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.

Bounces on the line and kicks up chalk...

[LostCluster]

I think this is right at the bleeding edge of where the GPL draws the line...

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. This may be a bug in the GPL according to the purists, but the seem to be within the letter of the license.

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.

No need to GNU/Worry. We'll be seeing this code being forked on Soureforge shortly I think.

Many ways to get around GPL

[Dozix007]

There are sadly many ways to get around GPL. One being the method they use by offering to ship the source only. This can be done in many different shapes to get around anything. You simply charge an irrate fee for packaging, documentation, or something of the sort. There are a few liscences that will not allow this, sadly they are not widely used.

Re:I believe that GPL is pretty clear on this

[LostCluster]

That's actually legal enough... you're basically being offered two licenses when you get the code, and you're allowed to pick you can either:

A: Take the GPL, and waive away your Sveasoft forum and subscriber rights.
-or-
B: Take the Sveasoft license, and agree to waive off the GPL rights you were offered.

Sveasoft is a unique situation

[oasisbob]

As the (amazed) owner of a Linksys WRT54G, I've been following this issue for a while, but not as closely as some other have, I'm sure. Here are my impressions.

Sveasoft is indeed walking the line of GPL compliance, but they're doing a good job at it. The firmware they produce is quickly adding features with very fast release cycles. They welcome community involvement with the firmware and accept new features and patches readily.

Because the firmware is being used by many people who don't use Linux normally, the GPL is new to most of them. Early posts in the Sveasoft forums confirm this, calling the original whistle-blowers "GPL whiners," as if people asking for GPL compliance were simply cheap. Little did they realize that Sveasoft is building on Linksys who built upon GPL software to begin with.

Why should Sveasoft get money for something which is mostly configuration and frontend polishes of what the original programmers created?

Because they do it really well. They provide the service which falls perfectly into a "profit for the service, not the product" business model. I use Linux heavily, but I'm really not interested in cross-compiling source code which could easily turn my $70 router into a brick. Yes, I can reflash it by cracking the case and setting up a tftp server -- but It's just not something I want to mess with. To me the $20 they ask for an annual subscription (including informal tech support) is worth it.

I would check out a sourceforge fork if it was created and developed, but I am skeptical that it could match the features of the Sveasoft firmware.

They've developed a good community, and I'm not too bothered that it's slightly off the beaten path of the normal Open Source development process.

Re:I believe that GPL is pretty clear on this

[droleary]

However, redistribution terminates Sveasoft subscription rights.

How would they know? Any subscriber can just give the CD to a buddy to distribute. Regardless, it seems they're definitely trying to skirt the spirit of the GPL, and for that I hope they sink into obscurity, at which point their subscription isn't worth squat anyway.

Re:GPL

[Cecil]

After you get the source, you are free to do whatever you want with it.

Tell that to the people who have had their websites shut down for posting the source.

It is a total lack of understanding of the GPL that makes you THINK there is a problem.

It is a total lack of understanding of THIS CASE that makes YOU think there isn't a problem.

Re:Actually

[Aneurysm9]

The problem with this line of thinking is that Sveasoft has no license to distribute the unmodified GPL'd portions of the source under any license other than the GPL. They can do whatever they want with their code, but if it's code they've obtained under the GPL and modified their only choice is to distribute under the GPL or not to distribute.

Re:Important question for Slashdot

[character_assassin]

There are plenty of Slashdotters, including me, who are consistently against copyright violations, be they GPL or downloaded music. The fine point is often the "fair use" clause, which many copyright holders want to trample.

Sveasoft are assholes, plain and simple

[da_anarchist]

I'm sure I'm not the only one pissed at them. First, non-subscribers are not allowed to download the newest version of their firmware for the Linksys WRT54G wireless router. You must pay $20 for the prviledge or use the release that is about six months out of date. Fine, I understand that they have bills to pay too, just as long as they don't slip on the release schedule for the free version (blatant GPL violation non-withstanding).

Now, here's the part which burns me. As of last Sunday, access to the Sveasoft website [sveasoft.com] has been discontinued for those not paying their $20 yearly fee. Before that, you could download the free version of their firmware from them or check out their forum for troubleshooting etc. No more. Non-subscribers can't even browse - instead we are told that "Sorry, but only users granted special access can read topics in this forum." Sveasoft says that we should try linksysinfo.org instead, yet the amount of information there is sorely lacking. Furthermore, the admin there would make George Orwell proud - any hearsay about Sveasoft will get your IP banned and your message promptly thrown into the void. Straight from the horse's mouth:

"It is not a "I hate Sveasoft for closing his site" debate. Anyone thinking and debating that issue will be have a Temporary ban, as I have better things to do than listen to people whinged about why sveasoft closed and the GPL Issues."

