Frequently Asked Questions

From Mwiki

Iliad has done a lot for the Internet in France, so why should we bother them about Freebox?

Simply this - our work as free software writers needs to be respected. When code is published under a GPL-type free licence, it is done voluntarily and we do not expect much in return. This is about attributing the work to their authors, and redistributing the source code and modifications. Compared to what proprietary software publishers ask for, this is really not much... And that is what enables the system to work. We appreciate what Iliad may have done for the Internet, but stopping when the light is red in Toulouse does not give you the right to go through the red lights in Paris.

What exactly do we want from Iliad?

Actually, not much. Just add a few lines in the user documentation provided, mention the use of free software in the Freebox, and offer to send the source code to users who ask for them. In fact, so little work is needed that it would probably take half a day – this is nothing compared to the damages industrialists would demand for this kind of violation. We are not seeking any compensation; only the respect of the terms of use of our software. Iliad is restricting the publication of its source code - they do everything they can to keep the modifications of our software a secret.

Who is the writer involved in this request to Iliad ?

Harald Welte is the one bringing the issue to the court; he is the writer of iptables contained in the Linux kernel, included in all Freeboxes. He his supported by Rob Landley and Erik Andersen from the BusyBox project, also included in all Freeboxes (see the BusyBox Support Letter).

Why won’t Iliad publish its source code?

That’s a good question, to which no answer was ever given. Iliad has continued to dodge this issue, hiding behind a juridical construction, which attempts to put the rights of telecoms above copyright. But no word has been leaked about the core of the issue or the reason why it would be embarrassing for Iliad to publish those sources, and apart from the three representatives who have been allowed to talk about it, Iliad’s staff becomes very quiet when the topic is discussed publicly.

Xavier Niel, Iliad’s main shareholder, stated that other providers do not publish the source code of their boxes and are not bothered about it.

We also follow the situation with other providers. Following talks, Neuf Cegetel has recently published the source code of its box. What makes Iliad different is their closed mouth attitude - mysterious when you look at their original ideological motivations – when it comes to any sort of discussion. Whereas other providers – who do not really go by the free culture –understood they had nothing to fear about the publication of their sources, and that, respecting the free source code dynamic was to their advantage, Iliad has bluntly and systematically turned down everyone’s requests.

Apparently the modifications are minor, so what’s the point in asking for their publication?

If the modifications are minor, that’s all the more reason to publish them! It is a pretty simple procedure, demanding hardly any work, and of no risk to Iliad. Even the arguments of people defending proprietary software ("but, if it’s available to all, my work and innovations are going to be stolen!") are meaningless here. Even in normal circumstances, this kind of reasoning does not lead very far.

Xavier Niel has indicated that "everything is said and appears on ftp.free.fr".

It’s astonishing that we should hear this from someone who doesn’t mince words, but this is just a lie. Without even talking about Iliad’s modifications, the Broadcom core, for instance, does not appear on ftp.free.fr.

If Iliad violates the free software licence they’re using in the Freebox, why is it that not a single lawyer has ever sounded the alarm and prevented this situation from taking place?

This would not be the first time. Iliad has already been sentenced several times, notably for their 32 unfair clauses in the General Terms of Sales as well as for their misleading advertising. It’s sad that it should take a trial to settle this, but sometimes there are no other means you can use to assert your rights.

What is the role of the FSF in the present campaign and in the trial?

The FSF is providing us with legal and financial support as part of their mission of assistance to the writers of free software whose licences are not respected. Until now, the FSF had also been in charge of public relations, and as we head to court, it seemed like the right thing to take everything back in charge.

Xavier Niel, Iliad’s main shareholder, says it is a fight "for the GPL v3, which is exceptionally stupid, so stupid Linus won’t have Linux work under it" and that if we listened to you "Google or Amazon should disclose their sources, which is the whole point of GPL v3" , so how about it?

The GPLv2 and the GPLv3 have the same dispositions in regards to the present case, and the fact that the free software existing in the Freebox are published under one or the other of these licences would not have any consequence. Actually, Xavier Niel mistakes them for the AGPLv3, which was not been released at that time, and which is not meant to be used with embedded hardware. In addition, the case he references regarding Linus is about DRM, not related whatsoever to the current case, and corrected since, with Linus’s permission.

Iliad is not selling the Freebox. Does it make any difference?

The GPL makes no distinction based on the notion of sales or business. Whether the Freebox is lent, given, or sold, it is the very act of distribution that counts –the delivery person puts the Freebox in your hands.