Older blog entries for LaForge (starting at number 329)

osmo-fl2k - Using USB-VGA dongles as SDR transmitter

Yesterday, during OsmoDevCon 2018, Steve Markgraf released osmo-fl2k, a new Osmocom member project which enables the use of FL2000 USB-VGA adapters as ultra-low-cost SDR transmitters.

How does it work?

A major part of any VGA card has always been a rather fast DAC which generates the 8-bit analog values for (each) red, green and blue at the pixel clock. Given that fast DACs were very rare/expensive (and still are to some extent), the idea of (ab)using the VGA DAC to transmit radio has been followed by many earlier, mostly proof-of-concept projects, such as Tempest for Eliza in 2001.

However, with osmo-fl2k, for the first time it was possible to completely disable the horizontal and vertical blanking, resulting in a continuous stream of pixels (samples). Furthermore, as the supported devices have no frame buffer memory, the samples are streamed directly from host RAM.

As most USB-VGA adapters appear to have no low-pass filters on their DAC outputs, it is possible to use any of the harmonics to transmit signals at much higher frequencies than normally possible within the baseband of the (max) 157 Mega-Samples per seconds that can be achieved.

osmo-fl2k and rtl-sdr

Steve is the creator of the earlier, complementary rtl-sdr software, which since 2012 transforms USB DVB adapters into general-purpose SDR receivers.

Today, six years later, it is hard to think of where SDR would be without rtl-sdr. Reducing the entry cost of SDR receivers nearly down to zero has done a lot for democratization of SDR technology.

There is hence a big chance that his osmo-fl2k project will attain a similar popularity. Having a SDR transmitter for as little as USD 5 is an amazing proposition.

free riders

Please keep in mind that Steve has done rtl-sdr just for fun, to scratch his own itch and for the "hack value". He chose to share his work with the wider public, in source code, under a free software license. He's a very humble person, he doesn't need to stand in the limelight.

Many other people since have built a business around rtl-sdr. They have grabbed domains with his project name, etc. They are now earning money based on what he has done and shared selflessly, without ever contributing back to the pioneering developers who brought this to all of us in the first place.

So, do we want to bet if history repeats itself? How long will it take for vendors showing up online advertising the USB VGA dongles as "SDR transmitter", possibly even with a surcharge? How long will it take for them to include Steve's software without giving proper attribution? How long until they will violate the GNU GPL by not providing the complete corresponding source code to derivative versions they create?

If you want to thank Steve for his amazing work

  • reach out to him personally
  • contribute to his work, e.g.
  • help to maintain it
  • package it for distributions
  • send patches (via osmocom-sdr mailing list)
  • register an osmocom.org account and update the wiki with more information

And last, but not least, carry on the spirit of "hack value" and democratization of software defined radio.

Thank you, Steve! After rtl-sdr and osmo-fl2k, it's hard to guess what will come next :)

Syndicated 2018-04-22 22:00:00 from LaForge's home page

udtrace - Unix domain socket tracing

When developing applications that exchange data over sockets, every so often you'd like to analyze exactly what kind of data is exchanged over the socket.

For TCP/UDP/SCTP/DCCP or other IP-based sockets, this is rather easy by means of libpcap and tools like tcpdump, tshark or wireshark. However, for unix domain socket, unfortunately no such general capture/tracing infrastructure exists in the Linux kernel.

Interestingly, even after searching for quite a bit I couldn't find any existing tools for this. This is surprising, as unix domain sockets are used by a variety of programs, from sql servers to bind8 ndc all the way to the systemctl tool to manage systemd.

In absence of any kernel support, the two technologies I can think of to implement this is either systemtap or a LD_PRELOAD wrapper.

However, I couldn't find an example for using either of those two to get traces of unix domain soocket communications.

Ok, so I get to write my own. My first idea hence was to implement something based on top of systemtap, the Linux kernel tracing framework. Unfortunately, systemtap was broken in Debian unstable (which I use for decades) at the time, so I went back to the good old LD_PRELOAD shim library / wrapper approach.