Sveasoft themselves tolerate no dissent either, a poster at linksysinfo.org reported [linksysinfo.org] that after reporting a bug in the firmware, they banned him for "an attempt to create a flame and is against our posting guidelines. Should you wish to create further problems I will contact the authorities in Germany and report that you are criminally trespassing in our computer systems. It is up to you. Go ahead - make my day." Yikes! Not very nice people, are they?

I could go on and on, like how Sveasoft masquerades as an average user in his forums and on linksysinfo.org helpfully suggesting we contribute $20 for their wonderful firmware (that's right, I'm talking about YOU Wolf!), but the fact is that this is totally against the spirit of Open Source and that it is a shame that such a promising project has been ruined by greed.

Not hurting the subscribers

[isd_glory]

From the forum:

Just to lay everyone's fears at rest I will find a fair way of making source code available to subscribers at no charge via the Internet. It is unfortunate that some folks need to make things difficult for everyone but with a little ingenuity we can hamstring the troublemakers without harming the majority. I will have a solution by Monday available to all subscribers.

I will leave the announcement about the $50 USD charge up. Anyone coming in externally demanding source will have to fork over the distribution and shipping fee.

Re:I believe that GPL is pretty clear on this

[trashme]

From one of the forum posts:

4) Sveasoft can track the subscribers who redistribute their binaries by attaching some kind of tag to each firmware binary (as demonstrated by the different MD5 sums found so far). This makes sense, considering Sveasoft thought TheIndividual was someone else at first. Arno Nym has done some work to try to find what the unique identifier is. It is unknown wether this is allowed under the GPL.

That's how they know who distributed the binary and whose account to revoke.

Re:Actually

[Theatetus]

Sveasoft is using the GPL in a creative, but legal way.

How is it even "creative"? It's explicitly allowed by the GPL, this point is clarified by a lot of the FSF's writings, and companies (like, for instance, the one I work for) have been doing it for a long time. We sell our GPL'd software for tens of thousands of dollars in some cases. Our customers have every right to redistribute it, but who's going to pay $10k to give something away?

Re:Sveasoft is a unique situation

[abionnnn]

If you cannot comply with the GPL, there is a very simple alternative. Don't use GPLed software as the base of what you're writing.

Sveasoft can make all the fancy inhouse modifications they like but the moment they want to redistribute/sell it they MUST comply with the license that came with it (i.e. the GPL).

Failure to do so, is breaking copyright law (since the GPL uses this to enforce it's ideals). Now I realise that they offer the source code for a "reasonable" price, but their subscription crap pretty much takes out the spirit of the original agreement. So when their software gets forked [shortly], they can whing all they like to no effect.

Remember, YOU may not mind them doing this, and in reality it probably wont effect you much if at all. But someone somewhere, will want to make their own redistributable modifications to this. Sveasoft is making that just that little bit more difficult for them.

I think Sveasoft has misscalculated

[Vicegrip]

By buying this subscription I've paid for the rights to versions say A, B, C and D all of which must be GPLed. B, C, D are future releases, but I've paid for them and I have rights to receive them. I then choose to exercise my GPL rights to distribute my version A. Upon hearing this Sveasoft tells me I've violated their subscription license and have lost my subscription rights to B, C, D. But since I have already paid for B, C, and D and the GPL applies to them I still have GPL rights to the source. I have those rights because I received them the second Sveasoft entered into a license agreement with me to distribute them to me. Because Sveasoft cannot revoke my GPL rights, Sveasoft can only avoid giving me the source of B, C, and D if they refrain from making any new distributions for the term of the initial contract I subscribed to.

Therefore, Sveasoft can revoke my binary rights but is still obligated to distribute the source of future releases to me because they cannot revoke my GPL rights. Sveasoft can refund my money and say all they want: they cannot revoke my GPL rights. I can only lose them if I violate the GPL.

Re:Full text of the exchange with the FSF

[trashme]

From the GPL [gnu.org] (emphasis mine):

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.

The GPL makes no destinction between release, pre-release, beta, alpha, gamma, delta, googleplex, or whatever. The simple fact is the he is imposing an extra restriction: Redistribute code of mine that I don't want redestributed and I will revoke (without refund) a service that you have paid for.

