Slashdot Mirror
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.
Hey SCO, here's another court case for you guys!
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.
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.
They were only able to write the third party firmware because the source was made available to them under the GPL, why is it that they cannot comply with the terms then?
Why not get the real ultimate power?
Say it isn't so!
The thread summary at DSLReports only makes it clear that this is all very complicated.
There's nothing complicated about this. It's all smoke.
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.
This is not allowed under the GPL.
Neither subscribers nor non-subscribers have any right to future code Sveasoft has not yet released. It is "his" code, and he can choose not to distribute it. But once he does distribute it, wether publicly or privately to his subscribers, it is under the GPL and is free for *anyone* to redistribute.
Not true. If he made his code using a GPL base, it's not his property exclusively. Fruits of the tree become trees of the fruit.
Sveasoft has changed their minds about offering the source code as a free download, and now only offers it on a CD sent through the mail for a price of $50. This seems to be a violation of the GPL, but we need to hear back from the FSF about that.
Total violation. Off with their heads.
Sveasoft has accused several people of "pirating" the Sveasoft pre-release firmware and posting it online illegally, and has had websites shut down because of this. This is unbelievable considering Sveasoft says they allow this (see above).
Sveasoft is also ending the subscriptions (but refunding their money) of people who have posted their MD5 sums of the binaries. It says nowhere in the subscriber contract that they can't do this.
There have been a couple of nasty e-mail exchanges between forum members (TheIndividual, joakimsen) and Sveasoft. Sveasoft acts almost holier-than-thou (IQ 170) and seems to think the GPL doesn't apply to him [disclaimer: my personal opinion].
Sveasoft is now charging $50 for the source code, which is just rediculous considering it costs almost nothing to distribute it over the internet.
Now this reminds me of the SCO, but on a much smaller scale. Microcosm as Macrocosm, I guess.
People: don't use GPL code if you can't RTFM.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Certainly, almost probably 100% for sure. I think.
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.
There is no way out of this cycle. The lawyers will be getting rich, the "small" guys will still not have the $$$ to protect their GPL licenses in court, and the circle will continue, albeit viciously.
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.
Nowhere in the GPL does it say they HAVE to offer their software as a free download on the Internet.
Furthermore, they are allowed to sell disc media based on "cost of materials". Yes 49.99 is a bit exorbitant, but well within their rights.
This is why I've always felt the GPL needs to either be replaced or improved. Downloads on the Internet ought to be a requirement, as all GPL'd software involves an advanced enough audience that knows how to download software.
Vonal Declosion
Isn't that a specific model of pillow at Ikea? :)
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
They'll just stop redistributing the modified code and turn their programmers into "consultants".
I can't hear you! IP laws work both ways, bitches! Of course, this will get modded down by hypocrites, but then again this is Slashdot.
I run wifibox instead of Sveasoft. Its GPL compliant and has SNMP. Hmmmm, pretty graphs.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
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:
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.
How we know is more important than what we know.
> 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
Here's my $1.50 plus $4 USD shipping. Now give me the source code dammit. $50... think of all the beer and ebay treats I could get with that.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
I wonder if DSLreports can handle a slashdotting. I guess we're about to find out. I've Been going there for a few years and the site has always been up.
t h0.html
Check out the large increase of traffic here:
http://www.broadbandreports.com/stats/mrtg/eth0/e
I'm not. I usually use something like bittorrent and/or mutella to download ISO images. That appears to be legal (as long as the owners of the ISO files allow it.) Stereotypes are usually wrong.
A lot of companies now-a-days seem to have problems with letting out source code. The market has been moving to support services and away from actual software production except for the game market, so letting out the source code should become easier and easier as time passes. Also, as many have already mentioned, since the cd will be bought by a few and then mirrored all over the internet (which the GPL will allow) maybe we will all be able to download it for free anyway. I doubt that the company will be able to really make and profit off of this not-so-intelligent move.
Everything was fine, up until they tried to prevent peopel from redistributing code. Last I checked, you had to pay to get the binary AND the source code. Nothing in the GPL says you have to give out the source, or binary, for free. It says that if you give out a binary, you have to give out the source. So you are free to charge for your software, but the source had better be on the disk as well (or available on the web).
Where they cross the line is in trying to stop people from distributing modified version. Nope, sorry, can't do that. That's the "viral" part MS complains about. Even if your product costs money, someone is free to make their own version that does not for free, the GPL gaurentees that.
This is really the thing that commercial companies worry the most about. Source distribution, though generally not done, isn't a big threat to most of them. The threat is then that with that source people are allowed to make their own versions of the product for free.
However, as you said, if you can't deal with the GPL's rules, don't use GPL code. I have no sympathy. The redistribution part is real, real clear.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
seriously, does slashcode not have a spellcheck? it's not that hard, people. i hate to nitpick, but poor spelling, even that written by the most capable person, adds an air of incompetence.
I'll probably get modded down as a troll for this...
Just because something is open source, doesn't mean it's free as in free beer. They're offering the source at a cost; you still have access to the source, just at a price. This doesn't violate the GPL license.
What's wrong is that you open-source hippies expect everything to be free and downloadable. Under the GPL, I could take the Linux kernel and re-write most of it and make my own OS and charge $699 (pun intended) for the software and source, which would be fine and dandy, because I'm still making the source available.
Of course, if you're Microsoft, just let the source code blow out of the window...
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.
Regarding the charging-for-source thing, I don't think they're violating the GPL because they are actually making the source available. Granted, chutzpah to be charging $49 for it, but not in conflict with the GPL. But that's not the meat of the issue...
Sveasoft also states that if a subscriber redistributes pre-release firmwares, they will lose their subscription. Some people have argued that this goes against the GPL, but the FSF has decided this is *not* a violation.
The essential point is then that Sveasoft stopped people distributing source. And the question there is whether this "unreleased" source is GPL'd. One would expect that anything based on a GPL'd codebase would be GPL'd if made available officially or unofficially. In this case, pre-releases are available, and the distribution of pre-release source should be protected by the GPL. If we consider released pre-releases to be releases, then, Sveasoft's actions against those distributing pre-release source are illegal - but it's a complex 'if'.
PENDANT POST is WORSE THAN GOAT.CX!!!
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Sveasoft is publishing prerelease software, but only to subscriber channels. It costs $20/month to subscribe. Every prerelease is tagged for a unique md5 sum that maps to the subscriber. If the subscriber releases that binary and Sveasoft finds it, then his subscription is yanked. That subscriber is free to distribute whatever GPL'd works he wants, and Sveasoft is free to terminate his subscription. Nothing illegal or in violation of the GPL.
Let's compare:
1) HUGE Ego - check
2) Marginal talent - check
3) extremely sensitive to criticism - check
4) greedy - check
Anyone check if he claims to have a PHD?
Seriously, this guy has got issues. He bans people on his boards, he keeps changing the rules on what he wants, he IS violating the GPL and he just seems to be an all-around greedy dick. I was just ready to give him the $20 because I got some cash and Satori 4.0 works pretty well for me but fuck that.
To quote from his Linux Journal article - "...thanks to the power of Linux and open-source development" - No James - thank you for being a freak! Seriously, the guy is cock and I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire at this point... I'm posting AC because I'm afraid this guy will come burn my house down...
That policy does not conflict with the GPL in any way, because the GPL does not require Sveasoft to provide subscriptions.
Okay, now that works for the WRT54G, the router version. What about the access point, are there any choices for that?
Please help metamoderate.
But use words you fucking understand. Jesus.
"irrate", better spelled "irate", pertains to anger. You're saying the fee is angry? How about "absurd" or "irrational" or "irritating" or one of a thousand other adjectives that don't personify the fee.
Oh yeah, and it's "licenses"
I certainly hope you don't have a high school degree or equivalent...
Im sure this isnt possible but i would like to know why..
QT from troll tech is under the GPL, can I take the code and disribute / change it?. would businesses be able to use my version of QT for free?...
Just a question.
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]
Is Sveasoft Violating the GPL? We don't know, but damned if we're not going to make baseless, leading statements implying that they are!
They're stealing.
No. They're infringing copyright. Theft is a criminal offense.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
It's very unclear what's going on here, but I think the confusion seems to be deliberate on the part of SveaSoft. The impression I get is that it's one guy trying to lawyer himself an end-run around the GPL, without actually involving a lawyer. I've seen references made to dual-licensing, with one license being the GPL and the other allowing for a subscription (which is terminated as soon as rights under the GPL are exercised). While that may be legal, it seems rather dubious.
In any case, it seem that SveaSoft is claiming to use the GPL, but trying to make life difficult for people who redistribute or ask for source. IMNSHO, that's just plain bad faith. Also, whatever legal mumbo-jumbo they may invoke is very questionable since I can't find a way to see their licensing terms without giving them my money first!
1) If Sveasoft know that you are redistributing their "limited" firmware they kick you off and cancel your account.
2) If you make public in their forums that someone else was kicked off, then you get kicked off to and your post deleted.
