Tomato ARM GPL Violations

As far as I can see, everybody releasing Tomato ARM versions is in violation of multiple GPLed packages licenses.

Off the top of my head:

Linux
Busybox
Transmission (bittorrent server)
Poptop (pptp server)

I think it's about time this stopped.

I don't care if you think the developer will stop, if they are forced to give up their sources.
It is irrelevant to the discussion of license violations.
The entire point of the license is so you can't get into a situation where you're running code that you don't the source code for.

I also don't care if you think I'm being a dick.
Licensing terms don't say "you don't have to give someone the source code who's being a dick".
It also doesn't say I have to PM somebody.

It says:

Code:

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.

It doesn't say "When you feel like it", or "when I'm done the final version".

If you release the binary, you release the source.

Links to ARM sources of Tomato please.

(Also, if you have access to Tomato ARM sources, and are basing code on it, you are complicit in this BS.)


ps: If you want to be pedantic, the quote above is from the GPL, but it is part of the paraphrasing. This is actually what it says

Code:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

see: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt

 

See..

I KNEW you were in internet lawyer..

 

He does have a point. The GPL is meant to protect *everybody* involved, it's not something you can follow if and when it suits you, and refuse to follow because your neighbour doesn't. The Tomato devs benefited from GPL projects that followed the licence and made available their code, so that they were able to use into Tomato. They are bound, in turn, to also do the same.

Without code being shared through GPL, there wouldn't even be a Tomato (or Tomato-ARM) to begin with. Code has to flow both ways, not just into Tomato's direction.

I personally hate legalese, but I do believe however in fair play. And if someone requests access to the GPL source code, he can't be denied just because he's not in the "inner circle".

 

I do not disagree with the point being made here. I understand and have worked with the GPL in the past.

I have issue with how it is being made. Basically he shows up and starts asking, nee, DEMANDING access to the source code.

Under the GPL is it a right to ask for access. I have not denied that he has that fundamental right as put forth under the GPL. He made the request. If he does not like the answer take it up with GNU. Let THEM resolve it. That is their job.

What I take exception to is the way that it is taking place. It is like listening to a toddler ask for something that he wants. He wants it and he wants it NOW. He is going to get louder and louder till he gets what he wants. He is going to keep going on and on and on filling the forums with this topic and the free flow of information and guidance to each other that we have all enjoyed is going to dwindle as people will get tired of having to wade through it all.

I know that almost every dev (never seen any source code from bwq518 for his forks) on here has made their code available. There has been WEEKS from the release of the binary till we see it pushed to the git in some cases.

He claims that there was no feedback from the devs. The dev in question responded. Did the dev state that he will not give it out? Nope. In fact others HAVE gained access to it.

He did not like the answer and bang.. we are off to the races.

Would *I* like access to it? Yes I would. I would enjoy seeing what is going on under the hood so to speak.

As I said in another thread. There is NOTHING in the GPL that gives a time frame. Nothing. Not one word. Yet here we see the standard 'give it to me now' tripe that we all love to read.

I wish this guy would go all out on Broadcom to get the source code for the wireless drivers. Now THAT would create some excitement.

 

Here is one reference to a time frame from the GPL.

It continues quite lengthily with several methods in which you may distribute binary and its corresponding source code.

In laymen's terms

'Provided' means you cannot do the first without also doing the second. The second must be done either simultaneously with the first, or before the first The first is dependent on completion of the second.

It makes absolutely no sense to say you can hold code indefinitely. Open source (gpl) in no way, shape, or form means that the code for released binaries will maybe be released in 10...20 days/weeks/months. Richard Stallman would absolutely dry-heave at the thought of it. Any such idea is utterly untrue.

 

Exactly.

 

Really Don't Care.

I am not the one breaking the license. I am just asking for it to be honored.

Nope.

Going on 32 weeks, at least here. 8 MONTHS. Do you honestly think that is reasonable?

Did you read the GPL? I requested it, yet did not get it. It matters not whether someone else Shibby "trusts" gets to see the code. That NOT HOW IT WORKS.

Yep.

Then why don't you have access to it? You should. Why are you upset at ME? For asking for what is in the license?

