Is Sveasoft Violating the GPL?

Ron Harwood writes "First, Linksys was violating the GPL by not releasing their source for their Linux implementation on the WRT54G wireless router and WAP54G access point. When this was rectified, third party firmware started showing up. Well, now it looks like Sveasoft (one of the third party developers) has decided to restrict access to their modified source code to subscribers - that also will need to pay $49 for a CD rather than being able to download it." The thread summary at DSLReports only makes it clear that this is all very complicated.

I believe that GPL is pretty clear on this

[RLiegh]

The GPL FAQ on the GNU Site says: [gnu.org]

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

So, are the subscribers allowed to redistribute the modified source that they purchase? If so, there's no violation (at least, not on that point). If not, then yes; they are in violation of the gpl.

Its easy to charge and not violate

[taylortbb]

If you read the GPL closely you will notice that it says that in exchange for adding a warranty you can charge for the product, it does not require you to make a version without a waranty availible. This is both a strength and weakness of the GPL, its what I've always hated but its why its commercially viable.

Choose wifibox instead

[toupsie]

I run wifibox [sourceforge.net] instead of Sveasoft. Its GPL compliant and has SNMP. Hmmmm, pretty graphs [raxnet.net].

The GPL aint about money

[QuantumG]

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

• b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
  

Yes, you can choose to distribute using an ftp server, but how exactly does one go about recovering their distribution costs that way? By putting it on a CD and charging for snail mail at least you can break even on your distribution costs. Of course, why they don't just put the CD in the box with the router is beyond me.

Re:I believe that GPL is pretty clear on this

[efextra]

I am a subscriber and they allow you to redistribute, but it seems thats not what they want you to do. From the code download page:

This file is distributed to Sveasoft subscribers only. Redistribution is allowed under the GPL license. However, redistribution terminates Sveasoft subscription rights.

Re:Bounces on the line and kicks up chalk...

[RedWizzard]

The GPL doesn't allow code modifiers to keep their code secret, but it doesn't reqire that the code be posted for free on the Internet either. They can charge a reasonable fee for the obtaining, making, and delivery of the disk and/or download service... you might be able to try to make a case that they're charging too much for such services, but the GPL doesn't say they have to provide such services at cost.

Yes the GPL does say you must provide source code at cost. The relevant clause is (emphasis mine):

3b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge

no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;

$50 is unjustifiable as the cost of distribution of the source.

Re:Bounces on the line and kicks up chalk...

[black mariah]

The GPL doesn't allow code modifiers to keep their code secret

Yes it does. The GPL only kicks in when you DISTRIBUTE your modifications. You can keep them in-house all you want. This is a pedantic reply, I know, but it's an important distinction to make.

Re:I believe that GPL is pretty clear on this

[Spy Hunter]

This clause is not allowed under the GPL. Here is a quote from section 6 of the GPL (italics mine):

Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

By attatching conditions to the redistribution of their code (namely that distributing it revokes your subscription rights), Sveasoft is attempting to restrict people's free distribution of their code. This is explicitly not allowed under the GPL. It is claimed in the forum thread that the FSF says this is not a violation, but I can't see their reasoning. Anyone care to enlighten me?

Also their practice of charging $49 for a CD of the code is questionable. The GPL puts no limit on the amount you can charge for distributing the program itself. However, if you have already distributed the binary to somebody, then if they request the source you are not allowed to charge them more than the actual cost of distribution. Somehow I doubt their CD-Rs cost $49 each...

NOT violating the GPL

[Eric Smith]

The essential point is then that Sveasoft stopped people distributing source.

But Sveasoft has NOT stopped people from distributing source. They sell a subscription. Anyone who buys the subscription gets the opportunity to download binaries and sources. As per the GPL, Sveasoft does NOT prevent redistribution of the source. However, they will terminate your subscription if you redistribute the source.

That policy does not conflict with the GPL in any way, because the GPL does not require Sveasoft to provide subscriptions.

Re:I believe that GPL is pretty clear on this

[efextra]

you're basically being offered two licenses when you get the code, and you're allowed to pick you can either:

Wrong! Sveasoft is not the owner of the source code. They got it under GPL and they *have* to release it under GPL. If they were the original copyright holder they could have released it under 10 different licences, but this is not the case.