3) You may not say good things about companies that Sveasoft people dont like. Or you get kicked off. And your post deleted.
4) If you complain about this or that firmware breking your router and tell them that you are writing a better one in base of a Satori/Samadhi/Alchemy or what else... gues what?, you get kicked off and your post deleted.
I think this f*king bastar*ds are becoming rich and they are violating the GPL when not releasing the source code and punishing good fella customers that reveal or redistribute firmware.
Man, they are more greedy than RIAA!!
I want to see the thay when Fedora guys send a hitman because of me duplicating the CD's go give them to my friends.
Remember, even though it is a firmware, it is just another Distro. It's linux, it has the freedom in its soul.
(Uhmm... hear that, i think it is a Hitman sended by Sveasoft).
PS: I will inform you if i get kicked off.
Unless your criteria for a reliable accountant to provide expert testimony is "worked for Enron", this doesn't have a chance of standing up in court. And when it does not, Sveasoft will lose all rights granted by the GPL and their business will be up the shit creek.
But for just these reasons, our forthcoming RDBMS visual query building software will be released under a GPL incompatible license which requires as a condition for distribution of modified versions that the modifications be made available - at the option of the licensee - us, or the FSF, under the original license so long as either entity exists.
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
"First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they attack you, and then you win"
First the cluless engineers ignore companies with their "lets reinvent the wheel!" FSF, then they mock corporations who provide solutions for reasonable costs, then they attack (with words and allegations of impropriatary behavior), then... >:-)
You kids really need to learn - the GPL has no place in the software industry.
You must make the code freely (ie to anyone) available, but you may charge a reasonable fee for the service.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Being first poster and anonymous is like taking your sister out for a drink. Pointless (except maybe in certain states).
Somewhat off-topic, but does anyone have any screenshots, or a demo site for the sceasoft firmware?
I'd love to take a look at what they have to offer, without comitting to the software..
-Colin
Colin Davis
If you look at all the FAQs on Sveasoft's site, they make it clear that, if a pre-release build gets out, since the code is GPL, they're not going to stop it. At the same time, however, the first people who get to see that code happen to be the pay the subscription.
I payed for a subscription, because the stock firmware on my Belkin router is AWEFUL. I probably could've found the modified firmware (even the pre-release binaries and source) on any number of websites if I cared, but paying $20 a year isn't a bad deal at all.
I love getting stuff for free (as in beer), but seriously people - if we're not willing to help open source and free software developers, the projects are going to whither away. These people are making a hell of a product. If you're not going to be submitting patches, give them some cash to help the project prosper.
People regularly pay $5000 for an evaluation board from a company like Intel which does nothing more than promote their own chip.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
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.
You have not read the last 2 comments, have you? Sveasoft punishes anyone who redistribute their firmware. They cancel your subscription saying that you have "forked" the development, a pretty stupid way to punishing you.
You left out one important thing about James Ewing:
5) Has the balls not to post anonymously? - check
3000+ comments meta-modded. 0 mod points awarded.
Lesson for other meta-suckers: Don't believe the hype!
Thank goodness I downloaded the Alchemy 5.11 ROM when it was freely available from a very nice friend. Why oh why is Sveasoft shooting themselves in the foot like this? Do they not understand the English language? Or do they just like to be assholes who take advantage of our free capitalist marketplace?
Homestarrunner.net -- It's Dot Com!
I had been using/following the Sveasoft firmware for some time.
Here are a few fun facts:
1. In a post on the sveasoft forum (a post long since deleted) Svea himself said that he had set up a paypal donation site. He claimed that this was opt in, and that he would NEVER charge for the firmware releases, but appreciated any donation. He has since done a complete 180, and decided that he owns this source. The removal of anyone who donated originally from the source distribution list seems to imply a breach of contract as svea obtained this money under false pretenses.
2. Svea is simply using the cross-compile environment to add functionality to the WRT. This firmware has almost no original software. Anyone with a working knowledge of linux could compile software for the WRT (as I have) and add any functionality they would like. He simply adds a few web pages that allow it to be configured without linux knowledge. To a non-techie this appears to be magic.... In reality he is profiting from much more GPL code.
3. Svea has always deleted any posts that questioned his GPL compliance. Back in April I voiced my concerns, and was silenced without so much as a single legitimate response to any of my concerns.
4. There are better firmwares. My personal favorite is Openwrt which supports the same level of functionality, AND has a writable filesystem.
GPL compliance or not, this project can be easily thwarted by lack of demand. If people stop wasting their money on it, the user base dries up, and Svea opens his project, or disappears.
One thing for sure is that Sveasoft is violating the spirit of the GPL. Specifically through
A) Charging $50 for access to the source
and
B) Marking the binaries then cancelling the subscription of redistributers
Now to the legal stuff (btw IANAL),
as to Sveasoft's claims that the people who redistributed the binaries were violating the GPL they may be correct unless the redistributors offered, for $50, to order the CD with source from Sveasoft. Assuming their subscription wasn't cancelled (which it was), though they could also offer to work through someone with a working subscription. Still if they had not followed these steps they would be in technical violation of the GPL. Or of course they could just supply the info on how to get the source from Sveasoft (eg subscribe & pay up) under GPL section 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.) Now if Sveasoft is violating the GPL and they passed on his offer then I can't really say if they are violating. Regardless I suspect the redistributors did none of these things and are infact violating the GPL.
As to whether Sveasoft is violating the GPL. We'll look at A. This might be allowable (a loophole in the GPL), if for each request he goes, takes a CD, throws it in the burner and burns it himself (charging of course for his time along with the physical medium). As to B, the cancelling subscriptions of redistributors, this is apparently allowed (FSF says so). However there's also this little bit from the summary,
Sveasoft is also ending the subscriptions (but refunding their money) of people who have posted their MD5 sums of the binaries. It says nowhere in the subscriber contract that they can't do this.
If Sveasoft is in fact doing this, and if the source CD is only available to subscribers (which it appears to be) then these people are having their access to the source revoked without reason. That being said I'm not sure if that's just a contract violation or a GPL violation too.
Wait don't go away yet, I'm not quite done with B. I didn't actually see the FSF response however I suspect they ignored or didn't know something and that B may still lead to a GPL violation in another way. The very fact that they cancelled anyones subscription, before a period of three years after recieving the binary, likely violates the GPL by section 3.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;
I don't see anything there about revoke rights to the source to someone who you've distributed the binary to (ie the cancelled subscription), these people had a right to obtain the source code, even if it cost $50, for a period of three years. Cancelling their subscriptions has cut the period short and in doing so should violate the GPL. He could possibly claim they cuold just resubscribe but I fail to see how this is a "cost of physically performing source distribution", besides if they ask to resubscribe and he refuses them then it's a violation for sure.
Thus given my understanding of the situation and the GPL I believe he is violating the GPL.
I stole this Sig
The GPL says that if you receive the code, you are free to redistribute it under the GPL. This policy does not allow you to "freely" distribute the code.
... You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. ...
Consider a hypothetical license:
If you agree not to redistribute the package under the GPL the software
costs $50.
If you violate this agreement, the package costs $50,000.
The real problem here is that Sveasoft is not distributing the code under the GPL but instead under the GPL and under their license. This "combined" license is a modification to the GPL, which they cannot do.
The part of the GPL that is violated is:
While you can argue that terminating a "subscription" is not a restriction on rights. This is just wrong. If you get the code, you are free to do anything with it you want under the GPL. Except in this case, if you actually re-distribute the code, you are penalized for availing yourself of your rights.
If the FSF stated that their subscription policy was *not* a violation, they are wrong. Penalties for re-distribution is clearly a license restriction.
Hopefully, some group with actual copyrights (like the iptables people) will declare this policy in violation of the GPL and demand that Sveasoft stop.
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.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
I got kinda annoyed myself about this whole mess with sveasoft... i use his firmware before the subscription process... and yes, as a technicality i thought he was violating the GPL as well, but from his point of view, each code release was of the 100meg magnitude, so releasing each drop was a painfull (read costly) process in alot of ways.. so i assume the subscription people pay for the cost of diskspace/time to release the firmware onto his website. Originally, most people seemed to get annoyed cause they were doing coding for his firmware and since he wasnt releasing the code, they wouldnt know if theirs was still able to roll into the tree easily... As a coder myself, i got annoyed with the "blah blah gpl" people simply because the guy is releasing a great firmware for FREE... he made available binaries for pre-release versions (which he really had no need to do other than so other people could test it or see what was in there) and would then at the end of the dev cycle release the entire thing (source and all) once the code was out of the dev process... But, as a coder, releasing code for free, i quite often take the view of "live with what you get" cause if people started attacking me like they have Sveasoft, i'd just stop developing due to annoyance with the public...
1) The $20/year is a charge for support.
2) After many 'deadbeats' were tying up the support forums with support questions and 'add this feature for me even though I don't pay for support but I feel entitled' requests, the small development team had to change things. They closed the support forums so that only subscribers can get support.
3) Public releases don't require a subscription.
