Possible multiple GPL violations.
oliver at schinagl.nl
Mon Feb 21 21:02:03 CET 2011
Well I did as you said, extracted the camera binary from the firmware
image, uncompressed the bFLT compressed binary and check for strings.
Loads of correct English strings, not that that means anything. Some
clear Chinese/foscam references.
Going through a few pages of strings, I noticed that the application is
very featured. SMTP dumping of images, ftp dumping of images, jpg stuff
(though I'm guessing the camera grabs jpg's) SSL, bounjour etc like stuff.
I did find so far, that they statically link OpenSSL and mDNSResponder
but those are under the BSD and Apache license so not an issue.
It being kind of unreal to check every string with other apps, anybody
else with more finesse for this kind of thing have any ideas?
Regarding the rest of the thing, the camera driver violating the
kernel's GPL license at the very least, where to go from here?
On 02/02/11 21:00, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Ian Stirling <gplvio at mauve.plus.com> wrote:
>> Fernando Cassia wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Oliver Schinagl <oliver at schinagl.nl>
>>>> Lastly the foscam binary firmware image includes at the very least an
>>>> application called 'camera', which I haven't looked at yet but this may
>>>> also be a contender.
>>> Since when does the GPL from the kernel extend to user-mode applications?
>> If it contains bits of ffmpeg, or ...
> Well, try runnig "strings" to the binary and see if you come up with
> any copyright notices. Althought editing them out (even by patching
> the binary) is trivial.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 28296 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the legal