\item Checked that the kernel was sufficiently similar.  The investigator

   compared the ``dmesg'' output both before and after flashing the new

   firmware.  As the investigator expected, the kernel version string was

   similar, but had a different build date and user@host indicator.  (The

   kernel binary itself is not easily accessible from an SSH login, but was

   retrievable using the U-Boot console (the start address of the kernel in

   flash appears to be 0x9F020000, based on the boot messages seen in the

   serial console).

  \end{enumerate}

\end{enumerate}

\section{Minor Annoyances}

As discussed in detail above, there were a few minor annoyances, none of

which were GPL violations.  Rather, the annoyances briefly impeded the

build and installation.  However, the investigator, as a reasonably skilled

build engineer for embedded devices, was able to complete the process with

the instructions provided.

To summarize, no GPL compliance issues were found, and the CCS release was

one of the best ever reviewed by any investigator at any community-oriented

enforcement organization.  However, the following annoyances were discovered:

\begin{itemize}

\item Failure to explain how to extract the source tarball and then where to run the

  ``make'' command.

\item Failure to explain how to install the kernel and root filesystem on the

  device; the user must assume the web UI must be used.

\item Including pre-built toolchain binaries that don't work on all systems,

  and failure to copy and/or symlink built toolchain binaries in the right location.

\item Failure to include information in the U-Boot installation instructions for

  wiring the serial cable.

\item Ideally, the U-Boot installation instructions would also include the

  {\tt netcat} method of installation.

\item Finally, the instructions should note that the new U-Boot firmware

  should be placed into \texttt{/srv/tftp} when using TFTP on most GNU/Linux

  desktops.

\end{itemize}

Thus, no CCS is absolutely perfect, but GPL violation investigators always

give the distributors the benefit of any doubts and seek to work with the

vendors and improve their CCS for the betterment of their users, customers,

and the entire software freedom community.

\section{Lessons Learned}

Companies that seek to redistribute copylefted software can benefit greatly

from ThinkPenguin's example.  Here are just a few of the many lessons that

can be learned here:

\begin{enumerate}

\item Even though copyleft licenses have them,

  \hyperref[thinkpenguin-included-ccs]{\bf avoid the offer-for-source

    provisions}.  Not only does including the CCS alongside binary

  distribution make violation investigation and compliance confirmation

  substantially easier, but also (and more importantly) doing so

  \hyperref[offer-for-source]{completes the distributor's CCS compliance

    obligations at the time of distribution} (provided, of course, that the

  distributor is otherwise in compliance with the relevant copyleft license).

\item {\bf Include top-level build instructions in a natural language (such

  as English) in a \hyperref[thinkpenguin-toplevel-readme]{clear and

    conspicuous place}.}  Copyleft licenses require that someone reasonably

  skilled in the art can reproduce the build and installation.  Typically,

  instructions written in English are necessary, and often easier than writing

  programmed scripts.  The ``script'' included can

  certainly be more like the script of a play and less like a Bash script.

\item {\bf Write build/install instructions to the appropriate level of

  specificity}.  The upstream engineers

  in this case study \hyperref[thinkpenguin-specific-host-system]{clearly did

    additional work to ensure functionality on a wide variety of host build

    systems}; this is quite rare.  When in doubt, include the maximum level

  of detail build engineers can provide with the CCS instructions, but also

  double-check to investigate if a more generalized solution (such as other

  host systems) work just as well for the build.

\item {\bf Seek to adhere to the spirit of copyleft, not just the letter of

  the license}.  Encouragement of users to improve and

  make their devices better is one of ThinkPenguin's commercial differentiators.  Copyleft advocates

  that other companies have undervalued the large and lucrative

  market of

  users who seek hackable devices.  By going beyond the

  mere minimal requirements of GPL, companies can immediately reap the

  benefits in that target market.

  \item Community-oriented enforcement organizations do not play ``gotcha''\footnote{For lack of a better

    phrase.} with distributors regarding GPL

    violations.  The goal in the GPL enforcement process is to achieve

    compliance and correct mistakes and annoyances.  Such organizations

    due to honest error rather than malicious action '' approach.  The goal

    is compliance (in direct contrast with

    the \hyperref[Proprietary Relicensing]{discussion in \S~\ref*{Proprietary Relicensing} about the

      proprietary relicensing} business model).

