openwrt.org — Sveasoft, maker of replacement firmware for the Linksys WRT54G, has been utilising GPL'd OpenWRT code in its releases without releasing source code. Sveasoft think this is OK because they've only released it to a few people - however the GPL says source code must always be given, no matter how small the distribution.
Mar 12, 2006 View in Crawl 4
chrislhardinMar 13, 2006
Hell I worked for a company that modified the Linux kernel src regularly and never rereleased it. There are no teeth to the GPL. You can report the company to the FSF all you want, but they rarely even investigate. I guess it's ok for big business to steal software, but the minute an individual does it, it becomes a matter of national security.
kamikazeedriverMar 13, 2006
It'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.
oneoffmanmentalMar 13, 2006
The 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.
twmsdudeMar 13, 2006
They have been doing this for a while now like Mikal said. The first time I saw that they were charging for their code while under my first thought was "I hope they get caught soon". Nice going whoever took their license away. About time they got what they deserved.
remcgregorMar 14, 2006
Ah, 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.
remcgregorMar 14, 2006
j_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.
remcgregorMar 14, 2006
The FSF wouldn't be the proper ones to contact, since they don't own the copyright. But, MySQL and IBM have both sued others for GPL violations. (IBM countersued SCO and that was one of the counterclaims).
remcgregorMar 14, 2006
Please read the license before making stupid comments. Thanks. Nowhere does the GPL say that you have to release modifications automatically. There are exceptions, as realfinkployd pointed out.
user1May 22, 2006
See also <a class="user" href="http://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=5799">http://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=5799</a>
mikeymooseMay 26, 2006
<a class="user" href="http://www.sveasoftsucks.com/">http://www.sveasoftsucks.com/</a>