4) Bleeding edge pre-release 'beta' firmwares require a subscription to download. I'm pretty sure linksys goes through beta cycles without widely releasing code. At some point they call is stable, and that becomes a release version.
5) $49 for the source code on CD via snail mail is a expensive, however, these guys are internationally based and most postage will be international. I'm pretty sure I remember FSF providing expensive costs for media / CD-ROMs / TAPEs of things like Emacs, gcc, etc.
I'm not sure what the real problem is here. These guys are trying to make money while improving and supporting an open source product. If you don't like it go use another firmware.
Their main goal appears to be identifying which subscriber redistributes pre release software so they can cancel that users subscription. These terms are disclosed up front before you subscribe.
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 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 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.
I'm glad I just downloaded the latest on Saturday! Always a minute late and a nickel shy...until now, motherfuckers!
In your face, um,... enigmatic forces who've been keeping me down.
Now as long as they don't hack any new functionality in, I'll be sittin' pretty.
grammar-lesson free since 1999. (rescinded - 2005)
Are many of you in violation for downloading MP3s?
I can't hear you! IP laws work both ways, bitches! Of course, this will get modded down by hypocrites, but then again this is Slashdot.
Several points:
1. This an ad-hominem attack. Whether someone on Slashdot has downloaded an MP3 in violation of copyright is unrelated to what Sveasoft is doing.
2. People downloading MP3s are not doing so for profit. They aren't selling the MP3s to others (by and large).
3. Stealing (technically violating copyright) from the GPL community is more like stealing from the Toys For Tots bin than it is like downloading MP3s. The RIAA is in this for bucks. They aren't donating their time and effort for the betterment of the world.
What does Fair Use have to do with going online to download someone's copyrighted material? If you wanted to make a backup of your copy, you'd do it on your computer.
So? That's petty, but not against GPL. They're not required to give you a subscription, at least nothing in the GPL says they have to.
No one has mentioned OpenWRT??
http://openwrt.ksilebo.net/
If I charged you my costs for burning a CD and mailing it to you, the materials cost would be low, probably less than $5 for a CD, mailer, label and postage. The labor costs would be considerably higher than the materials cost. I have to record the order, burn a CD, package it, address it, deliver it to a shipping agent, and record/process the payment. $50 an hour isn't an unreasonable labor charge for a full-time professional employee. Consultant rates would be even higher.
If you look at government programs that distribute documents and software to the public, many are required by law to cover their operating costs by adding a distribution charge. These charges can be surprisingly high, even though they are just recovering the government's costs in distributing the material. Processing orders can also be expensive for a corporation. Those costs are usually recovered in higher prices for the merchandise.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Let's be realistic. You want GNU/Linux to survive. Companies have got to find a way to make $'s. There has got to be some middle ground in protecting the interests of OSS and finding a way for companies to secure streams of revenue from this revolutionary of handling IP. It sounds like this a pretty crafty attempt at "locking" people in to their subscription. What I wonder is this. How long will you really survive on their blacklist. They blacklist you for modifying/redistributing pre-releases and they lose a paying customer (assumably anyway... it would kind of suck if they docked you with an early termination fee or something of the sort). Still it seems on the face of it that they do not violate the GPL... maybe they are bending the intent, but like I said gotta secure those $'s somehow... quit crying for the ultimate free lunch slashdotters.
The argument is that if your CD's are DRM-encumbered then you can't make a backup on your own. It's bullshit, of course. At some point the signal always turns to analog.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Is that James Ewing completely lied about his intentions. He said this thing was nothing more then a hobby, a project he made no money off of. Then it became $20 for "pre-release" binary and source. Now it's $50 for source, and people who redistribute are the reason why his kids are starving. This guy has done nothing but lie from the beginning.
I don't care what the law has to say. GPL violations are the wrong thing to do. Music piracy is the right thing to do.
Not counting any special rebates or coupons at your local vendor, what is a fair price for producing a CR-R with GPL'd software on it?
If I only "give away" one copy, is it $1000 (entire cost of the PC, burner, media, etc)?
Can I charge more for the first few, until I am sure I will recoup my costs? (I am not making any profit... What if my CD burning monkey costs $50 an hour and only has a 1X burner - can I not charge $49 a disc and only break even?
Just ask any accountant, especially a Hollywood accountant - you can probably justify any price for your GPL software as "just the distribution" price.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
This an ad-hominem attack.
So it is no different than any slashdot article writeup regarding the MPAA/RIAA/(unpopular)AA. So far I feel secure in my attitude.
People downloading MP3s are not doing so for profit. They aren't selling the MP3s to others (by and large).
Completely irrelavent, it's still against the law. The same law that protects the GPL.
Stealing (technically violating copyright) from the GPL community is more like stealing from the Toys For Tots bin than it is like downloading MP3s.
Your argument there is like "I'll rape prison inmates" versus "I'll rape girl scouts". It's still rape, no matter the intent or whom you are raping.
I think you missed the point. Most times people are angered because they must pay $15-20 to obtain a CD with possibly 1 or 2 songs they like. Online music stores such as iTMS have helped solve this problem by allowing people to download music for about $1 per song or $10 per album, which I find to be reasonable. HOWEVER, when big business basically goes out and says "The artists aren't making money anymore" I get somewhat angry. First of all, whenever I see the artists, they seem to have plenty of money, and are doing very well with more money than i could ever hope to accumulate. Second of all, how much of my $15 goes to the artist? I would rather download 15 songs from the artist and directly wire them $15. I'm sure that they would make a LOT more money this way. Who's making money from CD sales?
Corporate executives
CD Publishers
Recording studios
Art designers
Music Artists
But wait! Who came up with the music and actually sings it? Just the music artists...iTMS cuts out the need for the overpricing of media and completely eliminates the CD publisher and Art designer from the money and somewhat reduces the income of these executives (because of not overpricing the material). From iTMS, you can listen to music on your iPod, your computer (whether it be windows, mac, or *nix (use HYMN)), and any other device you so wish to record over to. CDs are capable of the same, but, they're overpriced IMO.
The only objection I really have to your post is that the post you responded to said that they didn't condone the breaking of licenses, whether it be the GPL or regarding copyrighted music.
TRUE, I was offtopic -- I read the whole thread between SCO/Linux and today the "SCO's claims Against Daimler-Chrysler Thrown Out". When I got in this thread, I 1st got the impression they were using a "Linux kernel" -- and SCO is going after anything with Linux.
My sincere apologize to everyone.
On the pre-release versions only, dipshit. You can redistribute the regular release without voiding your subscription.
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:26:16 +0200
From: James Ewing
Reply-To: WRT54G@yahoogroups.com
To: WRT54G@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WRT54G] Belkin source code isn't
Just an FYI for those of you who downloaded the Belkin "source" code to
upgrade your F5D7230-4 router.
The file contains a broken version of the Broadcom base source code
distribution. None of the Belkin source code is there.
It's a shame that all of the manufacturers - with the notable exception of
Linksys (yes, support them and buy their products!) - have pulled this
same scam.
Releasing firmware source means anyone will be able to build a working
copy of the firmware inside the router. Nothing else is acceptable.
Non-GPL components that are regarded as proprietary trade secrets can be
released as binaries, but the firmware must build and behave *exactly* as
that on the purchased router.
This fake "source" scam has been perpetrated by Bufalotech, ASUS, and now
Belkin. Don't support them until they support proper releases of buildable
firmware. Buy Linksys instead!
Best,
James
Sveasoft AB
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
Beware of geeks bearing formulas.
As a musician - and a recording engineer - I feel bound to point out that generally speaking, without a recording and mastering engineer(s), many - perhaps even most - recordings would sound much, much worse than they do now.
I have run into occasional artists who have recording/mastering talents, but not very many. I'm delighted when I do, because we have something very interesting and rare to talk about. It's not the same kind of performance skill at all as picking up an instrument and wailing away. But is is something that comes through on the end product.
I don't know how familiar you are with older music, but a favorite example of mine is Grand Funk Railroad before and after Todd Rundgren got ahold of them. It was truly as if they were an entirely new band. Same group, same instruments and amps, even, but... well, you have to listen to see what I mean. You might or might not like the changes, but you cannot deny that very significant changes are indeed manifest.
Just something you might want to consider when you think about how you might want to see the music retailing channel restructured.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Ummm no. If I receive a binary to a GPL'd program I can distribute it without source simply by telling the person I distribute it to where I got the source from. The person I got the source from is responsible for supplying the source to the third party, not me.
Only if you received the binary without the source and with the "offer valid ... to ... any third party". If you received (or even had simultaneous access to) the source, it's your responsibility to provide it when you provide the binary. Check out GPL section 3C. And if you didn't receive either the source or the offer, the binary was distributed in violation of the GPL.
It's his site and as a paying subscriber I'm glad he bans whining assholes like you.
You seem to be the greedy one, actually--expecting Sveasoft to pay the hosting and admin costs associated with letting hordes of anonymous douchebags fill up his forums with crap.