And as I said there, because there is no timeframe, then it can be infinite? Does that make sense? To keep the source code within your circle? Is that freedom?

Broadcom's drivers are not based on GPL code. They can license them however they want.

Tomato includes Linux, Transmission, Busybox, etc. All based on GPL. They LITERALLY have no right to withhold the source code.

 

http://www.linksysinfo.org/index.php?threads/tomato-for-arm-routers.69719/page-11#post-254041

EOT

 

Excellent. We can probably close this thread then.

 

Very nice way to discourage us from continuing working on Tomato. Some folks r just amazing

 

To answer in this thread, since the other thread is getting overly "trolled", ha.

You absolutely can sell GPL software, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. There are a couple rules though. The links below describe things better than I can.

A while back I remember that there was a company selling a rebranded version of OpenOffice called OpalOffice. People made a fit, but when it came down to it, they were within their right, provided they also supplied the source.

edit:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/linux-and-open-source/is-it-legal-to-sell-gpl-software/

 

Quoted to this thread.

That was not what I actually meant saying, you interpreted it different then I meant to.
Actually what someone already pointed out in the other thread is that Broadcom indeed doesn't give all source code. They give some binary drivers with it.

Shibby would have released the source anyway, so never would have kept it from us what you point out with this.
And I am not saying you don't have to give it.
And if you read carefully what I said, then you know that my logic doesn't say we steal from Broadcom at all.
Just saying that the GPL in it's current form is abused and not used for its intended way.
The whole viral and stealing thing was meant how the Chinese community is doing it.
I have seen a lot of times they come on forums an demand source and then when they get it they make their own fork and put features in it but never release the source witch they demanded themselves before.

Anyways I was reluctant to post that even, cos I knew someone would react that way and interpreted it another way that it was meant to be.
Always happens everywhere, no matter what you say.

O well enough about this from me, it's everyone against everyone one this anyways.
And too many different opinions, so it is and will always be an endless discussion.

 

The Dual Wan devs really could still make money and be within the GPL. Probably the best money maker would be to sell routers (over there in China) with pre-installed versions of their firmware on it. They could charge to help people setup their routers with their home internet and to leech off their neighbors as well (that's the impression I get) using their dual-wan software. They could also charge them for upgrades.
They could do all that and be well within the GPL provided they also gave access to the source.

I suggest we ask the Dual Wan devs to "sell" us their binaries and supply the source with it. Who know, maybe they'd actually entertain the idea. I'm sure enough people want dual-wan they combined we could afford their "binary", and accompanied code. The tricky thing would be making sure an honest transaction occurred and was fulfilled.

 

Just shows you how wrong your logic is and don't care about the rest of this community.

It is very relevant if the developer stops.
You are forgetting the developer can stop, delete the binaries and source and you won't get anything. Sure you can take him to court for GPL violations, but if the code has been deleted you will never get it back, you don't get your sources and we all loose as a community.

 

You don't understand the idea of open source.

If the source is open and available to everyone who is interested, then you don't have to care about it, if the current developers continue to maintain the code. If they stop, you or somebody else can take over. If the developers hide the code, then it's not open and you are lost if the developers don't maintain the code anymore.

Shibby must release the changes he did to sources which are GPL licensed. He confirmed that he will release the source soon, which is good, and this issue is solved.

 

I do understand.
As I said you ultimately can't force the source to be distributed like Fab Friday Freddy implies (regardless of right) and all you do is destroy the project and any chance of getting the source ever...

 

The Chinese "Dual Wan" devs don't need to sell their firmware, they can make enough from the malware they embed that can sniff all traffic and phone home. I'm sure Shibby doesn't do this and will 'do the right thing'!

 

Usually I wouldn't post that but why the f*ck do you need to add that sentence at the start of your topic to begin with? It's like you're asking for trouble. Get your head out of your a** and start thinking about cause and reaction. If you step into a bullets pathway it 's bound to hurt you. Just like what you did here.

People like you are the reason our human society is drifting downwards steadily only caring about their own rights by law no matter the reason. The law is there to HELP humans to begin with - that 's certainly not what many lawyers and law addicted people are doing nowadays. The law isn't perfect. That includes licenses like the GPL and I'm sure that one has been made for the human society in itself rather then to protect certain individuals/license/law.