The result is called udtrace and can be found at

git clone git://git.gnumonks.org/udtrace

or alternatively via its github mirror.

Below is a copy+paste of its README file. Let's hope this tool is useful to other developers, too:

udtrace - Unix Domain socket tracing

This is a LD_PRELOAD wrapper library which can be used to trace the data sent and/or received via unix domain sockets.

Unlike IP based communication that can be captured/traced with pcap programs like tcpdump or wireshark, there is no similar mechanism available for unix domain sockets.

This LD_PRELOAD library intercepts the C library function calls of dynamically linked programs. It will detect all file descriptors representing unix domain sockets and will then print traces of all data sent/received via the socket.


Simply build libudtrace.so using the make command, and then start your to-be-traced program with



LD_PRELOAD=libudtrace.so systemctl status

which will produce output like this:

>>> UDTRACE: Unix Domain Socket Trace initialized (TITAN support DISABLED)
>>> UDTRACE: Adding FD 4
>>> UDTRACE: connect(4, "/run/dbus/system_bus_socket")
4 sendmsg W 00415554482045585445524e414c20
4 sendmsg W 3331333033303330
4 sendmsg W 0d0a4e45474f54494154455f554e49585f46440d0a424547494e0d0a

Output Format

Currently, udtrace will produc the following output:

At time a FD for a unix domain socket is created:

>>> UDTRACE: Adding FD 8

At time a FD for a unix domain socket is closed:

>>> UDTRACE: Removing FD 8

At time a FD for a unix domain socket is bound or connected:

>>> UDTRACE: connect(9, "/tmp/mncc")

When data is read from the socket:

9 read R 00040000050000004403000008000000680000001c0300002c03000000000000

When data is written to the socket:

9 write W 00040000050000004403000008000000680000001c0300002c03000000000000
  • 9 is the file dsecriptor on which the event happened
  • read/write is the name of the syscall, could e.g. also be sendmsg / readv / etc.
  • R|W is Read / Write (from the process point of view)
  • followed by a hex-dump of the raw data. Only data successfully written (or read) will be printed, not the entire buffer passed to the syscall. The rationale is to only print data that was actually sent to or received from the socket.

TITAN decoder support

Getting hex-dumps is nice and fine, but normally one wants to have a more detailed decode of the data that is being passed on the socket.

For TCP based protocols, there is wireshark. But most protocols on unix domain sockets don't follow inter-operable / public standards, so even if one was to pass the traces into wireshark somehow, there would be no decoder.

In the Osmocom project, we already had some type definitions and decoders for our protocols written in the TTCN-3 programming language, using Eclipse TITAN. In order to build those decoders fro MNCC and PCUIF, please use


when building the code.

Please note that this introduces a run-time dependency to libttcn3-dynamic.so, which is (at least on Debian GNU/Linux) not installed in a default library search path, so you will have to use something like:

LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/lib/titan LD_PRELOAD=libudtrace.so systemctl status

Syndicated 2018-03-29 22:00:00 from LaForge's home page

Report from the Geniatech vs. McHardy GPL violation court hearing

Today, I took some time off to attend the court hearing in the appeal hearing related to a GPL infringement dispute between former netfilter colleague Partrick McHardy and Geniatech Europe

I am not in any way legally involved in the lawsuit on either the plaintiff or the defendant side. However, as a fellow (former) Linux kernel developer myself, and a long-term Free Software community member who strongly believes in the copyleft model, I of course am very interested in this case.

History of the Case

This case is about GPL infringements in consumer electronics devices based on a GNU/Linux operating system, including the Linux kernel and at least some devices netfilter/iptables. The specific devices in question are a series of satellite TV receivers built by a Shenzhen (China) based company Geniatech, which is represented in Europe by Germany-based Geniatech Europe GmbH.