Re:I believe that GPL is pretty clear on this

[femto]

My understanding is that the only way to get the source code is to have a subscription.

Is having a subscription a prerequisite for getting the binary? Does a subscription cost money? Is the $49 how much it costs Sveasoft to make the CD? The answers can be "yes", "yes", "yes" and things are still okay.

If you redistriute the source code, Sveasoft says "subscription cancelled", so the act of redistribution has just cost you something (the remainer of your subscription).

You received the code under the conditions of the GPL, which allows copying and also says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." Cancellation of the subscription can be seen as a cost, which I would interpret to be a restriction (which is not allowed).

Yes, Sveasoft is free to cancel a subscription, but the reason for cancellation cannot be for exercising rights granted by the GPL. Otherwise Sveasoft has violated the GPL. The 'after the event' nature of the restriction still doesn't change the fact that it is a restriction.

Re:I sense tableware - eh?

[Jdodge99]

I know it's been said before -- I'll post it again -- he's restricting distribution of BETA level software -- he has regularly made public releases. While at first concerned about the change -- it's become clear that sveasoft is committed to continuing public release of firmware. There are no deals with Asus or Acer to produce a locked up "super hot-spot" router box. He simply wants a subscription to grant users something extra. Support and a chance to test beta version firmwares and give feedback. He's had to deal with a lot of shouting and hate mongering (read a few posts up -- use of the words greedy and stupid abound) Of course he gets a bit defensive - I probably would too. If in 8-10 months - there have been no new public releases of sveasoft firmware -- then people probably have a case to make -- right now, it's just harrassment. - Jeff

Re:I believe that GPL is pretty clear on this

[mdfst13]

No, if Sveasoft (or whomever) gives you a copy of the binary without the source, then they must make the source available to anyone who asks, as per section 3b of the GPL.

Your scenario only works if they gave *you* (and everyone else to whom they distributed the binary) the source as well as the binary (this is section 3a). If they only give the binary, then I can ask them direct for the source (back to 3b). Further, I do not have to prove that I obtained the binary to be able to force them to supply the source if they did not provide the source with the binary (an offer to supply the source is not enough; the two must actually go together in the same package).

Re:Full text of the exchange with the FSF

[jrumney]

I've paid my $20 for the binary releases, and I'm happy to have them. I'd probably be willing to pay more.

So let me get this straight. You paid $20 for a binary subscription, and to get the source you'd have to pay an extra $49? This does not look the same as the scenario the FSF copyright clerk said was OK above.

Re:Money for nothing and the sex is free.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sveasoft is busy changing things back and forth to present himself differently to different groups of people. A lot happened in the last 24 hours, including a switch from downloadable source to source CD-ROMs for $50 and back.

It is not at all a good development for the GPL community when you pay someone for tweaking and extending GPL software and then find yourself threatened, your webhoster and email provider lied to and other people's support contracts revoked for posting MD5 sums. Sveasoft has made it very clear that his intention is not to add to the GPL commons. He does everything he can to keep "his" code from being reused by other developers.

Re:Money for nothing and the sex is free.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok let me try to explain it to you.
It is not about GPL violations. It is about the way Sveasoft reacts to the legal act of redistribution.
After I posted a binary of Alchemy 5.1 they send me threat emails, lied to my mail provider to get the account banned, lied to my webhost ("pirated versions") and got that account banned.
I am sick of Sveasoft's fanboys pretending that everyone else is a cheap bastard just because we stand up for our rights. It's fine with me if Sveasoft charges 1.000$ for a firmware binary as long as they let people pass it on freely.

If you're still not convinced read the emails that James send me.
A nice quote:
"You really should do some background research on who you are fucking with. I will eventually find out exactly who you are and where you live and
then we're gonna have some real fun."

http://wrt54g.streamfire.net/ [streamfire.net]

Re:I believe that GPL is pretty clear on this

[Anonymous Coward]

We've already looked for hidden tags and found some, including differing timestamps in the flash filesystem. When a developer refuses to publish MD5 hashes, you know something is fishy.

Re:Actually

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So the point in my original post remains -- How does Sveasoft know that you are redistributing?

If you just give a copy to your friend who then gives it away to everyone but won't reveal his source, how can Sveasoft know that you were the guy who "broke" your agreement (steganographic techniques aside)? Sveasoft can not legally compel you to reveal that you are redistributing because that would be an additional restriction beyond the terms of the GPL.