Hacker News Reader

Comment by finnn | Hacker News Reader

Since we're all saying nice things about Ubiquiti, I feel obliged to point out that they are actively violating the GPL: http://libertybsd.net/ubiquiti/

View on HN

Author's claim about ag7240-eth.ko seems incorrect. Running `strings` on it shows "license=Dual BSD/GPL". It's unlikely that the GPL license was chosen.

Current firmware downloads contain the uboot source code.

Based on the email quotes, Ubiquiti did violate the GPL. It hasn't been proven that they are actively doing so.

> And ultimately, the relevant team never responded, hoping that I would simply forget about it or give up.

> However, if we want the GPL to retain its power, this is precisely what we cannot do.

One of the most important things.

IANAL and not an expert on licenses, but what's the point of GPL if it does not protect itself and the code it's applied to?

s/GPL/copyright/g and you get your answer.

No you don't. There's no point copyrighting something if you don't intend to enforce your copyright.

You don't have to copyright it. Anything you produce us automatically copyrighted. What people forget is that the GPL is a way to get around the default lack of distribution and replication rights in ordinary copyright.

Contrary to popular belief, GPL is not free software. You can't add restrictions to something and call it "free as in freedom". A truly "free as in freedom" license is one you can't violate (BSD).

Is a free society one the laws of which you can’t break? No, that’s called anarchy.

A free society can have laws, and a free license can have conditions.

A free society is one where people don't have restrictions. And guess what GPL has.

So in your view of a free society I should be free from restrictions on killing other people?

People can and have violated the BSD license, so if you believe that free licenses are only those with no restrictions then the BSD license is not free either. The GPL conforms to all the popular consensus definitions of software freedom (the FSF's free software definition, the OSI's open source definition, and Debian's DFSG); if your concept of "free software" is different from all of those maybe you would communicate more effectively by using a different term.

Well, he probably meant WTFPL License [0] - it's difficult to violate that one. :)

[0] http://www.wtfpl.net/

Well, both Copyright Holders and GPL Licensors want to enforce their license. But guess what. Piracy is a coin with two sides.. Thousands (millions?) of companies around the world use illegally obtained copies of software to make money. A dozen companies also violate the GPL. I don't understand what makes GPL so special and why it should be protected more than (C)..

Well, philosophically, does anybody builds nowdays using the win XP source code to make profit? How about the Linux kernel?

I'd argue one of these has an approach that actively benefits humanity and the other one is a footnote in history.

> I don't understand what makes GPL so special and why it should be protected more than (C)..

Some people care less about whether the law has been violated and more about whether the source code has been made available.

GPL code is copyrighted. GPL is not my favorite OS license, but all FOSS licenses are also copyrighted by at least 1 person or organization. The only exception would be something in the public domain (which is technically not a license).

You can enforce copyright on GPL code just as well as with proprietary code. You just need to take the steps to do so.

Wow. And here I was just thinking with this week's Netgear security vulnerability, maybe it was time to switch to Ubiquiti.

Guess I'll just wait for the Netgear patch and save my money.

I have two of their products, and must say: when they work, they work awesome! Range is great, monitoring is great - just compliments.

But a firmware upgrade on their access point caused quite a lot of trouble. And with only one access point I seemed to be the lucky one, others had more work fixing it. Some got bricked when trying to revert to the old firmware. Support forum should provide background information if required.

Bottom line: the sales-flyer always looks great but the moment you actually touch the device you start to notice some issues you wished someone told you beforehand...

If you can afford it a Ruckus Wireless solutions has yet to disappoint me. Though the Brocade acquisition leaves a lot of questions on the table for their future.

Same goes for Meraki now that they're Cisco, who has a dendancy to ruin everything they touch.

UBNT for multi AP wifi, MikroTik for everything else.

Countless UBNT deployments. Not a single problem ever. Only wish was they didn't restart after config change.

So are the following:

-Tesla

-Eero

-Pluot

Doesn't make it ok.

But dang hate to see Tesla on there :(

Having a somehow famous name does not make a deplorable action magically virtuous.

OP made no moral claim, just stated unreferenced facts.

Nothing is so black and white. If you point out that others are engaging in bad behaviour, then it makes that bad behaviour look less bad.

That depends entirely on the ethics of the looker, but are you really saying that people would engage in fewer acts of bad behavior if other people didn't point them out when they did?

What do you mean with the "nothing is so black and white" cliché in this context? The psychological reaction of onlookers has nothing to do with an action being ethical or not.

I had the opposite reaction, that the poster was implying the HN zeitgeist should be raking these companies over the coals also.

Can you provide a reference to how eero is violating the GPL? A quick search did not reveal anything, and they have a page on their website that suggests they meet their obligations under it.

Just for reference's sake, here's their page https://eero.com/legal/open with the money quote

    You may also request a copy of the source by e-mailing
    legal@eero.com with "Source for eero device" in the subject line.

Note, GPL doesn't mandate code be put up on GitHub. It only requires that its reasonably available.

I contacted them, and they failed to provide source code in a timely manner -- or you know, respond.

Do you have Pluot? Happy to send you firmware source.

We demoed a device at work, and tried to get source. This was a little while ago.

Oh well.

Luckily nobody cares about dead licences.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com