\end{enumerate}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\chapter{Bortez: Modified GCC SDK}

In our first case study, we will consider Bortez, a company that

produces software and hardware toolkits to assist OEM vendors, makers

of consumer electronic devices.

\section{Facts}

One of Bortez's key products is a Software Development Kit (``SDK'')

designed to assist developers building software for a specific class of

consumer electronics devices.

FSF received a report that the SDK may be based on the GNU Compiler

Collection (which is an FSF-copyrighted collection of tools for software

development in C, C++ and other popular languages). FSF investigated the

claim, but was unable to confirm the violation. The violation reporter

was unresponsive to follow-up requests for more information.

Since FSF was unable to confirm the violation, we did not pursue it any

further. Bogus reports do happen, and we do not want to burden companies

with specious GPL violation complaints. FSF shelved the matter until

more evidence was discovered.

FSF was later able to confirm the violation when two additional reports

surfaced from other violation reporters, both of whom had used the SDK

professionally and noticed clear similarities to FSF's GNU GCC\@. FSF's

Compliance Engineer asked the reporters to run standard tests to confirm

the violation, and it was confirmed that Bortez's SDK was indeed a

modified version of GCC\@. Bortez had ported to Windows and added a number

of features, including support for a specific consumer device chipset and

additional features to aid in the linking process (``LP'') for those

specific devices. FSF explained the rights that the GPL afforded these

customers and pointed out, for example, that Bortez only needed to provide

source to those in possession of the binaries, and that the users may need

to request that source (if \S 3(b) was exercised). The violators

confirmed that such requests were not answered.

FSF brought the matter to the attention of Bortez, who immediately

escalated the matter to their attorneys. After a long negotiation,

Bortez acknowledged that their SDK was indeed a modified version of

GCC\@. Bortez released most of the source, but some disagreement

occurred over whether LP was also derivative of GCC\@. After repeated

FSF inquiries, Bortez reaudited the source to discover that FSF's

analysis was correct. Bortez determined that LP included a number of

source files copied from the GCC code-base.

\label{davrik-build-problems}

Once the full software release was made available, FSF asked the violation

reporters if it addressed the problem. Reports came back that the source

did not properly build. FSF asked Bortez to provide better build

instructions with the software, and such build instructions were

incorporated into the next software release.

At FSF's request as well, Bortez informed customers who had previously

purchased the product that the source was now available by announcing

the availability on its Web site and via a customer newsletter.

Bortez did have some concerns regarding patents. They wished to include a

statement with the software release that made sure they were not granting

any patent permission other than what was absolutely required by the GPL\@.

They understood that their patent assertions could not trump any rights

granted by the GPL\@. The following language was negotiated into the release:

\begin{quotation}

Subject to the qualifications stated below, Bortez, on behalf of itself

and its Subsidiaries, agrees not to assert the Claims against you for your

making, use, offer for sale, sale, or importation of the Bortez's GNU

Utilities or derivative works of the Bortez's GNU Utilities

(``Derivatives''), but only to the extent that any such Derivatives are

licensed by you under the terms of the GNU General Public License. The

Claims are the claims of patents that Bortez or its Subsidiaries have

standing to enforce that are directly infringed by the making, use, or

sale of an Bortez Distributed GNU Utilities in the form it was distributed

by Bortez and that do not include any limitation that reads on hardware;

the Claims do not include any additional patent claims held by Bortez that

cover any modifications of, derivative works based on or combinations with

the Bortez's GNU Utilities, even if such a claim is disclosed in the same

patent as a Claim. Subsidiaries are entities that are wholly owned by

Bortez.

This statement does not negate, limit or restrict any rights you already

have under the GNU General Public License version 2.

\end{quotation}

This quelled Bortez's concerns about other patent licensing they sought to

do outside of the GPL'd software, and satisfied FSF's concerns that Bortez

give proper permissions to exercise teachings of patents that were

exercised in their GPL'd software release.