The Geniatech Europe CEO has openly admitted (out of court) that they had some GPL incompliance in the past, and that there was failure on their part that needed to be fixed. However, he was not willing to accept an overly wide claim in the preliminary injunction against his company.

The history of the case is that at some point in July 2017, Patrick McHardy has made a test purchase of a Geniatech Europe product, and found it infringing the GNU General Public License v2. Apparently no source code (and/or written offer) had been provide alongside the binary - a straight-forward violation of the license terms and hence a violation of copyright. The plaintiff then asked the regional court of Cologne to issue a preliminary injunction against the defendant, which was granted on September 8th,2017.

In terms of legal procedure, in Germany, when a plaintiff applies for a preliminary injunction, it is immediately granted by the court after brief review of the filing, without previously hearing the defendant in an oral hearing. If the defendant (like in this case) wishes to appeal the preliminary injunction, it files an appeal which then results in an oral hearing. This is what happened, after which the district court of cologne (Landgericht Koeln) on October 20, 2017 issued ruling 14 O 188/17 partially upholding the injunction.

All in all, nothing particularly unusual about this. There is no dispute about a copyright infringement having existed, and this generally grants any of the copyright holders the right to have the infringing party to cease and desist from any further infringement.

However, this injunction has a very wide scope, stating that the defendant was to cease and desist not only from ever publishing, selling, offering for download any version of Linux (unless being compliant to the license). It furthermore asked the defendant to cease and desist

  • from putting hyperlinks on their website to any version of Linux
  • from asking users to download any version of Linux

unless the conditions of the GPL are met, particularly the clauses related to providing the complete and corresponding source code.

The appeals case at OLG Cologne

The defendant now escalated this to the next higher court, the higher regional court of Cologne (OLG Koeln), asking to withdraw the earlier ruling of the lower court, i.e. removing the injunction with its current scope.

The first very positive surprise at the hearing was the depth in which the OLG court has studied the subject matter of the dispute prior to the hearing. In the many GPL related court cases that I witnessed so far, it was by far the most precise analysis of how Linux kernel development works, and this despite the more than 1000 pages of filings that parties had made to the court to this point.

Just to give you some examples:

  • the court understood that Linux was created by Linus Torvalds in 1991 and released under GPL to facilitate the open and collaborative development
  • the court recognized that there is no co-authorship / joint authorship (German: Miturheber) in the Linux kernel as a whole, as it was not a group of people planning+developing a given program together, but it is a program that has been released by Linus Torvalds and has since been edited by more than 15.000 developers without any "grand joint plan" but rather in successive iterations. This situation constitutes "editing authorship" (German: Bearbeiterurheber)
  • the court further recognized that being listed as "head of the netfilter core team" or a "subsystem maintainer" doesn't necessarily mean that one is contributing copyrightable works. Reviewing thousands of patches doesn't mean you own copyright on them, drawing an analogy to an editorial office at a publisher.
  • the court understood there are plenty of Linux versions that may not even contain any of Patric McHardy's code (such as older versions)

After about 35 minutes of the presiding judge explaining the court's understanding of the case (and how kernel development works), it went on to summarize the summary of their internal elaboration at the court prior to the meeting.

In this summary, the presiding judge stated very clearly that they believe there is some merit to the arguments of the defendant, and that they would be inclined in a ruling favorable to the defendant based on their current understanding of the case.

He cited the following main reasons:

  • The Linux kernel development model does not support the claim of Patrick McHardy having co-authored Linux. In so far, he is only an editing author (Bearbeiterurheber), and not a co-author. Nevertheless, even an editing author has the right to ask for cease and desist, but only on those portions that he authored/edited, and not on the entire Linux kernel.
  • The plaintiff did not sufficiently show what exactly his contributions were and how they were forming themselves copyrightable works
  • The plaintiff did not substantiate what copyrightable contributions he has made outside of netfilter/iptables. His mere listing as general networking subsystem maintainer does not clarify what his copyrightable contributions were
  • The plaintiff being a member of the netfilter core team or even the head of the core team still doesn't support the claim of being a co-author, as netfilter substantially existed since 1999, three years before Patrick's first contribution to netfilter, and five years before joining the core team in 2004.

