UK telecoms firm BT has upset some members of the open-source community after it used software that had been released under the GNU General Public License (GPL) in one of its latest commercial products, but did not immediately release the code to the public.
Under the terms of the GPL, if a company uses GPL-licensed code in one of its products, it must also make the source code available under the GPL.
BT appears to have released bits and pieces of code, but to fully comply with the GPL we need to be able put those bits and pieces into a piece of firmware
Shane Coughlan, Freedom Taskforce Foundation
BT has now admitted that its Home Hub product — a wireless router for the home market — contains GPL-licensed software. The Home Hub went on sale last year, but BT only started offering this code for download from its website on Monday 22 January.
It appears that the catalyst for this move was a complaint made on 5 January, 2007 to gpl-violations.org, a project that tries to prevent companies abusing the GPL.
A BT spokesman said on Tuesday that the telco was now complying with its obligations under the GPL.
"The code is now available for anyone who wants to modify their Home Hub," the BT spokesman told ZDNet UK. "We apologise for the oversight in not publishing the code in line with the GPL earlier."
This code includes versions of Busybox, a Linux distribution fine-tuned for running on communications devices and other appliances.
The BT spokesman added that the company has used GPL code before, in products such as its Voyager ADSL routers, and had released this code back to the community.
However, BT hasn't satisfied everyone by making the Home Hub code available. The Freedom Task Force (FTF), part of the Free Software Foundation Europe, is investigating claims that BT has failed to also offer the scripts needed to compile the code.
This claim was made on the Home Hub Blog, which also made the initial complaint to gpl-violations.org.
Shane Coughlan, FTF co-ordinator, told ZDNet UK that this claim is now being looked into.
"There's no concrete investigation yet," Coughlan told ZDNet UK, explaining that gpl-violations.org is looking to see if BT's release contains everything needed to compile the software into firmware.
"BT appears to have released bits and pieces of code, but to fully comply with the GPL we need to be able put those bits and pieces into a piece of firmware," Coughlan explained.
Several companies have been accused of violating the GPL in the past, including D-Link, which lost a court case brought by gpl-violations.org over claims that it had infringed the GPL through its use of the Linux kernel.
Coughlan said that the Home Hub case was unusual, because BT had been very quick to release its code.
When a company violates GPL code, the software developers or companies who own the copyright on those specific pieces of code may have a case against them.
Coughlan emphasised, though, that gpl-violations.org is primarily interested in ensuring compliance with the GPL, rather than in seeking financial compensation when infringements occur.
Talkback
Its apparent lack of respect for the copyrights of the authors of the FLOSS software it takes advantage of is just the tip of a very dirty iceberg. In its submission to the Gowers Review, BT made clear its support for the economically unjustifiable and recklessly expansionist practices of the EPO:
"We have not encountered particular barriers obtaining IPRs in the UK because of system complexity, although we would welcome greater alignment of UK Patent Office (UKPO) practice with that of the European Patent Office (EPO) on issues such as patentability of computer implemented inventions and inventions rejected as mental acts...
...BT’s innovation is increasingly being implemented through software-based technologies. The ability to be able to protect our heavy investment in this innovation is of vital importance to us, and we take the view that patent law and practice should accommodate advances in this field, just as has happened in other areas of technology. The political debate in the European Parliament on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions last year was, in our view, ill-informed and based on myths about the patent system and its impact on the economy and innovation."
It was indeed ill-informed and based on myths. Myths and misinformation which the IPR Directors of companies such as BT seem keen to promulgate, despite the economic facts and arguments of which they can hardly still credibly claim ignorance:
http://www.researchineurope.org/policy/patentdirltr.htm etc.
"Equally, we are supportive of all efforts by Patent Offices to improve the rigour of their searching and examination of patent applications, to ensure a strong system that precludes users from obtaining patents of dubious validity in any area of technology. Such dubious patents can hinder the development of competing products and damage the interest of all companies large and small. We look forward to contributing to the recently announced Patent Office consultation on inventive step requirements for patentability."
Welcome sentiments from the company notorious not only for its singularly dubious hyperlink patent but for its attempts to actually enforce it. Fortunately BT did not prevail but it is hard to imagine a potentially more damaging and innovation hindering wielding of a patent.