What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$45 & up: Huge Hotel Sale view!
travelzoo.com - Great discounts on rooms for the holidays and beyond!
82 Comments
- TheIndividual, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23Hello digg community.
my nickname is TheIndividual and I have to post anonymously due to threats from Sveasoft.
I have been around the WRT firmware scene for a long time and I have a long story to tell.
Some of it is posted on my website that is kept up due to many brave mirror hosts:
http://wrt54g.thermoman.de/
There's some more on my slashdot journal:
http://slashdot.org/~TheIndividual/journal/
After a while I had set up a forum for independent discussion of the issues because Sveasoft deletes critical posts in a matter of minutes:
http://forum.bsr-clan.de/viewforum.php?f=12
Anyways, it all started out when Sveasoft still acknowledged the GPL heritage of the firmware but also decided to charge for binaries. Back then, sources were available and I figured I'd share them on my public website together with the binaries.
Since then a lot of stuff happened:
- Sveasoft threatened me with a couple of emails like "I enjoy tracking down scumbags and giving them what they deserve. I used to get paid for it before I changed careers and started a family."
- Sveasoft emailed my hoster claiming I was hosting pirated copies of his (GPL!) firmware
- Sveasoft called my ISP and claimed I was hacking their servers
- Sveasoft sent out DMCA copyright violations to mirror hosts and even to Google for listing the mirrors (http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1471)
- Sveasoft claimed they had switched license but kept all GPL code
- Sveasoft introduced a tagging system to track down leaks
- Sveasoft introduced a MAC-address protection to prevent redistribution
I'm probably missing a lot here but you get the picture.
Also its important to say that lots of projects are (ab)used in the Sveasoft firmware:
-Linux kernel
-Busybox
-iptables
-dropbear
-roaring penguin pppoe
-dnsmasq
-mini-httpd by Jef Poskanzer (all references removed, renamed to svea-httpd)
-ebtables
I could go on and on. Last time Sveasoft released any source code to its subscribers was July 2005, since then there were plenty of "dev builds" that represent the only usable binaries. The last public release of firmware or binaries was a buggy version of "Alchemy 1.0" back in April 2005.
Since then Sveasoft has been hiding behind the "internal testing only" and "subscribers only" argument. What they don't tell the general public is that not even subscribers get access to the source code.
The continuous fight against this blatant GPL abuse has already showed some fruits. All developers have quit working for Sveasoft and there is only one person (James Ewing) who's doing all the work. Lately this resulted in a severe lack of updates and quality which in turn drove many users to the alternatives like OpenWRT or DD-WRT.
If you're an OSS developer and need the extracted file-system of a current Sveasoft firmware, please let me know. You can reach me at indi@doubledaze.com or (better) send me a PM on the forums I posted above.
Regards, TheIndividual - mikal, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Not the first time Sveasoft has been acting like *****. They also tried to go around the GPL by punishing (banning, refusing updates) paying customers if they distributed the sources. This has been going on for ages.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Per the GPL, Section 1, point 2b. (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html )
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
Basically, you MUST make the code available if you modify it and distribute/publish it, and you MUST note where the changes were made (section 2a), and you must NOT charge for it. Thusly, they're in violation of the GPL.
The only problem is, the only people who can call them out on it are the copyright holders, and if the copyright holders won't sue, then legally they can go on their merry way and do whatever they want, no matter how outraged the community is. - embeem, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14If you want to read the flamewar behind all of this -
http://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=4768 - opusagogo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14FINALLY, these guys have been violating/abusing the GPL for years
Everyone should boycott sveasoft and anybody that does business with them! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9It doesn't matter whether you call it a beta, upsilon, gold code, final, or anything else. The GPL's demands remain the same. If they don't like the terms under which they are allowed to use someone else's work, they are free to not use it.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9My only question is "What is anyone going to do about it?"
This has been going on for years, and we've yet to see anyone seek legal council and sue these bastards. The one guy that probably should be suing them is Bruce Perens (author of BusyBox, the all-in-one command-line tool application these companies are using for their firmware), and I don't think he's weighed in on the issue at all.
I'm all for catching these bastards, but the community's gotta own up for their creation or they can use it however they please. And I believe these applications could really use the money from any settlement.... - gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I hope that the way this effects you, as an Sveasoft subscriber, is that you STOP SUBSCRIBING! There are much better firmwares out there such as DD-WRT that are not in violation of the GPL. Don't give Sveasoft your money.