So all in all, it was clear that the court also thought the ruling on all of Linux was too far-fetching.

The court suggested that it might be better to have regular main proceedings, in which expert witnesses can be called and real evidence has to be provided, as opposed to the constraints of the preliminary procedure that was applied currently.

Some other details that were mentioned somewhere during the hearing:

  • Patrick McHardy apparently unilaterally terminated the license to his works in an e-mail dated 26th of July 2017 towards the defendant. According to the defendant (and general legal opinion, including my own position), this is in turn a violation of the GPLv2, as it only allowed plaintiff to create and publish modified versions of Linux under the obligation that he licenses his works under GPLv2 to any third party, including the defendant. The defendant believes this is abuse of his rights (German: Rechtsmissbraeuchlich).
  • sworn affidavits of senior kernel developer Greg Kroah-Hartman and current netfilter maintainer Pablo Neira were presented in support of some of the defendants claims. The contents of those are unfortunately not public, neither is the contents of the sworn affidavists presented by the plaintiff.
  • The defendant has made substantiated claims in his filings that Patrick McHardy would perform his enforcement activities not with the primary motivation of achieving license compliance, but as a method to generate monetary gain. Such claims include that McHardy has acted in more than 38 cases, in at least one of which he has requested a contractual penalty of 1.8 million EUR. The total amount of monies received as contractual penalties was quoted as over 2 million EUR to this point. Please note that those are claims made by the defendant, which were just reproduced by the court. The court has not assessed their validity. However, the presiding judge explicitly stated that he received a phone calls about this case from a lawyer known to him personally, who supported that large contractual penalties are being paid in other related cases.
  • One argument by the plaintiff seems to center around being listed as a general kernel networking maintainer until 2017 (despite his latest patches being from 2015, and those were netfilter only)

Withdrawal by Patrick McHardy

At some point, the court hearing was temporarily suspended to provide the legal representation of the plaintiff with the opportunity to have a Phone call with the plaintiff to decide if they would want to continue with their request to uphold the preliminary injunction. After a few minutes, the hearing was resumed, with the plaintiff withdrawing their request to uphold the injunction.

As a result, the injunction is now withdrawn, and the plaintiff has to bear all legal costs (court fees, lawyers costs on both sides).

Personal Opinion

For me, this is all of course a difficult topic. With my history of being the first to enforce the GNU GPLv2 in (equally German) court, it is unsurprising that I am in favor of license enforcement being performed by copyright holders.

I believe individual developers who have contributed to the Linux kernel should have the right to enforce the license, if needed. It is important to have distributed copyright, and to avoid a situation where only one (possibly industry friendly) entity would be able to take [legal] action.

I'm not arguing for a "too soft" approach. It's almost 15 years since the first court cases on license violations on (embedded) Linux, and the fact that the problem still exists today clearly shows the industry is very far from having solved a seemingly rather simple problem.

On the other hand, such activities must always be oriented to compliance, and compliance only. Collecting huge amounts of contractual penalties is questionable. And if it was necessary to collect such huge amounts to motivate large corporations to be compliant, then this must be done in the open, with the community knowing about it, and the proceeds of such contractual penalties must be donated to free software related entities to prove that personal financial gain is not a motivation.

The rumors of Patrick performing GPL enforcement for personal financial gain have been around for years. It was initially very hard for me to believe. But as more and more about this became known, and Patrick would refuse to any contact requests by his former netfilter team-mates as well as the wider kernel community make it hard to avoid drawing related conclusions.

We do need enforcement, both out of court and in court. But we need it to happen out of the closet, with the community in the picture, and without financial gain to individuals. The "principles of community oriented enforcement" of the Software Freedom Conservancy as well as the more recent (but much less substantial) kernel enforcement statement represent the most sane and fair approach for how we as a community should deal with license violations.