Let me ask you - what did YOU do for others besides generating a bad mood here? Did you release an Open-Source Firmware? Did you help others with their setup? Did you help finding bugs? Did you try to write shibby a PM?

So many unanswered questions that would be LOGICAL to see first.

Yet, your fresh account has nothing like this shown here.

Which will probably answer the biggest of all questions:

Are you an internet troll that can't even stand up with his real name if he 's going to that extend ?

Or maybe you're looking to include the source-code in your commercial projects - hah. If you'd really do it for others you wouldn't look at an individual that 's been doing this for free but at bigger brands and companies that are doing this to an far greater extend and are generating money with it.

Nuff said.

 

You don't understand the idea of open source.

I can live without tomato. The R7000 comes with a firmware which works well. Tomato has more features, and I would like to use it, and extend it, if something is missing. I can only do that if the sources are available. If there are no sources, tomato is of no interest for me, because I would not be able to add the features which I want to add, and of course give to changes back to tomato.

Open source is about freedom, and if I have to beg the developers to implement or fix something, then that's not freedom.

I will not install any firmware to my R7000 for which I can not get the sources. I will not develop new features or fix bugs for firmware which I have not installed. No source = no contribution.

 

Given that shibby has committed to releasing the sources and given a deadline, let's end it here and take him by his word.

I still can't help but go on for a bit - and I'm using the word product rather than Tomato because I believe the Tomato issue is sorted:

What puzzles me is how people who don't provide their own programming credentials get to challenge others exercising their legal right to demand a copy of the source code. Just because you like a product whose GPL compliance is questionable, doesn't mean it is okay for the makers of such a software to violate the law. It doesn't matter that others are doing it (I'm looking at you, makers of the dual wan Tomato), a violation of the law is a violation of the law. I've written my own share of GPL code, and I'm sure most of us who give time to create something and decided to give it away freely but with some conditions take a very dim view on anybody condoning GPL violations in any form or shape. I find it personally insulting that you liking the guy or company that violates my copyright should get a free pass because you like the violator. It's not becasue it's free that you're free to do whatever you like with it. Open source codes doesn't have no value because it is free.. and everybody here is using a bunch of just such code some seem to hold in such little regard to post in this very community. There's such code in the OS of your device, in your browser, this site runs on Apache so also open source (even though not under a GPL license but a more permissive one). Just because you don't like the license, shouldn't give you license to condone violations either.

 

I fully do understand the idea of open source (my name is on a few pieces of GPL code), and supporting the developer and community and having source available to contribute.
I am trying to make the point that we should care about the developer as without him we won't get the source, regardless of licence (and following the terms or not).

 

You don't get it.

 

Correct. The issue has been settled.

One PUBLIC request is should have been made and then the topic dropped. From there is goes to P.M.'s. Violations need to be sent to GNU. They are the governing body for violations.

Repeated tantrums in the forums are not the place to hash this out. You make your request, and if not honored then go somewhere else to get the results you desire.

Copyright laws vary from country to country. What we are talking about here is a LICENSE. Not a law. People who have been posting about this topic seem to freely interchange the two and use them as applicable to bolster their arguments

 

The license does base on copyright law, and show me any country where copyright doesn't cover software This isn't a domain like copies for personal use (like audio or video where some countries to have such provisions), and reverse engineering/interop excemptions do not apply to it either.

 

Interesting that Fab Five Freddy and Shrimpy show up together demanding the same exact thing in a hostile manner in all these threads. OK its not interesting.

 

You are guessing, and you are guessing wrong. It's not acceptable to call somebody immature based on guessing.

I have one account here.
I did not demand anything in a hostile manner, I just asked.

 

Meh, maybe just get an admin to check the login ips. The usual people that get so offended are the guilty.

Anyhow, this is a perfect time to bring up the donations thread.

With so much demanding lately, maybe it's time to buy our devs some coffee/drinks.
http://www.linksysinfo.org/index.php?threads/donations.68169/

I expect the release cycles to be slower with all this BS, unappreciative attitude and whining going on. With all this GPL trolling, I wouldn't expect builds until ARM is finished (if ever).

