Shark Bait

Knowledge Centers

Operating Systems

Networking & Internet

Mobile & Wireless

Security

Storage

Business Intelligence

Servers & Data Center

Computerworld Reports

Industry

See your link here

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Cyber Cynic

Open source isn't free software

57 comments

TAGS:Cisco, FSF, GPL, lawsuit, SFLC
IT TOPICS:Development, Enterprise Software & Services, Government & Regulation, Hardware, Linux, Management, Mobile & Wireless, Networking, Open Source, Operating Systems, Software

There's a long standing argument over the differences between "open-source" software and "free" software. But, a more common error outside of software ideology circles is that you can use open-source software anyway you please. Nope. Wrong. It's never been that way.

Cisco, the networking giant, should know better than this, but they've worn out the FSF's (Free Software Foundation) patience. So, Cisco is now being sued by the SFLC (Software Freedom Law Center) on behalf of the FSF for Linux and other GPL copyright violations.

You see, Cisco, like many other networking companies use Linux, and other free software programs like GCC, binutils, and the GNU C Library in their products. Specifically, Cisco uses these programs in its Linksys line. In fact, the FSF first brought Cisco's improper use of open-source code to the company's attention back in 2004 with its use in the Linksys WRT54G wireless router.

The FSF wasn't looking for money. The cost that comes with using free software code is that, if you sell or distribute programs or products that use the GPLed code, you have to share your modified code with its users.

That's not much, but some companies, after adding their special sauce, don't want to share. That's a big, dumb mistake.

In the last few years, the SFLC has been suing other companies that try to play fast and loose with GPLed programs. And, you know what? The SFLC has been scoring one knockout after another.

As sure as the sun rises in the east, Cisco is going to lose this case.

If Cisco had just played by the rules, all that would have happened is that some code improvements would have been shared with the rest of the world. As companies, like Red Hat, which do play by the free software rules, have shown, you can be a multi-billion dollar company with open source.

Now, Cisco will end up having to open its code anyway, and it will have to pay out cash to the FSF. Cisco would have been far smarter to pay the 'cost' of open-source software in the first place and just share the code. After all, since Cisco had already benefited from using open source, you'd think they would have figured out that participating in open source development would only have been to their benefit. Oh well, some companies have to learn the hard way.

Email this

Digg this

What People Are Saying

Add new comment

You can USE open-source

Submitted by Da on December 18, 2008 - 8:15 P.M.

You can USE open-source however you want, you might not be able to distribute it however you want.

Reply | Report this comment

OpenSource vs Free

Submitted by Anonymouse on December 17, 2008 - 5:09 P.M.

I agree with motie38 - there seems to be some confusion here between OpenSource and GPL software. GPL software is *not* public domain so people can't do with it as they please. The modified BSD license is also free, but as rms puts it, it is more of a 'gift' since the restrictions are extremely limited - however, even software under the modified BSD is not public domain. There *is* some public domain software out there though where authors have released the source and explicitly stated that they are placing the software in the public domain.

Reply | Report this comment

Cisco's Unity Express is Linux Based

Submitted by Jaime Fordham on December 17, 2008 - 9:00 A.M.

Lets not also forget real Cisco products like for example "Cisco Unity Express" which runs on an addon card for routers or is built into the new Cisco UC520.

Cisco Unity Express is entirely Linux based!!! PostgreSQL database included!

Reply | Report this comment

Is there any summary anywhere?

Submitted by Anonymous on December 16, 2008 - 9:40 P.M.

The blogger states "if you sell or distribute programs or products that use the GPLed code, you have to share your modified code with its users." But the crux of the SFLC cases that I have seen to date hinge on the companion notion that you not only have to share modifications, but you have to provide a source for any unmodified code as well. The question becomes, "What, if any, modifications have ever been disclosed due to SFLC activity?"