Re:Sveasoft is a unique situation

[grcumb]

I used to work for a company that provided a customised Linux distro as part of our service offering. On a fairly regular basis, someone would start screaming in our forums when we wouldn't give them our source code for free. These people didn't read the GPL, which clearly states:

* that you can charge a fee for the transfer of the source,

* and that you only have to distribute the source with the binary.

Others, of course, can do what they wish with the source. So James seems to be skirting the intent, if not the letter, of the GPL by telling people that they can't redistribute the binaries.

--
Think ... or thwim

I sense tableware

[TheSHAD0W]

If Sveasoft wishes to restrict access to their software, then it might be a good idea for someone to stick a fork in the project. [registers Sfreeasoft.com]

Re:I believe that GPL is pretty clear on this

[black mariah]

They're not putting restrictions on the redistribution. They're putting restrictions on their own subscriptions. In order to be a subscriber, you have to abide by their terms. One of those terms is not redistributing the source. If you choose to distribute the source, it simply terminates your subscription. This may not be in the spirit of the GPL (not that I care much), but at least from my interpretation is is well within the letter of the GPL.

Full text of the exchange with the FSF

[mctanis]

This is quoted directly from the Sveasoft Forums.

> Okay, so here is the Sveasoft business model, as I understand it:
>
> 1. Sveasoft produces GPL'ed code which runs on a GNU/Linux based
> router.
>
> 2. Sveasoft distributes pre-releases of their software on a
> subscription
> basis and provides priority support to the subscribers.
>
> 3. The pre-releases are offered under the GPL and subscribers are
> entitled
> to distribute them publicly if desired.
>
> 4. If a subscriber *does* redistribute the pre-release code
> publicly,
> before it becomes a production release, they are considered to
> have
> "forked" the code and do not receive future pre-releases under
> the
> subscription program.
>
> 5. Once a pre-release works its way through the testing program
> and
> becomes a production release, it is made available under the
> GPL for
> public download, both "free-as-in-speech" and "free-as-in-
> beer".
>
> James, please step in here if I've missed anything, or if I haven't
> accurately characterized some piece of the above.
>
> I look forward to getting the FSF compliance lab's feedback on
> Sveasoft's
> business model. Thanks for your help!

> Hi Rob,
>
> I would just underscore that whenever we distribute binaries they are
> *always* accompanied by the source code.
>
> Subscribers are free to do whatever they like with the pre-releases
> with the proviso that if they distribute it publicly we are not
> responsible for support and they need to develop the code further
> themselves from that point forward.

I see no problems with this model. 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.

Please be clear that the subscription is for the support and distribution and not for a license.

Peter Brown
GPL Compliance Manager

Re:I believe that GPL is pretty clear on this

[femto]

The GPL does not allow additional restrictions, such as demanding money for the source code after the bianry has been distributed.

Sveasoft cannot refuse source access FOR THOSE WHO HAVE OBTAINED A BINARY FROM THEM. Refusal to pay for a subscription is not a valid reason for restricting source access (once binaries have been sold). Consequently the GPL implies that every binary bought from Sveasoft must come with a free subscription to the source code. Sveasoft are not free to cancel this subscription if the source is redistributed.

It's not just the GPL!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a lot more going on to piss people off then just alleged GPL violations. The deveoper has a history of overreacting. There never was a CVS; only snapshots released occasionally when he felt like it. When people began to ask for CVS, he responded by creating the subscription service. Initially, he insisted it was a hobby. Now, it's a business. No warning what so ever.

Now, in response to a website that has since been shut down because of Sveasoft's threats, he completely shuts out all non-paying users from access to anything.

Literally hours later, he cuts off all his paying subscribers from code; demanding $50 for a CD with the code on it.

This whole story is more about piss-poor treatment of his users and overreaction to a few people then anything GPL related.

Be sure you read the *entire* thread to get the whole story.

Re:I believe that GPL is pretty clear on this

[BJH]

You're both simplifying the situation. From the Sveasoft forums:

We release two versions of firmware at Sveasoft, public and pre-release.

Subscribers can redistribute public versions of firmware to anyone they choose to without any change in their subscription rights. When you redistribute public firmware you must offer both source code and binaries or you violate the GPL license. Other than this caveat you can redistribute whenever and to whomever you choose.

The policy for pre-release firmware is different. You can also choose to redistribute pre-release firmware under the GPL. You must also offer both source code and binaries as with the public releases. Should you choose to redistribute pre-release versions however, your subscription rights terminate and you will not have access to the Sveasoft forums or future firmware pre-releases afterwards.

