[Discuss] Fwd: Hey FCC, Don't Lock Down Our Wi-Fi Routers | WIRED

[bogstad at pobox.com (Bill Bogstad)]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Rich Pieri <richard.pieri at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/5/2015 1:21 PM, Shirley M?rquez D?lcey wrote:
>>
>> A problem for the makers of high priced products. But if you are a
>> commodity router maker, your value is in price and reliability, not
>> software uniqueness. So why not open up?
>
>
> There are a few reasons I'm aware of. The most practical one is simply that
> they can't afford it. Every state in the Union has implied warranty laws
> that manufacturers must comply with. Some states, including Massachusetts,
> outright prohibit "as-is" sales. Meanwhile, most GPL software, including the
> Linux kernel, expressly comes "as-is" with no warranty whatsoever. Google
> and Verizon can afford to eat the costs of adding warranty support to
> unsupported code; not so much D-Link and TP-Link.

Given that the majority of cheap home routers do ship with GPL'ed
software (i.e. the Linux kernel), I am having a real problem
understanding this argument.   Some GPL'ed code is okay whereas other
GPL'ed code is toxic?  Or maybe it has something to do with code that
they change vs. simply compile?   Okay, I'm going to stop guessing
now.   Please explain if possible.

As for lawsuits by the FSF (from your previous note), just because
code is covered by the GPL doesn't mean that the FSF has any rights
over it.  The Linux kernel and Moodle are two examples of large
packages that use GPL that as far as I know have no connection to the
FSF at all.   But maybe you meant more generically that they could be
sued by whoever happened to own the copyright.   But again that hasn't
precluded them from using the Linux kernel.   Nor has it stopped
manufacturers of Android smartphones.

Bill Bogstad