How is that different from what Red Hat does?
I havan't seen anyone redistributing Enterprise Linux 3.0 ISOs.
What use is a GPL if you're unable to... copy (OK, that's not exactly what Agent Smith said but close enough).
It is just like the BC3000 boards!
No, you only have to offer source code if you've modified the code.
Nope, you have to provide the source if you received it, or the information about the offer you received. This has nothing to do with modifications. See GPL section 3 for the details.
If I download a redhat install disk, then give it to my friend I'm not violating the GPL by not providing him with source code.
Red Hat provided you with the source, so you have to provide it to anyone you provide binaries to (per GPL sec. 3A). Of course, Red Hat may also have provided you with a written offer for the source (per sec. 3B). If they did, then you're entitled by sec. 3C to pass that offer along, but if they didn't then you'd better have burned your friend the SRPM CDs as well.
Perhaps one already owns the music on vinyl, and does not wish to pay for a second copy of the same music on CD to simply make a copy for use with a portable MP3 player. As one has already bought a copy, one is allowed by law to have as many forms of that music as one wishes....for one's OWN use. For example, I own the boxed set of Frank Zappa's "Joe's Garage" in vinyl. Shoudl I have to then go out and buy a copy on CD just to make a copy form y Rio Karma? No.
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.
(Get together with another subscriber and compare source first, to see if any "tags" were placed in the source, too.
It should be much easier to remove the tags from the source code than from the binaries.)
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
if you don't want to pay $20 for support,
then wait for the final release.
Not only is that argument invalid, it is also extremely ignorant.
The law specifically allows you to make a backup copy of software. Not CDs. Not music. Software.
In other words, making a backup copy of music is not protected under copyright law.
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.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
Once the firmware is distributed in binary or source form, whether privately or publicly, the GPL comes into effect.
This means that if they release the binary firmware only, they must provide the source code.
The GPL allows for a media cost for the source code. Most likely the FSF will decide that $50 is excessive for media/shipping costs.
+5 insightful
And the question there is whether this "unreleased" source is GPL'd. One would expect that anything based on a GPL'd codebase would be GPL'd if made available officially or unofficially.
That's correct - anytime you distribute a GPL'ed program, you have to make the source available, even for "unreleased" versions. The FSF's GPL FAQ says so.
In this case, pre-releases are available, and the distribution of pre-release source should be protected by the GPL. If we consider released pre-releases to be releases, then, Sveasoft's actions against those distributing pre-release source are illegal - but it's a complex 'if'.
If Sveasoft gives out the binaries, they have to give out the source - it's just that simple. Now, I have to admit that I've always felt the FSF was off-base on this issue. Even in the world of Free Software and Open Source, there is reasonable justification for "controlled release" of code that is still under test. But the GPL doesn't have a "restricted beta" concept, so that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
Actually, you are entitled to make backups of anything and every you own. Fair use provisions were enacted before software was even a word. You are also entitled to use portions of something for review purposes. Neither of these matter, the whole argument is bullshit anyway.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
> Any posts with references to 1984 will be ignored
I was born in 1984, you insensitive clod
I'm a subscriber and I have no issue with the issue with the way things were being done. Essentially you subscribed to the nightly builds and CVS. When it went 'gold' it was issued as the GPL code with source and binary. The point of their business model is to provide enhanced access to the development process. Funny that I am running the stable code on my WRT54Gs not the code I paid for because the WDS (repeater) functionality doesn't work with WPA yet. It is stated that you can distribute the source and binaries that you obtain from the subscription service but it forfeits your subscription. However I feel that is the inherent risk in their model, it is an honor system and it breaks down if they try to get militant in its enforcement. However their 'product' really makes the WRT54G a product on par with its bigger Cisco cousins. I guess I'll see how this plays out after my year subscription is up.
From the GPL:From the FAQ:Presumably, if the person could get the binary via anon FTP (or HTTP, or torrent, or some other Internet mechanism), then that person should have no problem getting the source via anon FTP (or etc.).
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
I fully agree. I'm an A/V dork myself and hang out with the local big-name production company people. Most people are amazed at what the tech's can do to improve the sound quality on the end product. It's all great fun.
I havan't seen anyone redistributing Enterprise Linux 3.0 ISOs.
Now you have.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
"You are then free to redistribute that source, but doing so bans you from receiving libGPLfoo.so.2"
This violates the GPL. They can *not* link the ban to source/binary distribution. They can ban you for various other reasons, just not for redistributing the source. They were under no obligation to provide libGPLfoo.so.2 under the GPL, but they sold it as part of their subscription. They cannot then remove that right or privilege if you distribute the source, as this is an added restriction on redistribution.
It was a nice try at GPL evasion, but I don't think that it will fly. If it does, the next version of the GPL will contain a few "fixes."
Does the license sepcify how the source must be distributed? I mean, they have to supply it, but what if they printed it out on paper. It may cost them more, but it is effectively stopping the redistribution.
warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
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:
And this is Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117(a) which allows you to make a backup copy of software:
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.
You can't force a company to fork out $$$ to pay for bandwidth costs just so you can have something for "free." There is no bandwidth fairy.
The easy way around this problem is simply to make the source code available but strip out all the comments and obfuscate it.
There's plenty of software to do that. They could also just not use GPL code to begin with.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Happy to burst your bubble. I voted for Nader '00. As a matter of fact...so did Moore.
The GPL just gives me the right to redistribute the SOURCE code that I (or third parties) must be able to get from them "at distribution cost".
The promise that I will remain subscribed to their service only if I dont give away a binary copy they supplied to me seems OK. Its a quid pro quo.
They need to be prepared to give me the source needed to recompile a functionally-identical working version of the firmware, but not necessarily one that is the exact binary copy of the one I got from them, so a "firmware watermarking" scheme does seem GPL compatible.
I can recompile the firmware and redistribute MY
new binaries with the GPL source.
The GPL is NOT designed to give me the ability to devalue the work they do in creating (building) firmware, just to protect my right to receive SOURCE that I can modify and/or redistribute to others.
Dunno about you, but I'm a registered republican for the last 20 yrs, and I use P2P to share Slackware and BSD iso's. I already bought and paid for my movies and music. Deal with it.
C|N>K
Seems it really is a loophole. There's nothing in there that says you need to keep giving someone access to the binaries once they redistribute the source- and if you dont give them access to future releases of your binaries, they dont have any right to the source. Yeah, I'm pretty sure it says that explicitely, in the FAQ if not in the GPL itself- you are not obligated to give source to modifications you make yourself and do not distribute. (the moment you distribute them in any way, though, the GPL kicks in and anyone can request source)
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
The code doesn't have to be released unless they actually change it. Otherwise, they can point you to any one of the linux mirrors and tell you what version of the kernel to grab.
Bundling software with linux, and changing linux itself are two very different cases.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
I'm posting AC because I'm afraid this guy will come burn my house down...
You're more right than you think.
I've worked closely with James Ewing (the one and only person behind Sveasoft) in the past. I met this guy on a daily basis for several years. The fact that I'm not only posting AC, but doing so through a number of nontracable proxies, is a testament in itself to my experience with this guy.
He is the worst psychopath* I have ever met in my personal or professional life, and that's no small statement. If you offend him, or challenge his image of grandeur, he will stop at NOTHING to hunt you down. He has even said so himself, and I've seen it happen many times enough. The guy just doesn't stop.
Your best defense against James Ewing is to stay the hell away from him; he is good enough at burning his bridges and relationships himself, while bad enough at delivering technically, so you don't have to worry about him succeeding on an emotional level.
I mean it. Stay the hell away from this guy. He means serious trouble, and he's delivering. He may not succeed in courts (rarely does), but he's going to cause you serious fucking trouble along the way, and he's going to enjoy every bit of it.
Just for the record, btw: no, he doesn't claim to have a PhD. He does behave as if he's the most intelligent businessman in existence, though (and by inference, anybody who disagrees with him is wrong by definition).
*I am using the term in the medical sense, here: one who is devoid of any sympathy, and one who will defend his image of superiority at any cost.
Yes, and those modifications that Transgaming promised would be made available were "eventually" made available? Granted, TG forked off a non-LGPL Wine, and were therefore under no obligation to give back, but the point is that "eventually" promises are moot. Beta can go on forever, just ask AOL/Mirabilis, which is why the L/GPL does not draw a distinction - distribute binaries and you must distribute source. You are not allowed to make any further restrictions - period.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The GPL makes no distinction between release and prerelease. If you distribute binary, you must distribute source and the release cost of the source must be reasonable as precisely defined by the GPL - not to exceed your cost of transfer, media, and shipping. There are three violations by Sveasoft, which most others see, but you are willing to excuse.
No excuses. GPL, pure, simple, unadulterated.
"Sveasoft also states that if a subscriber redistributes pre-release firmwares, they will lose their subscription. Some people have argued that this goes against the GPL, but the FSF has decided this is *not* a violation."