This potentially conflicts with the GPL in two ways:
1) It's possible for people distributing GPLed software to give a location where the source can be obtained instead of providing the source themselves. This is explained in section 3(c) of the GPL:
3. c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
So, in other words, people redistributing Sveasoft's firmware don't have to provide the source code themselves as long as they don't distribute it commercially, and as long as they tell everybody they're distributing it to about Sveasoft's offer to provide source code. I wouldn't say that Sveasoft are being dishonest, but they're not really being up front about the receiver's rights under the GPL, either.

2) Sveasoft make a distinction between pre-release and public release versions of the firmware. This is probably based on the idea that you do not have to provide source code if you're distributing software purely within your own organization (i.e. not publically distributing it). However, that right is not clearly defined in the GPL, and indeed section 6 states that:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
In my opinion, Sveasoft's artificial distinction between pre-release and public release firmware comes into conflict with this section.

Of course, IANAL, blah blah blah, and the only people whose opinions count in regard to this are the copyright owners of the software Sveasoft are distributing, of which I am not one.

Re:Full text of the exchange with the FSF

[Anonymous Coward]

I see no problems with this model. 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.

Please be clear that the subscription is for the support and distribution and not for a license.

Peter Brown
GPL Compliance Manager

How is paying nearly $50 for a CD anything BUT a license? "Oh yeah, I made changes to the code and you can have a copy IF you pay for it". I understand that Sveasoft isn't under any obligation to supply future releases, but that'd basically mean they'd be making no further changes to the code. That's the hole point of GPL - you can have the code, but if you make changes you have to share it back out.

If the subscription is for support and distribution, what about an option for folks who don't care about support? Distribution? Please! Sveasoft went out of their way to go after websites that were hosting the pre-release firmware - last time I checked, that meant they had made changes, letting others have a copy is perfectly legal.

Re:Bounces on the line and kicks up chalk...

[BJH]

However, here's the catch: The GPL requires that the people who get the software must also be given the GPL as a license option that they may apply to the copy they just got. (The redistributor can offer any other license they want too, but they have to give the striaght-up unmodified GPL as another option if they do.) Therefore, only one person needs to pay the fee, and then, they can post the code for free download.

Absolutely incorrect. The distributor can't relicense code that they don't own; the only license they can offer that software under is the GPL. Dual/multi licensing is only available as an option to the copyright holder.

Re:The GPL aint about money

[Eric Smith]

I wrote:

Except that when they distribute the object code to subscribers, it *IS* accompanied by the source code (another file available from the same server in the same directory). This satisifies section 3a of the GPL.

The part that I was missing is that this is no longer true. Future binary releases will not be accompanied by source releases. So they will in fact be relying on section 3b. However, they've also said that they will only sell the source code CD to subscribers who have paid for the binary. This DOES violate the GPL; section 3b requires that they provide the source code to any third party (but they can charge for it).

Re:Actually

[lakeland]

His description was incorrect, though very close to correct.

Firstly, Like QT, it is under a dual-licence. Secondly, remember GPL controls distribution, not use. Now, you can have the software distributed to you under the terms of sveasoft, which entitles you to upgrades, or under the terms of the GPL. The second option is there because they cannot take away rights under the GPL.

However, the extra rights they are providing (the subscription/upgrade model) are optional -- the GPL does not mandate them. Therefore, they can take them away for any reason whatsoever and in this case, they have said they will take away those bonus rights if you choose to excercise the distribution rights you got through the GPL.

It is much like where the GPL says: "You do not have to accept this licence, however this licence is the only thing permitting you distributing this software... etc." Either give up your cool subscription or choose not to excercise your GPL granted freedoms.

So to make it painfully simple: You have all the rights that the GPL gives you. They are asking you (using a stick) not to excercise them. But you still do have all those rights (and a few more).

Re:I believe that GPL is pretty clear on this

[Sancho]

Absolutely right. But a subscription model isn't a license. Here's how it works.

1) You send 10 bucks to Sveasoft to get a login/password, enabling you to download the firmware.

2) You download the firmware. Before now, you could download the source for free as a subscriber, so we're going to pretend this is still the case. So you download the source, too.

