Linksys on-going violation of the GPL

[Imre Kaloz]

On the other side, I've mailed them at least 3 times for the sources of
the bootloaders they are using in their products (for example RedBoot in
the WRT54GR and NSLU2, standalone Linux kernel in all "OpenRG" based
routers), and got no reply.

Does anyone know a direct legal contact there?

Cheers,
Imre

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 01:51:23 +0200, Eric Warnke <eric at snowmoon.com> wrote:

> Look I will grant you that they are in violation of the letter of the
> license, but only because of the redesign of the website that has
> moved around many items.  The new GPL center is an attempt to make it
> easier to find all of the GPL covered code.  Obviously it has not
> "trickled down" to all parts of the site.   Also for most other
> firmware in the WRT54 series the two downloads when you click on
> firmware are the binary and the source code rather than the firmware
> and the changelog like on the v2.0.
>
> Considering that in the grand scheme Linksys has been good in terms of
> compliance have you made any initial, written, complaint to Linksys
> legal?  They have been receptive in the past.
>
> And please, do not attack other on this list just because you have a
> bone to pick with Linksys.
>
> Oh, please don't bothing replying to me directly since I will delete
> any more of your direct replies.
>
> Cheers,
> Eric
>
> On 9/18/06, Mr Smith <lockdown34 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Is the availablity tucked two clicks away off on the side really "along  
>> with
>> the Program"?  Exactly how far can a company go to disassociate  
>> availablity
>> of the license text of the GPL from the covered work and still in your  
>> mind
>> comply with the GPL?  Keep in mind, there is an immediate link on the  
>> page
>> to download GPL covered works but none of the links result in an  
>> immediate
>> download of the text of the GPL.  Instead, the user needs to know to  
>> ignore
>> the gray icon indicating that GPL code is not an option and dig through  
>> a
>> long list provided by a general menu item not specifically associated  
>> with
>> the firmware/device.  It appears to me that clause 1 is not being  
>> honored at
>> all.  How you streach this to being enough to comply really leaves  
>> baffled.
>> Why is clause 1 even written into the text of the license if there is no
>> intention to enforce it?
>