That's why we're looking forward to great developments from Fab Five and Shimpy (with their grade A and absolutely stunning programming skills).

looking forward towards the Fab Five Freddy Tomato fork.

 

I have only one account here. You are just guessing, and you are guessing wrong. If it makes you happy, then the admins can check the logs. I don't care, because I know who I am and who I am not.

You don't understand the idea behind open source. The main strength of open source is not the possibility to fork stuff, it's the possibility to work together.

 

FYI, you should read the sentence above the last

and maybe you should let your programming do the talking.

 

Easy tiger.
Do keep this a tech forum, if you want to fight/argue find another place and leave us alone.

 

Guy's There is a nice People You Ignore function on this bord just use it and you never have to follow "them" again.

 

I don't want to ignore them. I, for one, can't wait to see the great additions that the GPL complaining folks bring to Tomato. I've already put in a request to see the ARM bug of high ping and graphs not working to be fixed. IPV6 could use some work too. I'm sure these guys/gals will be all over once the code is released.

Thanks in advance to MrShimpy and FFF for their hard work (as well as the original developers) in correcting and advancing Tomato to the point it was with MIPS routers.

 

@rs232 - Toxic makes a point to about this thread being open to vent. Let them vent away.

 

Here's my 2 cents:

Vic, Shibby, Jon, TeddyBear, Toastman, Teaman, Shibby, etc etc have all contributed greatly to this firmware we all use, however:
1). None of them would have been able to do ANYTHING if HuperWRT - Thibor - Tofu - Tomato chain of source was unavailable.
2). All of the Devs at some point have lost interest, or have moved on.


So what does this mean? It means that instead of begging and grovelling and (selfeshly) trying to protect a developer by saying "stop upsetting him by asking for the code, he might leave," if the code was available, maybe others would join and expedite development (eg Teaman and his VLAN which wouldn't exist otherwise, etc)... OR if the dev leaves, well, maybe one day someone else will pickup.

Don't be short-sighted.

Jon left. TB left. But you know what? @Victeck came, and @Shibby came...


All you people who are up in arms trying to "protect", might in 10 months be kissing up to Frosty to update OpenVPN. Just saying.

 

And Shibby and Vic have ALWAYS provided the code. It's just not fast enough for 'some' people around here.

I can't wait until we get these new 'developers' into the fold and they fix the problems and update the code. Please post your requests for FFF and Shimpy into the Tomato Arm thread so that when Shibby posts the code, they can jump right on it. Make sure to thank them in advance for their upcoming hard work.

I would also like to thank Shibby, Vic, TB and any other past/current developer of the firmware that I've used for over a decade and have loved so much. Time for another donation.

Speaking of which, once these new developers get going, we can all set up donations for their hard work also.

 

N/M.

 

One thing I'd like to understand, having skimmed through the thread, is the reason for the delay in posting source code. As someone who hasn't coded in years, I hadn't realized this was happening (since I hadn't tried to get the code).

 

i need time to prepare and update sources in GIT. I`m also compiling refreshed v124 at the moment and want to publish updated code for you.

I don`t understand why you are asking of it? Sources have not been published from months. Weeks or two more should not be a problem, right?

As i promised, sources will be released between 24-26 Dec, well i have still 2 days. Patience!

 

Link to Tomato-ARM sources you can find on my page under Download->Sources section
http://tomato.groov.pl/?page_id=166

Best Regards.

 

I haven't compiled tomato for a while, and not since upgraded to Ubuntu 14.04LTS, but this was much easier than I remember - use usual methods - for example as recommended by Victek in here

https://github.com/Victek/Tomato-RAF

Only thing that didn't compile for me is "php", so temporarily commented that out and it the rest worked first time.

Code:

-----------------
1.28.0001 K26ARM USB AIO-64K  ready
-----------------

Apparently my version of "bison" is too new

Code:

bison (GNU Bison) 3.0.2

and just adding 3.0 to the php configure wasn't enough to fix the compile error!

 

Thank you Shibby!

I compiled on Ubuntu 14.04 and I had to downgrade bison. The bison-package from Ubuntu 12.04 worked well.