So am I happy with the outcome? Not entirely. It's good that an over-reaching injunction was removed. But then, a lot of money and effort was wasted on this, without any verdict/ruling. It would have been IMHO better to have a court ruling published, in which the injunction is substantially reduced in scope (e.g. only about netfilter, or specific versions of the kernel, or specific products, not about placing hyperlinks, etc.). It would also have been useful to have some of the other arguments end up in a written ruling of a court, rather than more or less "evaporating" in the spoken word of the hearing today, without advancing legal precedent.

Lessons learned for the developer community

  • In the absence of detailed knowledge on computer programming, legal folks tend to look at "metadata" more, as this is what they can understand.
  • It matters who has which title and when. Should somebody not be an active maintainer, make sure he's not listed as such.
  • If somebody ceases to be a maintainer or developer of a project, remove him or her from the respective lists immediately, not just several years later.
  • Copyright statements do matter. Make sure you don't merge any patches adding copyright statements without being sure they are actually valid.

Lessons learned for the IT industry

  • There may be people doing GPL enforcement for not-so-noble motives
  • Defending yourself against claims in court can very well be worth it, as opposed to simply settling out of court (presumably for some money). The Telefonica case in 2016 <>_ has shown this, as has this current Geniatech case. The legal system can work, if you give it a chance.
  • Nevertheless, if you have violated the license, and one of the copyright holders makes a properly substantiated claim, you still will get injunctions granted against you (and rightfully so). This was just not done in this case (not properly substantiated, scope of injunction too wide/coarse).

Dear Patrick

For years, your former netfilter colleagues and friends wanted to have a conversation with you. You have not returned our invitation so far. Please do reach out to us. We won't bite, but we want to share our views with you, and show you what implications your actions have not only on Linux, but also particularly on the personal and professional lives of the very developers that you worked hand-in-hand with for a decade. It's your decision what you do with that information afterwards, but please do give us a chance to talk. We would greatly appreciate if you'd take up that invitation for such a conversation. Thanks.

Syndicated 2018-03-06 23:00:00 from LaForge's home page

34C3 and its Osmocom GSM/UMTS network

At the 34th annual Chaos Communication Congress, a team of Osmocom folks continued the many years old tradition of operating an experimental Osmocom based GSM network at the event. Though I've originally started that tradition, I'm not involved in installation and/or operation of that network, all the credits go to Lynxis, neels, tsaitgaist and the larger team of volunteers surrounding them. My involvement was only to answer the occasional technical question and to look at bugs that show up in the software during operation, and if possible fix them on-site.

34C3 marks two significant changes in terms of its cellular network:

  • the new post-nitb Osmocom stack was used, with OsmoBSC, OsmoMSC and OsmoHLR
  • both an GSM/GPRS network (on 1800 MHz) was operated ,as well as (for the first time) an UMTS network (in the 850 MHz band)

The good news is: The team did great work building this network from scratch, in a new venue, and without relying on people that have significant experience in network operation. Definitely, the team was considerably larger and more distributed than at the time when I was still running that network.

The bad news is: There was a seemingly endless number of bugs that were discovered while operating this network. Some shortcomings were known before, but the extent and number of bugs uncovered all across the stack was quite devastating to me. Sure, at some point from day 2 onwards we had a network that provided [some level of] service, and as far as I've heard, some ~ 23k calls were switched over it. But that was after more than two days of debugging + bug fixing, and we still saw unexplained behavior and crashes later on.

This is such a big surprise as we have put a lot of effort into testing over the last years. This starts from the osmo-gsm-tester software and continuously running test setup, and continues with the osmo-ttcn3-hacks integration tests that mainly I wrote during the last few months. Both us and some of our users have also (successfully!) performed interoperability testing with other vendors' implementations such as MSCs. And last, but not least, the individual Osmocom developers had been using the new post-NITB stack on their personal machines.

So what does this mean?

