Forbes.com has an article called Linux's Hit Men which describes the attempts by the Free Software Foundation to get Linksys to adhere to the terms of the GPL (Linksys used Linux as the operating system in their line of wireless router/firewalls). The author clearly doesn't understand the GPL, or what the FSF is all about, and the article is pure nonsense. I wound up using the "Reply to this" link at the bottom of the article. Here's what I wrote (with minor formatting changes):

Regarding your article (at http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html) about Cisco/Linksys being asked to honor the (free) license they agreed to when they used GPL'ed Linux code in their SOHO routers:

1. One reason Linksys sold so many units was that they used pre-written code, at zero monetary cost, to produce their product. This gave them a leg-up on the competition -- with no outright expense save allowing others to use their code in a similar way. How can you construe this as being bad? I would think that a pro-business publication like Forbes would have applauded Linksys for their decision. Using a free license cannot possibly do anything but help their bottom line.

2. You state that Linksys having to give back their changes to the GPL'ed code they used would mean that "anyone can make a knockoff of (their) product". At the risk of repeating what I said above, isn't this exactly what Linksys did in the first place when they built their product on top of Linux? And wouldn't it also be somewhat difficult for "anyone" to recreate a router such as what Linksys produces? You'd need to acquire the proper hardware and such, which is well beyond the capabilities of anyone but the most dedicated organizations. Regardless, a Linksys competitor somehow building a nearly-identical product merely because Linksys gave back their changes to Linux would find themselves in court in very short order.

3. You say that using GPL'ed software can be "more dangerous" than using commercially licensed code because it could mean either paying money or sharing your work (as you yourself have shared). Can you imagine how you have to would re-word your article if Linksys had bought just one licensed copy of WindowsCE or QNX for use in all 400,000 units they've sold? Would you attack Microsoft or QNX Software Systems in a similar fashion -- in essence comparing them to murderous mobsters? Do you suppose those companies would take kindly to such libelous speech? Would Linksys paying licensing/royalty fees on 400K units sold be better or worse than simply releasing their changes to a freely available GPL software base? Linksys didn't have to pay a dime. They could have simply given back what they had changed, and all would be well. It's only when they violated the teams of the license they agreed to that they are being asked to comply -- not necessarily pay.

4. The discussions between Linksys and the FSF have hardly been secret. I've not been following such news at all, and yet I've heard about it for months. A simple Google search (such as for 'linksys free sofware foundation' which yields some 9,000 hits dating back as far as June of this year) as the simplest of all possible research would have have disabused you of this notion that the FSF is somehow scheming and plotting in the dark to attack Linksys. The facts, apparently, don't make for juicy copy.

5. In the article you state "These disputes might scare companies away from using open source software." It's very clear the author does not understand the GPL. The GPL puts no obligation on the user of GPL'ed software. It *does* put an obligation on the a distributor of GPL'ed software: you are required to share as you have borrowed, nothing more. This is an important point. One can put a GPL'ed application on every corporate desktop computer and not incur any obligation under the GPL.

6. The article also states "the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house". This is incorrect, and clearly meant to incite negative feelings in the reader rather than convey meaning through metaphor. A closer "house" comparison would be that the FSF wants you to make available the blueprints to the house you built using someone else's blueprints.

7. Finally, Linksys knew what the terms of the GPL stated well before they decided to use GPL'ed code. The license wasn't sprung on them, or introduced surreptitiously. They knew that the cost of using others' non-commercial work as basis for their own commercial product was that they would have to share their changes, and they apparently thought this was a fair deal (it certainly is simple enough to understand, despite the author's best efforts to the contrary). If Cisco acquired Linksys without knowing that their flagship product was built using GPL'ed code, and that they would have to give their changes back, then Cisco made a *huge* blunder. Cisco cannot hope to claim ignorance of the GPL without admitting that they performed almost no due diligence in their acquisition of Linksys. This would not instill a lot of confidence in those who own (or hope to buy) CSCO.

Please do a little more research before producing articles such as these. And if at all possible, try to avoid ad hominem arguments (viz. 'Linux Hit Men', 'comrade', etc.). It does your publication (and your apparent agenda) an injustice.

Yeah, it's pissing in the wind, I know. But I got up earlier than normal so I had a couple minutes to kill. Plus I couldn't just let that nonsense stand without comment.