- billbradford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I gave up on Sveasoft (despite being a paying customer) and switched to DD-WRT a few months ago. Works great, and they actually have client-bridged mode working...
- tupuli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I've been following this casually for over a year now. Sveasoft's "beta period" is so long that the public releases are worthless. They're exploiting a loophole in the GPL by selling "early" access to their binaries.
It's not for a good reason, believe me. The betas are their product, plain and simple. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6As Sveasoft's official distributor, I wonder how this affects me? This is really nothing new. For people "on the inside", this type of stuff has been going on for over two years.
- pwrstick, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Yeah Sveasoft isn't really down with the whole open-source ethic.
And DD-WRT is WAY better (Sveasoft fork) anyway. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Actually, you can charge for the binary. You can charge for support. You can charge for the media the binary or source or support comes on. You CANNOT charge for the source code. Access to the source code must be made public under the terms of the GPL, and they're spelled out in no uncertain terms.
I'm not an expert; I didn't write the license, nor am I a lawyer, but I've coded under the GPL for nearly 10 years, and I've worked for 3 different companies in that amount of time that honored the GPL, so I know the license pretty well, though I will admit I don't like the license (I much prefer the MIT/BSD licenses, for simplicity's sake).
Furthermore Timmarhy, you are a troll, and this is the last time I will respond to any of your comments (you will be blocked shortly after I post this). In every thread I've ever seen you in, you've flamed me or others for some reason or another. I suggest you read up on Digg's Terms of Services, and use the link I provided to re-read the GPLv2 just so you know what it does encompass. - t3hX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5They gave the source to people if they asked, but then banned them from getting any future versions.
- phr0ze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4DD-WRT rocks. I just upgraded from sveasoft last week. I actually paid as a subscriber to sveasoft, but they worry so much about copy protection they have essentially drowned their own business. They have not updated their code in over 8 months and the latest stable release is buggy as hell. Stay away.
- rivviepop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I have been telling compadres for years that what SVEA was doing was so questionable and not in the spirit of the GPL, I'm glad to see they're finally getting some of what's due. Many, many companies have proven how to make money using open source software and play by the rules (and the spirit! - don't you watch Law & Order?), it's time they did as well.
- nogami, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There's nothing wrong with forking a project - as long as they're releasing their code per the GPL (and they are, it's there for public download without playing silly games).
I also use DD-WRT and was a former $vea$oft subscriber before they started turning totally slimy (having their firmware call-home, be locked to MAC addresses, etc).
People need to get the word out that they're not to be trusted, and rather than supporting a slimy GPL dodger, they're much better off donating towards a real open-source project instead. - funkphenomenon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There's a great counter-claim comment by Sveasoft in their forum (http://www.sveasoft.com/modules/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=16013). They refer to OpenWrt's claim as a "Fatwah". This is going to be an interesting battle.
- acariquara, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Except that it ISN'T.
DD-WRT v23 and up is an OpenWrt fork. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The hell it doesn't. Without whipping out a copy to verify this, I'm pretty sure that everyone you distribute a binary to is entitled either to a copy of the source with the binary or to request a copy of the source from you at cost.
- naplam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The matter is that in practice, Sveasoft is charging a fee for distribution of the binaries (that would be legal), but is not giving away the current source code along with it. Furthermore, subscribers who publish the Sveasoft firmware on the internet (which, for the GPL'd parts, is allowed by the GPL) are harassed by Sveasoft and automatically banned, so that they can't get the firmware again.
Now, in practice, what Sveasoft is doing de facto is selling free software. Try to see the difference between any company that sells propietary software and Sveasoft. There's no difference. They charge for giving you the software, they won't give away the source, and they will take action on anyone who ditributes the software without giving them money. That's the point here, and someone should take legal action on this basis.
If you want the Sveasoft firmware for free, see here: http://slashdot.org/~TheIndividual/journal/
About GPL violations: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html - TheIndividual, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3They have released binaries roughly in a monthly cycle. However the quality is bad in general and major bugs aren't being fixed.
Leaking isn't easy because the files are tagged and copy protected. I doubt somebody would put work into cracking such buggy binaries, at least nobody approached me yet to release something (i have a mirror network to spread them).