So if some is has bought "Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS" and re-distribute the GPL'd source without RedHat's consent, RedHat may terminate your contract? Brrrr...
Dual licenses like QT's work because they hold the copyright on the code which they produced themselves. QT is not a derived product. The crooks at Sveasoft have taken something which was largely produced by someone else and relicensed it. If the QOS code was implemented as a standalone module, then it can be seperated off as a an independent binary, much like the Broadcomm drivers from Linksys (you can get the GPL code to everything but the drivers).
See my journal, I write things there
Well, I saw a Svea being violated by a Gnu on the way home.
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.
In other words, making a backup copy of music is not protected under copyright law.
Yes, there's section 117 that spells out how the owner of a copy may back up software, but you seem to overlook section 1008 that spells out how the owner of a copy may back up a recording.
If they were honest (it seems they are not), they would fully release all GPL'ed code including their modifications w/o restrictions.
They may maintain their business model by offerring support or by controlling access to code that they have wholly originated. If they do not allow redistribution, they are breaking the GPL. I do agree that whilst $49 is pushing it for the source code, they can not block you from being placed on your favourite P2P.
See my journal, I write things there
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
That is not necessarily a GPL violation--the GPL doesn't require you to make modified sources available via FTP. You can charge for the distribution of both source and binary with the GPL.
What you can't do is restrict redistribution of the sources. And, if you give/sell someone a binary somehow, you must make the corresponding sources available to them "at cost".
So, they can charge $49 for a CD containing sources, but you can put the GPL'ed sources that are on it on-line if you like.
The $49 CD might constitute a violation of the GPL if Sveasoft is distributing binaries via some other channel. But even then, $49 might still be considered on the edge of "at cost" distribution. And, as I said, if it bothers you, someone can pay that amount once and put up its GPL'ed content for FTP himself, killing any further business. With the GPL, market mechanisms make the "at cost" distribution provision pretty self-enforcing.
that the person re-distributing the firmware is not also distributing the source code with it.
At least that seemed apparent to me when I read the first post in the DSLR thread referenced.
I never saw a complaint about re-distribution in general.
I have to record the order, burn a CD, package it, address it, deliver it to a shipping agent, and record/process the payment. $50 an hour isn't an unreasonable labor charge
Then how on God's green earth could mp3.com burn and ship CD-Rs of its artists' music for $10, splitting the revenue about evenly with the artist?
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/
Mod. parent Insightful, not parents parent and .. don't mod me redundant,troll ;-) Here is why:
Saying that the punishment of cancelling your subscription is in line with the GPL is like saying that "it is legal to have sex with minors, you just have to go to jail for it".
So it's not in line with the GPL if you are being punished for using the rights granted to you under the GPL.
Still I see from that forum that there are two issues mixed here: IMHNLO, the guy posting the binary is in violation of the GPL, and Sveasoft too. Both should know better, but especially Sveasoft, since they are not joe random internet user but professionals.
To argue further, the guy posting the binary needs to post source as well, or he has to remove the binary. He could either get the source by being having legitimately acquired the binary from sveasoft, then he would have to sue Sveasoft for the source code, or, less hassle, he could just subscribe to Sveasoft for a new version of the binary, download the matching source, then distribute it.
Then he could distribute source and binary.
The following should be a minor issue: If Sveasoft kicks him from his software channel subscription then for distributing, he could sue Sveasoft for money back because Sveasoft pulled its service without a legit reason. They have no legitimate reason because they declare in contradiction both that they honour the GPL, but that they pull their service if you use your rights.
Now, to counter further arguments, I can imagine that a business indeed has the right to refuse doing business with you for whatever reason, but not if the reason is a right or service that you have acquired in a deal.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
But that's not the issue, here. Yes, that person supposedly violated the GPL. This isn't about him/her
Sveasoft bitched about that person on a forum, and it was turned back on them. They perhaps did not realize it, but they were also violating the GPL. See my post which explains it clearly, here.
And unfortunately the slashdot crowd has only seen the top of the iceberg. The methods Sveasoft uses are dirty scare tactics and threats. My case is a very good example of this and it's what started the entire fight.
I posted firmware, Sveasoft complained and threatened, I published their threats, they claimed publicly that I was defaming them with my website and I posted my point of view.
When people started to switch sides, James got angry and changed the sourc distribution to snailmail.
If you have enough time, read the entire story at
http://www.30mb.com/x/annejuul/
I hope it's gonna be up long enough.
Regards, TheIndividual
PS:
Sorry for the stupid subject, just trying to get some attention. It's hard to get public awareness for the issue because Sveasoft has/had indirect control of most forums.
Red Hat allows access to the source for all GPLed software that they include in their distro. Their CDs also contain programs that are not copyrighted under the GPL. It is not legal to distribute such programs without the consent of the copyright owner. As a result, 200 people can't pool their resources and buy one set of RHEL and then make ISOs available on a web page. (well, at least not legally)
Whitebox linux compiles all of the GPL code in Red Hat and produces ISOs of it. Those ISOs will not contain any non GPLed app included with Red Hat.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Agree! Sveasoft, you're not the only one who know how to program, but you're definitely one of the greedy/ego/sensitive developers in open source community I've ever seen.
Quick question: is the firmware on http://www.30mb.com/x/annejuul identical to http://sourceforge.net/projects/newbroadcom?
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.
Tired of free ipod spam sigs? Opt ou
You can get the source at
http://wrt54g.streamfire.net/
it's way too complicated. if this was the bsd license, we'd all know where we stood. rms and friends shouldn't play at law.
Add to that the cost of a webhost which doesn't have a twig for a backbone if you want to actually use your GPL given rights. Sveasoft has had two webhosts, one email provider and one URL redirector shut terminate services of an individual who published the firmware.
Did anyone actually visit these links before they started bitching about GPL and debating Law (a subject of which they know nothing about but can find many links?)
This posted software was issued by a disgruntled employee with virii infesting therein, or at least so claims some of the pages you've found..
As near as I can tell, linksys has a problem with GPL, but I think this article is kind of a vague attempt to discredit a company based on a whiff of GPL-fear without a respectable trail of evidence to support it.
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/
Rustam's Download Mirror
Download both binaries and sources of Alchemy
http://freewrt.da.ru/
Annejuul's Download Mirror
Download Alchemy binaries
http://www.30mb.com/x/annejuul/
EWRT
Linux for WRT54G hotspots
http://www.portless.net/ewrt/
OpenWrt
OpenWrt - Wireless Freedom
http://openwrt.ksilebo.net/
Wifi-Box
Wifi-Box Firmware for WRT54G
http://sourceforge.net/projects/wifi-box/
FreeWRT Mailing List
Stay up to date about Linksys FW projects
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freewrt/
suckers must die
When did Republican become a dirty word around these parts? I thought /.ers were supposed to be smart enough to know that labels like "Democrat", "Republican," and "Independent" are about as useful as your average code comments.
It's like Chris Rock says: "Anyone who makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a f*c|
sev
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
I'm not really sure how this thread got to be about P2P music sharing, but now that it's here...why does everything have to be about right and wrong? Let's make this discussion about what is, and what isn't.
They can't stop music sharing. It is. They have to deal with it. We all have to deal with it whether we like it or not.
They can and will stop violations of the GPL. It is, for the moment. It soon won't be.
I'm a strong believer that useless people tend to make themselves irrelevant by doing things like pushing, passing, and then trying to enforce unenforcable laws. It's entertaining to watch once you come to the private realization that right and wrong has nothing to do with the actual future that's bound to come.
sev
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
Volume and cheap labor. There is a huge difference in unit cost between shipping hundreds of CD-Rs a day and one or two CD-Rs a week. You also need an ordering and fulfillment process designed for low overhead. It costs many corporations more than $50 to process a single order. That isn't a problem if you are selling $100,000 of merchandise per order and have reasonable margins. It's also why some sales people will not return your phone calls if they know that you just want to buy a single low-end computer.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Oh boo hoo! You, like 99% of the people bitching about this project, are most likely a freeloader anyway who would have sucked time and energy from the project without giving a thing in return but more bitching. On behalf of thousands of Sveasoft subscribers let me say that we'll all miss your pearls of wisdom on the forums. NOT.
I infringe on music copyrights all the time and do not believe I am wrong for doing so. I think Sveasoft are wrong for violating copyright. This does not make me a hypocrite for two reasons.
1: I believe copyright is an incentive society grants to creative people to promote the growth of the public domain. As such, the current copyright terms are ludicrously long. I believe they should be under 15 years. Therefore, I believe that, today, songs from the 80s and earlier should not be protected by copyright. The same applies to software of course, but the software in question wasn't written that long ago.
2: The RIAA and its supporters are abusive to society in a number of different ways, one of the most significant being lobbying for laws even more twisted than they are already. I made my mind up a long time ago to not give the RIAA any money for music. Since I'm not giving them money under any circumstances, downloading music will not affect them in any way, since I wouldn't have bought the music anyway.
Either of those reasons alone would be enough to make my actions non-hypocritical.
