulting gzip is decompressed using the usual method:

gzip -d testfile.gz

Indications that the Linux 2.4.20 kernel code is used in this product 
appears when running:

strings testfile | grep -i linux


The two text files provide no notice that GPL or LGPL works are used or 
where to get a copy of the GPL or LGP license.

After upgrading my hardware, the embedded web server did provide web pages 
that indicated that the software is copyrighted but at no time provided a 
notice that GPL or LGPL works are used or where to get a copy of the GPL or 
LGPL license.

I have gotten the run around talking to Linksys about this issue.  Technical 
support claims that I should upgrade to a newer model if I want the "GPL 
feature included."  They disregard that the GPL is not some marketing 
feature that Linksys can choose when to honor based on it's own whim.  After 
stating that I am a copyright holder for code in the 2.4.20 kernel and that 
this method of violating the license condition to encourage users to buy 
newer hardware is not legal, they had me call customer service.  Customer 
service considered telling me about the "GPL Code Center" as honoring their 
obligations under the license to perform notification since I was now 
notified.  They indicated there was no reason why there should be a problem 
with the "GPL code" icon is grayed out when performing distribution of GPL 
covered code in the Linksys firmware.  Also, customer service made it clear 
that Linksys has no intention of making modification to provide notice to 
customers when firmware contains GPL covered code.

Given that this is not the first time Linksys has violated the GPL and they 
are now actively promoting newer hardware to customers that should already 
get the same GPL rights on their current hardware, I feel that I should be 
entitled to payment for my copyrighted contributions to the Linux 2.4.20 
kernel.

The terms I would wave any claim to damages under would be that by November 
1st, 2006:

1) For all firmware images containing my code covered under the GPL, a 
*BLUE* GPL code icon must be displayed.

2) If an User Guide is made available on the same page providing the 
firmware containing GPL covered code then the user guide must provide a full 
copy of the text of the GPL and information on where to download the GPL 
covered code.

3) If a Quick Install is made available on the same page providing the 
firmware containing GPL covered code then the quick install must provide 
information on where to download the full text of the GPL and covered code.

4) If there is a text file distributed with the firmware containing GPL 
covered code then the text file must provide information on where to 
download the full text of the GPL and the covered code.

5) If accessing the device running the firmware causes any copyright to be 
displayed then it must also display a notice that the firmware contains GPL 
covered code and include a link to a page stored on the device that explains 
where to get the full text of the GPL and the covered code.

6) Location that is stated for getting the full text of the GPL and covered 
code must be valid for three years from the last provided download of the 
firmware.

Based on how Linksys has handled the situation so far, I do not expect that 
they will ever agree to honor all of the above conditions by which I would 
be willing to wave copyright infrigment damages.  Given that, I would like 
any information people can provide on how to proceed when November 1st rolls 
around and they have ignored my demands either completely or in part.  It is 
not my intention to make empty threats and I want to set an example on how 
contributors can collect royalities from Linksys for presenting GPL covered 
works as prioritary closed products.

Thanks

_________________________________________________________________
Got something to buy, sell or swap? Try Windows Live Expo  
ttp://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://expo.live.com/