To date, everything was in regard to using BusyBox libraries. No one tried to make improvements at all and utilization of BusyBox was a plain vanilla application. It seems unlikely that anyone who was in the least interested in using BusyBox on their own or would want to try their hand at some derivative work would need to go to any secondary site to get the original source. Rather they would know enough about the environment to go to BusyBox's site directly. That would be the only place where one could reliably get the current version.

The legal activity by the SDLC seems pointless if they cannot show where they have actually wrested some advance from a GPL user who would otherwise have not released such information.

Reply | Report this comment

Don't confuse the terms.

Submitted by motie38 on December 16, 2008 - 6:02 P.M.

As Anthony Minessale and mercutioviz correctly point out, open source and GPL'd software are not synonymous. I would imagine the FSF sued over the use of software licensed with the GPL, which is in fact "free software" by FSF's definition. A better title might have been "Free Software isn't Free". I wish the FSF would start using the term "Freedomware" which has less ambiguity than "Free Software", and points directly to the freedom afforded the user.

Also, not mentioned is the fact that Cisco inherited the problem from Linksys when they bought it. Perhaps the FSF didn't sue Linksys before because they weren't a big enough fish. Anyway, what Cisco should have done as soon as they got it was change the Linksys line to run on a BSD base. By not doing so, they accepted the the terms of the GPL, and should abide by it. Let me know if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Cisco named lines are in violation, because they all use Cisco proprietary operating systems.

If Cisco simply complied with the terms of the license, they wouldn't lose anything, really. They haven't had the Linksys line long enough to have put significant work into it they need to protect. Any improvements they did release would merely garner good will from the Free Software and Open Source communities, and probably sell more Linksys hardware. If they want to come out with some new middle tier Linksys branded hardware, they could use IOS in it instead of Linux to avoid any licensing problems.

Reply | Report this comment

Open source isn't free, never has been

Submitted by James on December 16, 2008 - 2:50 P.M.

The term 'open source' was deliberately coined to not include the word 'free' since 'free' has multiple meanings. Open source software comes with certain freedoms, no-one that knows open source well claims that it is without cost.

An enterprise has to include the time of their employees as a cost (since they pay salaries in return for their employees time). When IT staff spend time integrating, testing, deploying and maintaining open source software they are generating a cost. There are also risks that need to be mitigated. There are SIs and commercial open source vendors that will help an enterprise black-box these costs. The great thing is that the enterprise has a choice of how to manage and mitigate the costs. With proprietary solutions you have no choice.

Reply | Report this comment

Open Source

Submitted by Daniel on December 17, 2008 - 8:35 P.M.

The GPL, GNU and RMS all refer to 'Free' software. Free as opposed to free. In fact they don't like referring to Free software as open source because the source being open is only one of the essential freedoms that is required for software to be considered 'free'.

Reply | Report this comment

Somebody gets it

Submitted by theoldman59 on December 16, 2008 - 5:16 P.M.

Nothing in life is free. Open Source may be free to download and play with, but as soon as you start paying developers a salary to produce code, the costs start piling up.

Most people only look at the cost of aquiring a software development environment. that cost is relatively small when you compare the cost of developers, systems support, etc. The main cost advantage of Open Source is in the software development environment. that's where the advantages end.

Salaries, office space, overhead are the same in any environment whether Open Source or not.

Now, if a company spends millions on salaries and overhead to create a product and has to give it back to the community, that company loses the advantages they paid for with the saleries and overhead costs.

Giving your competative advantage away is extroardinarily high priced when that advantage might be all that keeps you in business.

Management must choose wisely. Open Source might be OK for some things, but the price may be extremely high.

Reply | Report this comment

"...but as soon as you start

Submitted by Andy N on December 17, 2008 - 9:41 A.M.

"...but as soon as you start paying developers a salary to produce code, the costs start piling up."

You mean tweak the already existing code. Right? MOST of the work was already done for you. AND it's not like Linksys "didn't make any money" off one of the most popular SOHO routers of all time. Right?

Reply | Report this comment