Because the build aborted, I had to patch release/src-rt-6.x.4708/router/Makefile, and after that, I was able to build a running Tomato firmware.

There was not to much tweaking necessary.

 

what patch do you mean? I am using Debian Wheezy distro.

 

I upload the patch. I added rsync, which is part of the patch. If you don't want to add rsync, then you can ignore the rsync part. This was more an exercise for me and a test of the tomato build system, and it was very easy to add.

The pcre part is needed to build php. The pcre library which is bundled with php did not compile.

libnfnetlink-clean is needed for cleanup, other ways the build fails because of wrong path names in the Makefile, which gets not rebuilt if there is no clean target.

 

Thanks shibby for releasing the source. I've pulled, made my security changes for POODLE, and commit back to bitbucket with a pull request. Hopefully this helps.

Thanks MrShimpy for your patch -- it allowed me to build successfully. Guess you can commit that back and submit a pull request.

 

So where are the NEW Developers???

Looking @Freddy and CO?!!?!?

 

The sources are available now. If you need a new feature, you can download the sources and add what you need. Or are you waiting, that somebody does it for you? What is your contribution?

 

The Master wasn't one of the people whining about sources not being released under GPL and not one that said that other developers could make improvements when the sources were released. We are waiting for those people to put out the improvements.

Thanks in advance for your work.

Also special thanks to Shibby, Vic, Toastman and other great developers of the past (Teddy Bear, original John, etc.) and the NEW DEVELOPERS of the future!

 

Jap this is what i am waiting for.....

I am a "ENDUSER" NO DEV... But i read here and in other THREADS that IF there is a SOURCE Tomato would get MUTCH MUTCH BETTER...

But after the release there is nothing... no THANK YOU no "OK TIME TO MAKE TOMATO BETTER".... nothing ... only smoke and ashes...


and so i say...

--------------------------------

Thank YOU SHIBBY and other DEVS for the sources... i am no dev but thank you for your hard work.

 

Are you able to read? If yes, then please read a few posts above of yours, then you can see that I did say thank you to Shibby and that I sent in my feedback, and a patch as well.

Apart from what you can read in the Forum, I had a private conversation with Shibby, and I offered him to help.

Do you really think that you can motivate anybody to do something for you with your behaviour? I could contribute a lot! But I'm not at all motivated to do so, because the behaviour of many users is so disgusting! You are just demanding, and not willing to contribute. Why don't you learn something about Tomato, to be able to contribute? Just download the sources and learn how things work. The sources are available, so you can help Tomato to improve! Everybody can. But most users are just lurkers, like you.

As for me, I'm back to the Netgear firmware with some small changes which I applied to it.

 

Don't act like an ass!

It takes time to go through source code of this size, find out how things are related/work (as there isn't much documentation and even comments are often missing) and then fix/improve and test things.

So expecting anything new after a mere handfull of days is just ridiculous.

 

WTF?

i dont go after you. so whats wrong?

Same goes to Shimpy.

 

Maybe you understand me if I'm very clear: idiots like you and Engineer are cheassing potential developers away!

 

I have already thanked you and Freddy for your upcoming contributions, as you and he stated in the reasons you wanted the code released. I'm an idiot for thanking you in advance?

Oh, can you talk a look at the wireless survey code as it doesn't work 100% correctly on 124 ARM on an R7000. I can provide screen shots if necessary. Thanks again, in advance.

 

Engineer: This post does prove that indeed you are.

 

You can have a look at the wireless survey code. The source code is available. Go ahead, download the sources, dig into it, find the problem and fix it. Don't expect that somebody is feeding you, learn to feed your self!

I'm gone. The chance that I will ever contribute to Tomato is very low, because such idiots like you and The Master chased me away!

 

Easy fix. Ignore.

 

Sorry to see you leave. Good luck.

 

I wish you good luck in fixing Tomato. This comments, which I posted in the second day after the ARM-sources were released, will help you to start.
http://www.linksysinfo.org/index.php?threads/tomato-arm-gpl-violations.70666/#post-254985
http://www.linksysinfo.org/index.php?threads/tomato-shibbys-releases.33858/page-43#post-255025

 

Don't worry. Some people just don't get it.