Ignore the syringe fag. He is a troll. Check his posting history for lame "slashdot says..." statements about hot button issues.
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
simply read this http://wrt54g.streamfire.net/
http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,10804 029~mode=flat~days=9999~start=320
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/
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.
I went out and bought one of these routers and it rocks. I happen to get the Satori 4.0 (last public, stable release) before they went subscriber. It doesn't matter, you can still get the source for Satori from somewhere like http://linksysinfo.org ...
.40 to .43 last night. Going to test it today.
Anyhow, I say screw em. I'm not paying $20 for a subscription, then $49 if I want the source to pre-releases. Also, if you read carefully, their "public" releases are just that, and their "prereleases" are what they covet... if you give out a prerelease, they kill your subscription.
So, as I said, screw em. I got all the original source and Satori source, and I'm making my own distribution. I upgraded from dropbear
FLR
Actually what's bothering me more, than the question if Sveasoft is allowed to restrict access to his firmware or the sourcecode or to charge 50$ for the sourcecode are these "Analysis of the Alchemy 5.1 binaries" posts I found on broadbandreports.com. com/forum/remark,10804 029~mode=flat~start=346
http://www.broadbandreports
Apparently each subscriber downloading a binary of the firmware gets a unique version, that's differing a little bit from all the binaries downloaded by other subscribers.
So obviously the binaries can't be 100% based on the sourcecode he is providing. In the broadbandreports.com article there are some of the differences listed.
I think, that this perhaps is a violation of the GPL and certainly it's a risk for anyone using this firmware. Because you never can be sure, what exactly he has hidden in the binary, that isn't present in the sourcecode.
littlewhoo
CDs hand-carved by tibetan monks and charge three billion dollars each. [...] An FTP server would do the job for at least three orders of magnitude less money
Umm, would you like to buy an FTP server from me? IT can be yours for the low price of $3 Million.
And you've contributed what to the open source community, asshat?
The GPL, and any other license, must be enforced to be meaningful. Failure to consistently enforce a license will very likely be seen by the courts as de facto acquiesence to its violation.
People who support the GPL must decide if they want it to be an agreement among like-minded developers, or a true license that is strictly enforced, with legal action when necessary.
Binding decisions on the legality of anyone's use of GPL'd material cannot be determined by discussions among the "community". Suit needs to be brought against every alleged violator.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
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.
They have this right. Any relase, whether "testing" or whatever has to be under the GPL. If binaries of GPL'd software are being distributed, the source code also has to be released on request. If Sveasoft don't like it, they shouldn't be using GPL software.
They never refused to release the source code
You just appeared to admit that they did.
They release the source code when they do an actual release of the firmware, when it's nice and stable and working.
According to the thread linked to, it is alleged that Sveasoft are charging $50 for a CD with source code. Not reasonable. And once again, there's no difference between testing and release versions under the GPL.
Sveasoft has said everybody can freely redistribute the release versions of their firmware and source code.
Well it's very nice of them considering we already have this right.
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?
You can't "leak" GPL'd code! If you distribute it, it's under the GPL and anyone is free to redistribute it. Sveasoft is not of course obliged to provide tech support, but then no one has suggested they are.
I can't RTFA because they are well slashdotted, but there are some obvious remarks that need to be made:
Well, now it looks like Sveasoft (one of the third party developers) has decided to restrict access to their modified source code to subscribers ...
In other words, you can't get access to the source code unless you're using the product? The GNU GPL doesn't require that people who don't use the binary are required access to the code but rather if you distribute the binary to someone, that person needs to have access to the source code. So there's nothing wrong on this point.
So in other words, the reasonable cost for distributing the source code on media used for software interchange? Nothing wrong with that, the GNU GPL even specifies this.
Nothing out of place here, so it seems.
Nah, just a very satisfied Sveasoft customer who for $20 turned a cheapo router into one that does the work of something many times its purchase price.
You'd be surprised how nice it is to actually put enough thought into your posts that it isn't necessary to cower in the shadows as an AC. Try it sometime!
3000+ comments meta-modded. 0 mod points awarded.
Lesson for other meta-suckers: Don't believe the hype!
The GPL is a license that operates under copyright law.
If I agree to make changes to GPL code for my employer, and my employer and I agree that my employer owns the copyrights on any code I write for them, then it is my employer who gets the rights and responsibilities of distribution under the GPL, not me.
At the company I work for, we often modify GPL code for our own applications, and the copyright on such code belongs to the company. Company policy forbids redistribution of our in-house apps without their permission, as is their right, since they own the copyright on the apps.
So, if we hack a set top box for company presentations and do not distribute our changes outside the company, we're in compliance with the GPL.
As binaries are tagged they always have different checksums. However "my" version is from a customer (Andreas) who got his subscription canceled for redistribution. Therefore it is 100% legit.
Also the source code is available on my website directly now.
TheIndividual
This is harassment, if not something worse. If you believe this is fabricated, read some of the other transcripts of email conversations which then still subscribers had with James Ewing.
It *is* your responsibility to provide the source, but you do not have to include it under section 3A. You can provide it under section 3B or 3C if you like. Providing the source "when you provide the binary" is an option, not a requirement, of the GPL.
Correct, mostly. You're right about having the choice of providing either the source or an offer of the source. But unless you were given a section 3B offer, you don't have one to pass along under section 3C, so your 3B option would be to become a source distribution point yourself. So I guess we're both right.
May I suggest that a "computer program" is a series of instructions used to manipulate a computer,
and depending on what the meaning of is - is -
MP3 is a series of instructions for manipulating an electronic computational system.
The fact that they cannot be understood by anything other than a computer supports the idea that MP3 is information in the form of a computer program.
But - I don't really care - since I prefer CSPAN to Metallica anyway.
AIK
Sveasoft distributes the source with every binary. Their obligations to provide source code are fufilled under the GPL. THey don't owe you or anyone anything else.
Now, the "penalty" of losing your subscription if you redistribute may or may not violate. That's a real grey area. Having the user forfeit after redistribution could be seen as adding restrictions to further distribution.
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Given that the sveasoft is in clear violation.
Can we at least consider the benefit of watching this violation - rather than jumping down their throat?
his price is reasonable - and pretty high value for $49. that money will go to future improvments - not to creating the second richest a**hole in the world.
Why not preserve the right to future enforcement while supporting people who add value and need to get paid - in order to quit their day job.
Stallman needs to find a happy medium. The idea of a short term GPL patent - say three years on a product like this might be enough motivation to create revenue without stagnating development.
My suggestion
AIK
From the announcement Forum, an exchange between Sveasoft and the FSF:
> 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
<This .sig left intentionally blank>
If you're about to go after someone who violates GPL go after big boys like Realtek. Their RTL8181 SOC is based on linux yet they refuse to release full source code.
;)
They have millions of dollars of income so they're in a good position to become a target for a lawsuit. I think it's just a matter of time before some greedy lawyers smell the money out of that and go after them for millions of dollars.
And then they'll donate that millions to the community.
Ya right.
Rewter
I encountered yet another example just this week: D-Link refuses to publish the source code for the firmware inside its DFL-80 firewall router -- even though it clearly has GPLed code inside. (The log messages betray this.) Why do many companies do this? Because they recognize that the GPL's enforceability is questionable. And they are, quite likely, right.
See, my problem is this. He can do his whole subscription thing - I don't care. He can ban his paying customers - he doesn't care. However, to get the source code to his perpetual "betas" you are now asked to pay him $50 per release, for a CD to be mailed to you. Now, today, he's on version X, tomorrow on x.0.0.0.1 - if you want the source for x.0.0.0.1, you have to fork out another $50 to him. Will someone just pay him his farking $20, then pay him his farking $50 to get the source, and then someone setup a sourceforge project for it so we can shutdown this scumbag?
We fully expect big companies to be hesitant regarding source releases. That doesn't make it right, of course. But Sveasoft is worse because he pretends to be helping the community, while at the same time he goes after people who actually redistribute "his" code (or *gasp* use it in their own projects).
You wanna play on words, then let's play on words.
The software is the mp3 player (be it Windows Media Player, MusicMatch Jukebox, WinAmp or anything else). The mp3 file itself is nothing but data that the software uses. A mp3 file definately doesn't qualify as a software, and much less as a computer program.
Now, what is your definition of a "computer"? A mp3 file cannot be understood only by a computer. It can be understood by a portable mp3 player, is that a computer too? It can be understood by a car radio system, is that a computer?
If I have a text document as a text file. Is the text file a software? That's the same for an mp3.
Plus, when you bought a music CD in your favorite music store, chances are the music on the CD was not in an mp3 format. So, whatever you do with the mp3, it was the making of the mp3 that was not "fair use".
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
1) You can take GPL code, and resell it (with or without modifications) at any price you like.
2) Anybody you sell the binaries to must be able to get the source code used to produce the version they bought
3) You can sell to whoever you want. Just because you sold it to Bob, doesn't in any way mean you've got to sell it to Dave.