  • I'm sorry about the sub-standard state of the software and the resulting problems we've experienced in the 34C3 network. The extent of problems surprised me (and I presume everyone else involved)
  • I'm grateful that we've had the opportunity to discover all those bugs, thanks to the GSM team at 34C3, as well as Deutsche Telekom for donating 3 ARFCNs from their spectrum, as well as the German regulatory authority Bundesnetzagentur for providing the experimental license in the 850 MHz spectrum.
  • We need to have even more focus on automatic testing than we had so far. None of the components should be without exhaustive test coverage on at least the most common transactions, including all their failure modes (such as timeouts, rejects, ...)

My preferred method of integration testing has been by using TTCN-3 and Eclipse TITAN to emulate all the interfaces surrounding a single of the Osmocom programs (like OsmoBSC) and then test both valid and invalid transactions. For the BSC, this means emulating MS+BTS on Abis; emulating MSC on A; emulating the MGW, as well as the CTRL and VTY interfaces.

I currently see the following areas in biggest need of integration testing:

  • OsmoHLR (which needs a GSUP implementation in TTCN-3, which I've created on the spot at 34C3) where we e.g. discovered that updates to the subscriber via VTY/CTRL would surprisingly not result in an InsertSubscriberData to VLR+SGSN
  • OsmoMSC, particularly when used with external MNCC handlers, which was so far blocked by the lack of a MNCC implementation in TTCN-3, which I've been working on both on-site and after returning back home.
  • user plane testing for OsmoMGW and other components. We currently only test the control plane (MGCP), but not the actual user plane e.g. on the RTP side between the elements
  • UMTS related testing on OsmoHNBGW, OsmoMSC and OsmoSGSN. We currently have no automatic testing at all in these areas.

Even before 34C3 and the above-mentioned experiences, I concluded that for 2018 we will pursue a test-driven development approach for all new features added by the sysmocom team to the Osmocom code base. The experience with the many issues at 34C3 has just confirmed that approach. In parallel, we will have to improve test coverage on the existing code base, as outlined above. The biggest challenge will of course be to convince our paying customers of this approach, but I see very little alternative if we want to ensure production quality of our cellular stack.

So here we come: 2018, The year of testing.

Syndicated 2017-12-31 23:00:00 from LaForge's home page

Osmocom Review 2017

As 2017 has just concluded, let's have a look at the major events and improvements in the Osmocom Cellular Infrastructure projects (i.e. those projects dealing with building protocol stacks and network elements for mobile network infrastructure.

I've prepared a detailed year 2017 summary at the osmocom.org website, but let me write a bit about the most note-worthy topics here.

NITB Split

Once upon a time, we implemented everything needed to operate a GSM network inside a single process called OsmoNITB. Those days are now gone, and we have separate OsmoBSC, OsmoMSC, OsmoHLR, OsmoSTP processes, which use interfaces that are interoperable with non-Osmocom implementations (which is what some of our users require).

This change is certainly the most significant change in the close-to-10-year history of the project. However, we have tried to make it as non-intrusive as possible, by using default point codes and IP addresses which will make the individual processes magically talk to each other if installed on a single machine.

We've also released a OsmoNITB Migration Guide, as well as our usual set of user manuals in order to help our users.

We'll continue to improve the user experience, to re-introduce some of the features lost in the split, such as the ability to attach names to the subscribers.


We have osmo-gsm-tester together with the two physical setups at the sysmocom office, which continuously run the latest Osmocom components and test an entire matrix of different BTSs, software configurations and modems. However, this tests at super low load, and it tests only signalling so far, not user plane yet. Hence, coverage is limited.

We also have unit tests as part of the 'make check' process, Jenkins based build verification before merging any patches, as well as integration tests for some of the network elements in TTCN-3. This is much more than we had until 2016, but still by far not enough, as we had just seen at the fall-out from the sub-optimal 34C3 event network.