3) You are legally entitled to redistribute both the binary and the source code. You can redistribute it either as is or with your own modifications. HOWEVER

4) If you exercise option 3, Sveasoft removes your login/password. Nothing in the GPL says they have to continue offering the product to you--the closest clause is that they have to offer the SOURCE code to anyone they've given BINARIES to for some period of time.

As far as I can see, until now, they've done nothing legally wrong. However I'm not sure how charging $50 for the source code fits in here...

FSF's position on selling free software

[bobsledbob]

Please read the following before commenting on whethere the GPL and the FSF allow, literal or in spirit, the distribution of software for a price...

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

Re:I believe that GPL is pretty clear on this

[grumpygrodyguy]

That's actually legal enough... you're basically being offered two licenses when you get the code

It may or may not be legal, but it's certainly deceitful marketing.

About 3 months ago I decided that I needed a QOS(quality of service) solution for my network so I could use VOIP reliably over my DSL connection. After looking around I came across articles like these [broadbandreports.com] which describe how to convert the relatively inexpensive Linksys WRT54G router into a viable QOS solution for VOIP. Most of these articles will explain how wonderful Sveasoft is for releasing thier QOS firmware for free.

What Sveasoft is actually doing is charging for thier software, and using the GPL/free software reputation as marketing hype(very underhanded in my opinion). If you read Sveasoft's policy carefully you'll see that you need to subscribe to thier site($25 annually) in order to have access to the latest version of the firmware. But thier policy is changing all the time. Now you actually have to order a CD to get the latest version, and the website has changed to subscriber only.

Maybe this isn't Sveasoft's fault, but I bought the WRT54G just 2 months ago with the expectation that I'd be able to download QOS firmware for free without any hassles. Now I'm locked in and at Sveasoft's mercy because they are the only ones building a QOS solution for my router. Most articles describe them as white knights to the rescue of people who want VOIP on a budget, but they are using the GPL and the term 'free software' to thier own financial advantage.

This is all misleading...

[stvangel]

I'm not affiliated with Sveasoft, although I'm running their firmware on two access points of mine. I've browsed their forums, and while I'm not a subscriber I've considered it. Much of this discussion appears to be misleading of the actual facts as I see them.

Sveasoft modified the GPL'd Linksys firmware adding a lot of features, capabilities and bug fixes. Originally, the firmware and source code were freely available on the Sveasoft ftp site. There were usually two versions: a work-in-progress and a latest-stable-release. The work-in-progress was exactly that - new features that may or may not be working, old features that might be broken, and miscellaneous instabilities or anomalies. The source code for the work-in-progress was not always available, but then people were told not to use the work-in-progress unless they had a specific reason to do so. People were told to download the stable release unless they were willing to help test the unstable version or put up with it's limitations.

Tech support was handled on the forums. This worked pretty well for knowledgable people, but became increasingly difficult when people would download the work-in-progress and then have things that wouldn't work. A few months ago, several individuals started complaining about GPL responsibilities and demanded the source-code to the work-in-progress be posted. This despite the fact the work-in-progress wasn't an actual release, but a testing copy.

Sveasoft became disillusioned by the amount of vitriol and demands from these annoying individuals and decided to switch to a subscription basis for the prerelease versions. The source code and binaries for release versions would still be available for download, but the bleeding edge would only be available to people who paid the $20/year subscription or worked out an arrangement with Sveasoft. They said they'd be more than happy to waive the fee if you were contributing something to the effort. That could be help with coding, writing documentation, online support, testing features, or many other ways to assist their efforts. Propose something to them.

They never refused to release the source code. They release the source code when they do an actual release of the firmware, when it's nice and stable and working. Sveasoft has said everybody can freely redistribute the release versions of their firmware and source code. They've never said that you cannot redistribute the pre-release versions, but that if you do, you've basically forked the code and it's your release now. You provide all support and further maintainance on it and you forfeit your subscription to future prerelease versions.

None of this I have a problem with. It's an unreleased version of the code; they shouldn't be expected to support it. If one of my beta testers leaks my code to the internet, I'm certainly not going to be sympathetic if someone downloads it and has problems with it and calls my tech support for help. Why should Sveasoft? They've done a nice service to the community and released many versions of firmware that are greatly advanced over the standard Linksys versions. It's annoying when a few obnoxious weekend-lawyers try to nickel-and-dime the literal words of the GPL rather than respect the intentions and values of the people who wrote it. Nothing Sveasoft has done persuades me that they have anything other than these values at heart and that they're being unfairly singled out for persecution. It's unfortunate that a few annoying individuals have to ruin things for the rest of us.