4) You can sell it to Bob, then later decide you don't want to sell it to him no more. Tough luck Bob.
5) Bob can give away or sell what he's bought (under the same GPL terms) to anybody he wants.
6) If you sell something to Bob, and he gives it away or sells it to Dave, you have no responsibility to Dave.
7) The company is refusing to further sell to anybody who gives away the product.
8) Their decision to stop selling to Bob at some point in no way effects his rights to what he's already bought.
They are doing nothing wrong.
17 USC 1008:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
This does present an interesting thought, though. Let's say I take some GPL licensed code and make changes to it. I give this code to a couple of friends to try it out. I say "Here is the code with my mods, here are the sources, build it, use it, let me know how it works". In my mind this is a trial version, lacking documentation and not meant (from my perspective) for broad public consumption.
Now one of my friends posts this everywhere on the internet. He can do this without my permission since this is GPL'ed code. However, I am pissed since wide distribution wasn't what I intended. As a result I am getting bombarded with emails about the flaws of the software.
In my opinion this friend breached my trust in distributing the software, something I didn't intend. I have no obligation to provide him any updates of the code, the final release or anything else. In fact I don't even have to talk to him if I choose not to. Except I would say I am breaching the GPL since my friend does have the right granted to him under the GPL to redistribute...
One word: estoppel
If the copyright holders don't do anything about it now. They can't do anything about it later.
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
The GPL is a *license*. A licence granted to the *distributor* of software by the author of the software.
The GPL provides an affirmative defense against being sued for copyright infringment. The GPL does *NOT* compel any behavior; the defense contributed is invalid if the terms of the license are not met.
When a distributor distributes to you the source to any binary they distribute to you, they meet the license terms. They have NO obligation to you as a receiver of their distribution at any point in the future.
Sveasoft is using a CONTRACT to allow people access to un-distributed versions of the software for beta testing. Each new micro-distribution made under this contract contains GPL licensed software. If you redistribute the sofware under the terms of the license, Sveasoft is free to terminate their contract with you -- as your right to redistribution has not been infringed.
This does not preclude you from obtaining new updates to the software by other means. But Sveasoft (or any other distributor) is free to say "you have to pay to receive distributions *from me.*"
If you don't like it, your rights are about zilch. As long as the distributor gave you source, and didn't impose new license restrictions on your software, you can redistribute to your hearts content. You cannot however, impose terms on your *distributor!* If you believe the GPL has been violated by an act of the distributor, thats too bad -- because all it does is provide a point to contest the defense of copyright violation if and when the distributor is sued by someone with standing to sue for copyright infringment.
It is likely that a course of action made by an author against a distributor would prevail *IF* they attempted to bind you with a contract that revoked redistribution rights granted by the GPL. However, nothing in the GPL provides a distributor a continuing obligation to provide you with FUTURE updates to code. What Sveasoft is doing is completely legitimate (and makes sense too, because it keeps all the b0z0 d00dz out of the paid support channels).
So many people want to make the GPL into a contract, which it isn't. A contract can impose an obligation to perform; a license cannot (although a license may be revoked if an action is NOT performed -- this is the heart of the GPL).
Um, yeah. What do you think is converting the mp3 data into sound? Some computers are, like, REALLY small. Yeah, freaky, I know. :)
It can be understood by a car radio system,WTF? Really?
is that a computer?Well, it would need one to understand an MP3 data stream. If it's simply relaying radio signals or sound encoded as electrical impulses, well that has nothing to do with Mp3
But here's a question for the class: What if, instead of encoding an audio file as a set of data that requires an external program, the file was itself a program? How might that change the notion of fair use, copyright, deriviative works, and so on?
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
While Sveasoft hasd shut down their forums for the support of the publicly released version and is providing support for subscribers (as has been done all along) - http://www.linksysinfo.org/ has taken up the cause for providing a support forum for these users.
s .
This is a widely used and very popular firmware (especially now). So if you are having issues with the public/stable/free (call it what you will) Satori4.0 release, head on over to the forums http://www.linksysinfo.org/modules.php?name=Forum
http://www.linksysinfo.org - WRT54G Firmware Hacks and Linksys Support
I'll bite.
The software is the mp3 player (be it Windows Media Player, MusicMatch Jukebox, WinAmp or anything else). The mp3 file itself is nothing but data that the software uses. A mp3 file definately doesn't qualify as a software, and much less as a computer program.
Software is the language a computer understand. In the early days there was no separation of data from processed that made calculations on that data. The separation of that information into "data files" and "executable files" does not mean the data is no longer software.
Software: The instructions executed by a computer, as opposed to the physical device on which they run (the "hardware").
Data is an integral part of those instructions. Without it, all you have is a receipe with no list of ingredients. All files, whether mp3, exe, or txt are "software".
Now, what is your definition of a "computer"? A mp3 file cannot be understood only by a computer. It can be understood by a portable mp3 player, is that a computer too? It can be understood by a car radio system, is that a computer?
Short answer: Yes. Duh. You think a machine has to have a harddrive, a keyboard and a monitor to be called a computer? Wake up.
Computer: A device that computes, especially a programmable electronic machine that performs high-speed mathematical or logical operations or that assembles, stores, correlates, or otherwise processes information.
A portable mp3 player, a car radio system, and the digtal watch on my arm all all computers. They all process digital instructions to perform specific tasks. In the case of the mp3 player and car radio, they take the data from the CD and transform it into sound. And if you think there are no "high-speed mathematical or logical operations" going on to do that, you need to learn a bit more about them.
Plus, when you bought a music CD in your favorite music store, chances are the music on the CD was not in an mp3 format. So, whatever you do with the mp3, it was the making of the mp3 that was not "fair use".
You're right. Chances are it wasn't in an mp3 format. Chances are it was in another digital format that is as much a form of software as an mp3 is.
Now is changing that format to mp3 "fair use"? IMHO, it is (should be) as legal as time shifting a television program. Transferring the information into a format or onto media that is more convenient than the original is not (shouldn't be) a crime. Would this hold up in court? I don't know, but based on the Betamax case I suspect it would as long as the judge wasn't a tool.
And I have upwards of 100 pirated movies and more than 15 gigs on "pirated" MP3s - all legally downloaded and ripped (it's legal in Canada to copy music from friends/libraries and to distribute MP3s via P2P).
And I will pirate more movies and music, in the hope that everybody will do the same and kill the movie and music "industries".
I can't believe the audacity of these guys.
And I really can't believe there isn't more about this plastered all over this story.
THIS IS THE REAL STORY HERE.
Mod Parent pedantic post UP!
Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117(a) (quoted from great-great-grand-parent post)
(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
AFAIK, converting an audio CD to mp3 format is far from being an essential step in the utilization of the computer program. If your machine has a CD-ROM, then it can "execute" the "software program" directly from the CD. I suppose that I would be correct to use the computer as an intermediate for transferring the audio CD onto an mp3 player, since the mp3 player requires the mp3 file ("essential step"), but then you'd have to delete the mp3 from the computer as soon as the transfer is done.
(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.
Archive : A long-term storage area, often on magnetic tape, for backup copies of files or for files that are no longer in active use.
If you listen to the mp3 file, then it is in active use, and therefore cannot be considered as a backup copy.
So even if a mp3 file is considered being a software program, it is still not "fair use" to listen to mp3'd version of your music on your computer of on any other device that can play the original CD's (stereo, car radio, CD-mp3 player, computer, etc.)
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
I guess you're not a software developer, are you?
Data files are not software. They are data.
Software is executed by the computer, either directly or indirectly as commands.
Data files are not executed and they are not commands. They are interpreted by software.
If your analysis of the Audio Home Recording Act were correct, then at least one major label would have already sued the developers of CDex for contributory infringement.
On the other hand, if you use a digital recorder to record everyone singing Happy Birthday to you on your birthday, the owner of the copyright to the song would not be allowed to file suit against you for infringement.
What copyright? You go ahead and believe this Snopes.com article; I've warmed up more to this analysis, which presents evidence that the simple substitution of "Happy birthday" into the lyrics of "Good Morning to All" isn't enough to create a distinct copyrightable work.
See this post about source code comments in the Linksys source release which explicitly prohibit any redistribution, and this post regarding linksys.
In brief, what sveasoft is working on is a forked version of Linksys's source code release. Linksys's release was already highly questionable in regards to GPL compliance, since it does not include source code for all of the binaries included, particularly the wl.o module. In addition Linksys included in their source distribution a great deal of source code which claims to be proprietary and non-redistributable.
This is IMHO the elephant in the room that nobody's talking about, and it affects wifibox just as much as sveasoft.
I'd urge anyone interested in wrt54g development who is concerned about these GPL issues to check out OpenWRT, which aims to be a fully GPL-compatible clean-room implementation of Linux for this hardware (they use Linksys's modified version of the kernel, but not much else).
'course, it would be easy to develop an in-house compiler that speaks a different dialect and then transcode the source to that dialect.
By controlling the compiler, you can allow people access to the source while forcing them to buy your binaries.