2017 also marks the year where we've for the first time organized a user-oriented event. It was a huge success, and we will for sure have another OsmoCon incarnation in 2018 (most likely in May or June). It will not be back-to-back with the developer conference OsmoDevCon this time.


We have a new SIGTRAN stakc with SUA, M3UA and SCCP as well as OsmoSTP. This has been lacking a long time.


We have converted OpenGGSN into a true member of the Osmocom family, thereby deprecating OpenGGSN which we had earlier adopted and maintained.

Syndicated 2017-12-31 23:00:00 from LaForge's home page

On the Linux Kernel Enforcement Statement

I'm late with covering this here, but work overload is having its toll on my ability to blog.

On October 16th, key Linux Kernel developers have released and anounced the Linux Kernel Community Enforcement Statemnt.

In its actual text, those key kernel developers cover

  • compliance with the reciprocal sharing obligations of GPLv2 is critical and mandatory
  • acknowledgement to the right to enforce
  • expression of interest to ensure that enforcement actions are conducted in a manner beneficial to the larger community
  • a method to provide reinstatement of rights after ceasing a license violation (see below)
  • that legal action is a last resort
  • that after resolving any non-compliance, the formerly incompliant user is welcome to the community

I wholeheartedly agree with those. This should be no surprise as I've been one of the initiators and signatories of the earlier statement of the netfilter project on GPL enforcement.

On the reinstatement of rights

The enforcement statement then specifically expresses the view of the signatories on the specific aspect of the license termination. Particularly in the US, among legal scholars there is a strong opinion that if the rights under the GPLv2 are terminated due to non-compliance, the infringing entity needs an explicit reinstatement of rights from the copyright holder. The enforcement statement now basically states that the signatories believe the rights should automatically be re-instated if the license violation ceases within 30 days of being notified of the license violation

To people like me living in the European (and particularly German) legal framework, this has very little to no implications. It has been the major legal position that any user, even an infringing user can automatically obtain a new license as soon as he no longer violates. He just (really or imaginary) obtains a new copy of the source code, at which time he again gets a new license from the copyright holders, as long as he fulfills the license conditions.

So my personal opinion as a non-legal person active in GPL compliance on the reinstatement statement is that it changes little to nothing regarding the jurisdiction that I operate in. It merely expresses that other developers express their intent and interest to a similar approach in other jurisdictions.

Syndicated 2017-11-06 23:00:00 from LaForge's home page

SFLC sues SFC over trademark infringement

As the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) has publicly disclosed on their website, it appears that Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) has filed for a trademark infringement lawsuit against SFC.

SFLC has launched SFC in 2006, and SFLC has helped and endorsed SFC in the past.

This lawsuit is hard to believe. What has this community come to, if its various members - who used all to be respected equally - start filing law suits against each other?

It's of course not known what kind of negotiations might have happened out-of-court before an actual lawsuit has been filed. Nevertheless, one would have hoped that people are able to talk to each other, and that the mutual respect for working at different aspects and with possibly slightly different strategies would have resulted in a less confrontational approach to resolving any dispute.

To me, this story just looks like there can only be losers on all sides, by far not just limited to the two entities in question.

On lwn.net some people, including high-ranking members of the FOSS community have started to spread conspiracy theories as to whether there's any secret scheming behind the scenes, particularly from the Linux Foundation towards SFLC to cause trouble towards the SFC and their possibly-not-overly-enjoyed-by-everyone enforcement activities.

I think this is complete rubbish. Neither have I ever had the impression that the LF is completely opposed to license enforcement to begin with, nor do I have remotely enough phantasy to see them engage in such malicious scheming.

What motivates SFLC and/or Eben to attack their former offspring is however unexplainable to the bystander. One hopes there is no connection to his departure from FSF about one year ago, where he served as general counsel for more than two decades.

Syndicated 2017-11-06 23:00:00 from LaForge's home page

Obtaining the local IP address of an unbound UDP socket

Sometimes one is finding an interesting problem and is surprised that there is not a multitude of blog post, stackoverflow answers or the like about it.