I wish Sveasoft the best of luck going forward, and congratulate them on what they've accomplished so far.

Re:I believe that GPL is pretty clear on this

[sflory]

On point #1 you may misunderstanding what they are saying. In addition to not carefully read subsection C.I think they are just explaining the GPL for you. Sveasoft doesn't have to give you source, and in fact if you download a binary they don't need to allow you download it at a later date. (Provided they allowed you to download both.)

The end of the GPL Section 3:
"If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code."

Now here's where it gets hairy. Sveasoft has use the method in subsection A:
"a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,"

You can only use the methd in subsection c if you got the code via the method in subsection b. See subsection c:
"Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)"

Thus Sveasoft is simply reminding you of your responsibilities under the GPL.

Re:I believe that GPL is pretty clear on this

[johnnyb]

Actually, you _are_ allowed to charge a "reasonable copying fee" for the source code.

In addition, as others have pointed out, the _subscription_ is not what the GPL entitles you to, just the source code for the version that had the binaries, and even then they are allowed to charge a "reasonable copying fee".

Re:Sveasoft are assholes, plain and simple

[mctanis]

First, non-subscribers are not allowed to download the newest version of their firmware for the Linksys WRT54G wireless router.

You mean the latest BETA, no guarentee what so'ever of working, sveasoft has no obligation what'so'ever to make available to you version?

or use the release that is about six months out of date

Incorrect. The latest stable build that was released, Satori 4 is less then five weeks old.

--
Mike C. {a happy sveasoft subscriber}

Re:I believe that GPL is pretty clear on this

[mdfst13]

If Sveasoft (or anyone) transfers a GPLed binary to you without transferring the source at the same, then they must offer the source for free to *anyone* who requests it (as they might have received the binary from you). They appear to be violating this.

Sveasoft may not penalize you in *any* way for redistributing the source (or binary). Even though the login info had nothing to do with the GPL previously, revoking it for redistributing the source is a violation of the GPL (you can revoke for any number of other reasons freely, just not for redistributing the source).

Sveasoft could charge $50 for the source, but they can't charge $10 for the binaries and then charge $50 to get the source (the amounts are irrelevant). Once they distribute the binaries, they must give source access.

Re:Important question for Slashdot

[eric76]

That is not fair use.

Unless you can either provide a reference to the code that makes it legal (and you can't because it just isn't there -- I looked) or a reference to one or more court cases in which the court specifically allowed the copying of music CDs as "fair use", you're just blowing smoke.

In fact, "fair use" allows you to copy small portions of works for certain purposes. Making backup copies is not one of those purposes.

Admittedly, you're not likely to be prosecuted for making a copy of something you own for your own use, but it is, nevertheless, illegal except specifically in the case of making a single backup copy of software.

Here is Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 regarding fair use:

Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors

And this is Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117(a) which allows you to make a backup copy of software:

Sec. 117. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

So put up or shut up. Provide one substantial legal reference (in other words, statuatory law or case law) in which "backing up" music is considered to be "fair use" and thus, not a copyright infringement.

Money for nothing and the sex is free.

[know2much]

Money for support and the code is free

Do not let all the flames fool you, this is my real experience with Svasoft:

Sveasoft is not charging $20 dollars for the binaries. The binaries are free.

Svaesoft is charging $20 dollars for access to the support forums. Nothing ilegal there. I paid $20 dollars and the support and I am more than happy with what I got.

There are two types of binaries:

1) Stable firmware is released for free in binary form, just as many Linux distributions are available for free. Yu can dwonload those right now from the Linksysinfo.org site. If you want the source code of the freely availabe stable releases you can buy it via a $50 dollar CD, if the $50 were really substantialy above the real cost of generating and shipping the CD, there would be a market of people who would profit from re-distributing that seme CD for less, as anyone can do that under the GPL terms. It happens all the time with all major Linux Distributions.

2) Pre-release bianaries are shared only with forum suscribers (but still free). Forum suscribers are allowed access to the source code (I am a subscriber and just to check I re-downloaded the latest Alchemy pre-release 5.1 10 minutes minutes ago). According to the GPL I can redistribute the binaries and the source code. Sveasoft support agreement says that if I decide to re-distribute myself I terminate my support contract (not my rights and obligations to re-distribute according to the GPL terms), and that Sveasoft has no obligation to support the people to which I decided to re-distribute.