But you are right, most people probably moved on to OpenWRT or DD-WRT (.org) - mmbrich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3These guys are the biggest asshats I have ever seen. I had a sveasoft membership for awhile but when they stopped releasing source I stopped paying their fees to help them steal other peoples work. I hope someone shuts this guy down.
- chrono13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3As a group, and a community, OSS makes strong headway in all directions - stability, innovation, diversification, interoperability, and market.
As a group, and a community, OSS lacks voice. Commercial vendors (IBM, SuSE, Mandriva, etc) have a voice (read:lawyers).
The only other saving grace I see possibly defending the GPL would be the EFF.
EFF and Child's Play. My two favorite places to donate.
Consider donating to the EFF. Here is what they did in 2005 for you: http://www.eff.org/eff15/15things.php - alphamerik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Sveasoft is horrible... I hate them. I have tried almost every firmware I can find for the WR54, OpenWRT is by far the best. I hope Sveasoft gets what they deserve. (wrong reply button! doh)
- tupuli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Funny to hear this stuff still going on. I'm running Sveasoft but it's from ages ago. Can't remember the last time I upgraded the firmware on this sucker. :)"
FWIW you can get free versions here:
http://wrt54g.thermoman.de/ - karamba_kid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Well this isn't news to me, but it's nice to see OpenWRT (my firmware of choice) take action and terminate their license.
- spider418, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Same here. Did it about 9 month ago. DD-WRT is great!
- mentor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Hmmm...interesting...
It's nice showboating, but OpenWRT saying this sort of thing has no effect anyway.
Term 4 of the GPL says that it terminates when you are not in compliance, not when someone else claims you aren't. That's probably going to have to be decided by a judge. - grayfox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This isn't news everyone knew this.... Also any of you running sveasoft should really check out one of the other better projects such as hyperwrt or ddwrt (The best one).
- noseeme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Here's what I don't understand about open source software licenses:
Sveasoft violated the GPL, but then what happens? What are the repercussions of violating the GPL? - realfinkployd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There is nothing wrong with modifying the linux kernel and not releasing the source code, as long as you are not releasing the binaries as well. GPL code can be freely modified for internal use without giving anything back, you simply are not allowed to take GPL code for use in programs you release without following the terms of the license.
- ManxStef, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Erik Andersen is the author/copyright holder of busybox, not Bruce Perens. (Just saying.)
- inveterate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sveasoft's continual misrepresentations and factual omissions are merely a continuation of their attempts to create the impression that there is room for argument where there is none. The GPL is simple and clear the, obfuscation comes from Sveasoft and their attempts to profit from other peoples work.
- hinten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2News, eh? These idiots had it coming for a long time. Every once in a while somebody in their forum was brave enough to point out this issue or the fact that there software doesn't work, or the fact that there is no complete documentation and would get flamed to hell.
I can't believe there was a time where I gave these people my money. - t3hX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Basically, you MUST make the code available if you modify it and distribute/publish it, and you MUST note where the changes were made (section 2a), and you must NOT charge for it. Thusly, they're in violation of the GPL.
You must not charge for the software itself. You may charge for media, or copying charges. They could argue that you are paying for bandwidth, but not giving the source out is inexcusable. - oneoffmanmental, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The original forum post was dated 2004.
Note that Sveasoft allow you to redistribute source, but they cut you off getting updates. This doesn't technically violate the GPL, but does in the spirit of free software.
In fact, a Free Software Foundation compliance officer concluded "If the software is licensed under the GPL, and you distribute the source code with the binaries (as opposed to making an offer for source code), you are under no obligation to supply future releases to anyone."
Let's hope GPL 3 doesn't allow this sort of thing to happen. - snoble, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3geminitojanus you are close (at least in my understanding of the gpl and of your comment). You can charge for all those things but you may not charge extra for the source, except for cost of transfer. However, (what I take issue with) you do not need to make the source public; you need only make the source available to anyone you have given the binary to and you may not restrict them from giving the source to anyone else. Now I am not sure if you are allowed to restrict someone from passing on the binary, but this should be irrelevant since the source must compile. If someone does pass on the binary it becomes their responsibility to pass on the source as well.