A (I think) not so uncommon problem when working with datagram sockets is that you may want to know the local IP address that the OS/kernel chooses when sending a packet to a given destination.

In an unbound UDP socket, you basically send and receive packets with any number of peers from a single socket. When sending a packet to destination Y, you simply pass the destination address/port into the sendto() socket function, and the OS/kernel will figure out which of its local IP addresses will be used for reaching this particular destination.

If you're a dumb host with a single default router, then the answer to that question is simple. But in any reasonably non-trivial use case, your host will have a variety of physical and/or virtual network devices with any number of addresses on them.

Why would you want to know that address? Because maybe you need to encode that address as part of a packet payload. In the current use case that we have, it is the OsmoMGW, implementing the IETF MGCP Media Gateway Control Protocol.

So what can you do? You can actually create a new "trial" socket, not bind it to any specific local address/port, but connect() it to the destination of your IP packets. Then you do a getsockname(), which will give you the local address/port the kernel has selected for this socket. And that's exactly the answer to your question. You can now close the "trial" socket and have learned which local IP address the kernel would use if you were to send a packet to that destination.

At least on Linux, this works. While getsockname() is standard BSD sockets API, I'm not sure how portable it is to use it on a socket that has not been explicitly bound by a prior call to bind().

Syndicated 2017-10-19 22:00:00 from LaForge's home page

Invited keynote + TTCN-3 talk at netdevconf 2.2 in Seoul

It was a big surprise that I've recently been invited to give a keynote on netfilter history at netdevconf 2.2.

First of all, I wouldn't have expected netfilter to be that relevant next to all the other [core] networking topics at netdevconf. Secondly, I've not been doing any work on netfilter for about a decade now, so my memory is a bit rusty by now ;)

Speaking of Rusty: Timing wise there is apparently a nice coincidence that I'll be able to meet up with him in Berlin later this month, i.e. hopefully we can spend some time reminiscing about old times and see what kind of useful input he has for the keynote.

I'm also asking my former colleagues and successors in the netfilter project to share with me any note-worthy events or anecdotes, particularly also covering the time after my retirement from the core team. So if you have something that you believe shouldn't miss in a keynote on netfilter project history: Please reach out to me by e-mail ASAP and let me know about it.

To try to fend off the elder[ly] statesmen image that goes along with being invited to give keynotes about the history of projects you were working on a long time ago, I also submitted an actual technical talk: TTCN-3 and Eclipse Titan for testing protocol stacks, in which I'll cover my recent journey into TTCN-3 and TITAN land, and how I think those tools can help us in the Linux [kernel] networking community to productively produce tests for the various protocols.

As usual for netdevconf, there are plenty of other exciting talks in the schedule

I'm very much looking forward to both visiting Seoul again, as well as meeting lots of the excellent people involved in the Linux networking subsystems. See ya!

Syndicated 2017-10-09 22:00:00 from LaForge's home page

Ten years Openmoko Neo1973 release anniversary dinner

As I noted earlier this year, 2017 marks the tenth anniversary of shipping the first Openmoko phone, the Neo1973.

On this occasion, a number of the key people managed to gather for an anniversary dinner in Taipei. Thanks for everyone who could make it, it was very good to see them together again. Sadly, by far not everyone could attend. You have been missed!

The award for the most crazy attendee of the meeting goes out to my friend Milosch, who has actually flown from his home in the UK to Taiwan, only to meet up with old friends and attend the anniversary dinner.

You can some pictures in Milosch's related tweet.

Syndicated 2017-10-08 22:00:00 from LaForge's home page

320 older entries...

New Advogato Features

New HTML Parser: The long-awaited libxml2 based HTML parser code is live. It needs further work but already handles most markup better than the original parser.

Keep up with the latest Advogato features by reading the Advogato status blog.

If you're a C programmer with some spare time, take a look at the mod_virgule project page and help us with one of the tasks on the ToDo list!