Svasoft has not re-written a single iota of the GPL license. He only wrote the terms of his support agreement, and those terms do not contradict or oppose the GPL in any way, as the GPL does not dictate support terms. Sveasoft is respecting every letter of the GPL license.

All the fuss is being generated by people who misunderstand the GPL, the GPL does not mean free (as in bear) support, it means access to the source code and the freedom to modify, fork your own code and/or re-distribute. You have the freedom to buy support from anyone, or support that yourself, or to make money supporting it for others. You have the right to fork the code if you want and create your own distribution.

Sveasoft understood better than most the GPL and how to create a support model that does not depend on charity and where slackers do not get an absolutely free ride. Yet even slackers get a great deal from stable firmware.

He figured how to get the benefits of GPL code without many of the perils of the "tragedy of the commons".

Despite all the moaning and groaning we are hearing, this is actually a very good development for the GPL community. A sustainable model to support the devolopment of more GPL software.

People who are willing to spend time and money to debug bleeding edge software, have now found a way to build a community that supports itself and its key developer. The entry barrier is incredibly low, $20 dollars, but despite the low $20 barrier, that seems to have been enought to exclude all of those that make a lot of noise but no real contribution to the GPL community. They are mostly posting flames here and at DSL Reports, while the Sveasoft forums are getting more quiet and productive as the community is being self selected and more focused.

Real men and gals that want to support and develop the GPL commons, are very happy and working as hard as ever to develop great new features. Anyone with time and $20 dollars can join the effort.

Once the firmware is stable and debuged it will be contributed back to the greater commons. If for any reason Svasoft wanted to delay that, i am sure someone in the fourm, will decide to quit his/her support and contribute the code to the community ( I know I would), but I am also confident that Svasoft will do that, as he did very recently with the 4.0 firmware.

Do not let the noise fool you, the GPL is safe and getting stronger.

Here's the skinny:

[altaic]

Alright, there is a lot of confusion about what exactly Sveasoft is asking of their customers, as well as what the GPL requires. There are two issues: the fact that there are two interacting agreements, and the fact that distribution of source might be different than binary.

First issue:

Here are the two agreements:

1. Source/Binary license -- GPL.
2. Extra services and support -- subscription agreement

Saying "one's a software license and the other's a service agreement," is vacuous and misleading. What matters is how the two interact. The service agreement puts restrictions on the GPL. It's not allowed to do that (Preamble from the GPL):

"To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it."

And from the Terms and Conditions of the GPL:

"6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License."

Now, Sveasoft's service agreement says that if a subscriber exercises their right to distribute the source, as given by the GPL, their subscription will be terminated. Hence, the "further restrictions" which "ask you to surrender the rights" given by the GPL. It not made any more plain than that.

Thus, Sveasoft is in violation of the GPL.

Second issue:

Sveasoft is asking $50 to send a CD containing the source of pre-releases by snail-mail. As far as I know, they are not distributing binaries of the pre-releases in a different manner, so it's a non-issue.

For instance, I have modified GPL code on my computer, but I am not required to give it to people, for free or otherwise. I'm only required to give someone the source if I've given them the binary.

If they gave away the binaries and charged for the source, that would be a violation. Or if they charged for the binary and charged again for the source. But AFAIK, they do not. As the source always accompanies the binaries, it's not a problem.

Conclusion:

Sveasoft is in violation of the GPL, due to the first issue but not the second issue.

Re:This is all misleading...

[McDutchie]

A few months ago, several individuals started complaining about GPL responsibilities and demanded the source-code to the work-in-progress be posted. This despite the fact the work-in-progress wasn't an actual release, but a testing copy.

How do you mean, "despite"? You are describing a blatant GPL violation. The GPL does not distinguish between "testing copies" and "official releases". Any distribution of binaries must be accompanied by the availability of the corresponding source code, period.

No wonder people got pissed. If they can get away with this, anybody can get away with violating the GPL. It's necessary to stand firm on these issues if the GPL is to be worth anything in the future.