So if I futz with the kernel and give it to a friend, and my friend, being impressed with this alteration, decides to massively distribute this new binary, I am not on the hook to find the time to give everyone a copy of the source. My friend must though. - KamikazeeDriver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's about time Sveasoft got what they deserve. I read up on the flameware a few days ago. Particularly how james was personally harassing one person who did follow the GPL. Even claimed the guy was illegally distributing his software, as well as having his yahoo account shutdown on the same basis.
- t3hX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3However, they haven't done this for a long time.
- Cthalupa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No. If you don't release the result publicly, than you don't have to release the source.
For example, a company can take a linux distro, modify the source code, and as long as they only use it internally, they are not required to give the source. However, if they started giving out their modified distro, they would be required by the GPL to give that source to whoever they gave binaries to. Those people could then choose to post the source by itself on the internet if they wanted to, and so on. - tupuli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Basically, you MUST make the code available if you modify it and distribute/publish it, and you MUST note where the changes were made (section 2a), and you must NOT charge for it. Thusly, they're in violation of the GPL."
You had better hope geminitojanus' comment was GPLed! - alphamerik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sveasoft is horrible... I hate them. I have tried almost every firmware I can find for the WR54, OpenWRT is by far the best. I hope Sveasoft gets what they deserve.
- embeem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes, there are many common misconceptions; here's a few that I'd like to clarify -
The Sveasoft firmware may include portions that are copyright Sveasoft and are not GPL. This notice does not contradict that, nor does it seek to make the entirety of the Sveasoft firmware GPL. This notice simply states that Sveasoft has broken the GPL license concerning portions of the OpenWrt firmware (which, if you read the followup links is due to their distribution model). The notice itself is only a notice; the terms of the GPL state an automatic termination (regardless of notice).
You are allowed to charge for the software (or support of), but once someone has the binary, they are also entitled to source access. This is regardless to any titles that you may apply to the release (such as "alpha" or "developer-only"), in other words you can't enforce an NDA on gpl'd software.
You can also charge for source access, but no more than the cost of distribution. Unfortunately, nowhere in the GPL does it state that you have to use the least expensive or most efficient means of distribution. If so inclined, they could snail mail the sources on a set of 720k floppy disks (as long as it satisfies the terms of machine readable). Of course, once I receive the sources I may re-host them and even distribute them to the general public (not just those given access to the original binary).
If you wish to alter the terms of the license, you must seek the author's permission and have the code re-licensed to you under a new license. - wolrah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is old news, but always good to keep it fresh in people's minds. Doesn't have as much of an impact now though, since Linksys neutered the WRT54G/GS so there aren't nearly as many people discovering the moddability of the older ones anymore, and most of the current users already know about Sveasoft's ***** and use DD, Hyper, or OpenWRT instead.
- realfinkployd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Only if you release it, otherwise you are free to modify GPL code all you want without releasing the source as long as it is for internal use only (you own personal use or internal to your company/organization).
- Xsecrets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well if I remember correctly when this issue came up before they came into compliance. and I think this is the bulk of the dispute here. From my understanding (don't use the software myself) the only way to get the binary from svesoft is to purchase it then they "distribute" it to you and give you access to the forums where the source is located thus fulfilling their obligations under the gpl license. However you can redistribute the binary, but then you are responsible for distributing the source not svesoft. If this is still the case they are not violating the gpl.
- remcgregor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1j_belone,
In other words, you are willing to infringe others copyrights (and justify it by slapping the word "beta" on it, even though there is no such "loop-hole" in the GPL)? Just curious, are you also one of those people who gets all up in arms when others infringe your copyrights? If you are, then you sir, are a hypocrite, plain and simple.
If you release a beta to a testing community, you MUST release the source, plain and simple. And they can turn around and redistribute it however they want. However, if the beta was leaked somehow, I don't think you would have to.
If you know of some hidden term in the GPL that says otherwise, please let me know. Thanks. - shteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Apart from annoying a lot of nerds, none whatsoever.
- remcgregor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ah, so it's for a reason they think is good. Doesn't matter if it goes against the terms of the license, it should be OK! Well, I'm off to distribute a couple million copies of Windows XP to charities free of charge. When I find myself in court, I'll say I did it for good!
Doesn't matter what he thinks. He broke the terms of the license, now he must reap the consequences. -
Show 51 - 83 of 83 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is