Finally the silence is broken! Read this

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello everybody.
Sorry I join this discussion so late. I might be the one who got that debate started.
My story is not a short one which is why I posted it on a website.
A quick overview: offered binary for download, got serious threat emails from Sveasoft about it, they had my webhost cancel the account, my email provider delete my mailaccount and more: they claimed publically that I was defaming them just because I posted their emails.
Read the entire story, it's worth it.
It tells a lot about James Ewing.
TheIndividual

http://www.30mb.com/x/annejuul/ [30mb.com]

Re:Finally the silence is broken! Read this

[Black Acid]

Hi, I just want to thank you for leaking this firmware and revealing the true nature of Mr. Ewing. I had heard nothing but good things about Sveasoft and was considering purchasing a subscription to support his efforts but alleged threats on his part certainly cast Sveasoft in a new, dark light. They've just lost a potential customer.

Quick question: is the firmware on http://www.30mb.com/x/annejuul [30mb.com] identical to http://sourceforge.net/projects/newbroadcom [sourceforge.net]?

Funny how Ewing spreads FUD about "P2P pirated" copies of his firmware. Little does he know Sourceforge is legitimately hosting it, not on P2P. He's using the gray-market aura surrounding peer-to-peer to incite fear. Sounds familiar. Now all we need is a copy of the source, which Sveasoft is obligated to provide, and an open-development fork hosted on SF.

Or maybe I'll simply switch to OpenWRT and avoid all this nonsense. It has less features but at least its truly in the spirit of free software.

$VEASOFT MUST DIE

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's clear now that Jimmy-the_great_businessman made a big mistake while dreaming about his great and rich future. It's clear now the the 'company' he have found will finish it's life soon. Let's speed up the process a bit with common efforts.

Here are all the new and old projects and places where you can get an alternative code:

New Broadcom
Firmware forked from Sveasoft Alchemy code
http://sourceforge.net/projects/newbroadcom/ [sourceforge.net]

Rustam's Download Mirror
Download both binaries and sources of Alchemy
http://freewrt.da.ru/ [freewrt.da.ru]

Annejuul's Download Mirror
Download Alchemy binaries
http://www.30mb.com/x/annejuul/ [30mb.com]

EWRT
Linux for WRT54G hotspots
http://www.portless.net/ewrt/ [portless.net]

OpenWrt
OpenWrt - Wireless Freedom
http://openwrt.ksilebo.net/ [ksilebo.net]

Wifi-Box
Wifi-Box Firmware for WRT54G
http://sourceforge.net/projects/wifi-box/ [sourceforge.net]

FreeWRT Mailing List
Stay up to date about Linksys FW projects
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freewrt/ [yahoo.com]

suckers must die

Horse's mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's take a look at what the project leader's actually saying:

http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,10804 029~mode=flat~days=9999~start=320 [broadbandreports.com]

Frankly I think exiting the open source development world is the next step. I have been a developer for about 25 years and I do remember Bill Gates screaming in 1979 when someone stole and copied MS BASIC. So this kind of activity has been going on for many years.

I had stumbled in the Linux world last November and it is an absolute free-for-all. No wonder companies are exiting in droves, 99.99% of GPL projects sit fallow after 1-2 releases, and the Linux desktop looks like GEM OS from the year 1987.

Also, the alleged email exchange hopping around the net right now, appearing on new sites as soon as some dumb web provider is convinced that providing GPL software is "pirating". Currently at:

http://www.30mb.com/x/annejuul/ [30mb.com]

Also, the alleged revocation of subscriptions on the posting of MD5 sums (swapped by subscribers in order to check that their binaries weren't tagged, which, as it turns out, they apparently are).

Smoothwall anyone? All if this may be cleverly skirting the edges of the GPL, but do you really want to give this project $20? With 2000+ subscribers, it already has 40k+ from this.

Re:I believe that GPL is pretty clear on this

[nikki]

> The public Satori 4.0 release does not contain a
> secure webserver.

So what? The sources of public Satori is freely available. You can easily compile it by youself with openssl+https inlcluded. You will have to drop some other features due to WRT54 flash space limit.

Re:I believe that GPL is pretty clear on this

[ian mills]

I too bought a WRT54GS because I knew it came ran linux and could do QoS. Someone told me about Sveasoft, so I went to their site, and apparently the public version doesn't even support the GS. But thats okay, because there are many other options for it.

I'm using Open Wrt [ksilebo.net] which works wonderfully. May not be as easy as sveasoft, but its free and actually comes with the source. In fact the main site only distributes source, though you can find binaries as well. There are also other options if you google around for a bit.