Of course, a suitably motivated programmer could deduce the semantics of the language and retranscode it to the original language.
You too, are blowing smoke. Making a personal backup is currently a gray area. Many lawyers believe that fair use gives the right to make backup copies. The fact that it isn't expressly listed does not mean we don't have the right. We may not get the legal reference you ask for either. To get it we need someone to make a long shot case against an individual for making a personal copy. I think most companies won't risk it.
It's like Chris Rock says: "Anyone who makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a f*c|
Chris Rock really said f*c|? How does he pronounce it? That fuck must've smoked some strange shit, man.
When silencing your critics, you're going to have the attitude that you are hiding something that isnt right. In this case, the shut-in of Sveasoft and the apparent reflexive backrubbing over at for sveasoft wont help your case. Even the admins are in it as well, by locking any opinion. If it gets to the point where you're being hacked, you've got quite a lot explaining to do about what you're really up to. Either way, Sveasoft's going to be suceeded by someone who provides the same features without the obvious violation.
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization. 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. Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.
If you count the idea that if you do release it somehow (even under the sveasoft loophole) that sentence in bold applies. The "subscription releases" count as well as the public ones. Since there was no proof of identity, sveasoft and the people who think we're unjustified.
From james@sveasoft.com
I create firmware - nothing more nothing less. I leave folks like yourself to the Rikki Lake show.
If you really just made firmware you'd have only asked payment for the binaries. I dont see as much criticism for winex doing that kind of stuff, and they have gotten leaps and bounds further than wine has gotten itself. Sure, this is only firmware, but these developers dont go as if they sought the Almighty Dollar, the Holy Euro, or the Sacred Kronor.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
As a result they put inside their logo and Java and people can't figure out how to copy although they should be able to.
Same shit like these embedded guys - obscure and confuse.
Someone else commented with a link to WhiteBox Linux - I know about it and about Lineox as well.
These are nice workarounds but I'm mostly interested in the fact why someone can make non-distributable ISOs of GPL software.
---
Ok, you have a home rolled RHEL. But you can't redistribute RHEL without incurring the wrath of Red Hat's trademark lawyers so now begins the fun part. The EULA only says you must change the redhat-logos and anaconda-images packages. Yea, right. I know I didn't want to put up ISO images with RedHat's name all over it on a server in the reach of US law.
So I pretty much pulled RedHat's name off of just about everything that might imply that White Box was a relative of RHEL or anyway connected with Red Hat, Inc. I did leave their name on individual packages created by them. There is a difference between creating an impression of being connected with RedHat and stealing credit for their copyrighted works. So I left all copyright notices intact and left their name in where it would be appropriate to leave anyone else's name in place. So you do get the option to install Red Hat's server configuration tools but nowhere will Red Hat Linux or Red Hat Enterprise Linux appear to an end user. (At least in theory.... I probably missed a few.)
----
Source: http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/howto.html
See this is what I'm talking about - you build RPMs and ISOs from _GPL source_ and you still can't redistribute them. That's fxxxed up. I'm sure one day someone will put end to such stuff.
I originally thought Sveasoft's idea of providing an update subscription was a good business model, but Sveasoft's threatening of TheIndividual to remove 100% legal binaries (now with source as well, so its not violating the GPL) crosses the line. James Ewing is the one who is bitching, bitching about people legally redistributing subscriber-only binaries as per the GPL.
Tired of free ipod spam sigs? Opt ou
As a matter of fact, IAASD (I Am A Software Developer).
Data is an integral part of software. Instructions are executed, but without data the instructions are pointless. Assuming you are also a developer, take a look at your most recent project. I bet you have constants. I bet you instantiate variables with default values. Guess what? That's data. They aren't instructions, they are data for the instructions to work on. A data file is only a separation of the data from the instructions. You can have one without the other but they are then both useless.
Software is a broad term that includes both instructions and data. Just because a file contains no instructions doesn't mean its not software.
If this were instead about someone having trouble with access to some sources of an operating system made by a certain large proprietary-software company, we would cry that the license is unfair and your eyes burn when you look at the source and you don't want to see it because you can't redistribute it. Is that irrelevant, now that it's the GPL?
At least with a proprietary license you can get sued and at most you'll have to stop distributing your product. With a GPL license you have to show the sources. From the modifier's point of view, that might be worse.
Not being a lawyer, I can't say if there is or isn't a law other than what you present here that applies. Since this is /. and arguing without all the facts is standard, I'll take your word for it.
You rebutted yourself quite nicely on your first point, so I don't need to elaborate. I'll even agree that deleting the "intermediate" copy is a reasonable step, provided it isn't needed on the machine it was created.
I'll ignore the archiving argument because it's tangent to mine.
I replied to the GGrandparent because I disagreed with you and believed you were arguing with bad interpretations. All I did was argue with what I thought the bad interpretations were. It may have been best if I just stated why I disagreed with you.
Assuming this is the only law that applies, and assuming a judge agrees with your interpretation of it in a decision, it would seem that it truly is illegal to make copies of a CD. But guess what? I don't care. Why? Because I think its a bad law. And bad laws will be broken, fought, and eventually repealed because they are bad. Althought sometimes they're just ignored.
People don't work for the law, the law works for us. You can argue about how right an action is by how well it follows the law if you want. I'd rather argue how right a law is by how well it follows the desires of the people. The people, not the industries.
And that's enough preaching for me.
Part of which is why I don't recommend sitting idly by.
What would be the dangers of very short patents provisions in the GPL.
For example - where it says - changes must be published at the moment of redistribution - it could say changes must be published within three years.
I'm not suggesting idea patents - only implementation rights for a Vert-Short-Time - enough to create value for the creator while still supporting the group. It that blend of groupthink - and individual need.
AIK
just to be fair . . .
Music Data on CD is arguably NOT a computer program.
While I could be wrong - and would love to be corrected IANACDE -
The burn marks on a (music) cd are more analagous to ridges on a turntable.
Generally they express a sequence of numbers from 2 to 9 which are used to incrementally shift the output signal.
Importantly - I believe you can restructure the data using a phase-locked loop, and a few other analog components, and in short - because there is no compression of data - there is not explicit requirement for purely mathematical operations.
It may well be that we have emulated the analog reader in most cases today - but at the time the format was created - I believe it to be a high-frequency, index modulated signal - a thing substantially different from an MP3 which clearly is a set of instructions intended to run on a computing device known as an MP3 decompressor.
But I most agree with the final analysis which is that consumers want to control the WHEN of the thing - everything else is symantics and metaphors.
AIK
For QOS on your gateway, just use a simple hub/switch and a small Linux machine. Then read the Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control HOWTO.
In the case of rip-mix-burn, the .wav file on the hard drive is an ephemeral phonorecord, which falls under fair use (17 USC 107) if not under other specific chapter 1 exemptions for non-commercial ephemeral reproduction. The destination CD-R is a "digital audio recording medium" on which the 3 percent levy (17 USC 1004) has been paid, now that CD-R manufacturers have rebranded "music CD-R" media as "all use CD-R" media, phasing out the "data CD-R" SKU in order to save money at the warehouse.
You think that's bad, here's another recent occurrence in the 'ways-to-skirt-the-GPL' campaign: Gibraltar is a Debian-based firewall-on-a-cd distribution with a particularly nasty Copyright notice attached:
The Gibraltar CD-ROM layout and the selection of packages are copyrightable work and are
copyrighted by Rene Mayrhofer as such.
It basically says "If you make a cdrom with the same selection of (GPLed) files on it, you're violating my copyright".
I also noticed that the latest version of Fedora includes similar language in their new click-through 'license agreement'.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Also available is EWRT a distro aimed at hotspots and wireless coops.
:)
It includes NoCat which should be working soon.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Do you know how they tag the binaries? Should be easy to find out once you have two differently tagged ones.
What about MD5 checksums for the source tarballs?
We know how the binaries are tagged and we could remove the tag from Alchemy 5.1, but we don't need to: Three subscriptions have already been cancelled, two of them for nefarious reasons. Three binaries and one source package of that release are publically available.
Then again, knowing how Alchemy 5.1 is tagged doesn't really help in regard to future releases. It's possible to use more advanced tagging which can identify a group of binaries that have been compared to remove the tag. I have not been able to obtain more than one source tarball for comparison. For all we know the source may be tagged too. Sveasoft refuses to provide MD5 sums for his releases.
The fact that James Ewing (aka Sveasoft) secretly tags the binaries and doesn't offer a way to recreate the exact same binaries from source, thereby denying most of his subscribers the chance of verifying the integrity of the binary, just goes to show what kind of a person he really is. Plus it's a potential violation of the GPL.
Data is an integral part of those instructions. Without it, all you have is a receipe with no list of ingredients. All files, whether mp3, exe, or txt are "software".
First of all, the archival copying exemption applies to "computer programs," not to "software."
Secondly, read the law. In the definition of a "digital musical recording" at 17 USC 10, Subchapter A, Sec. 1001, Para. 5B(ii) you'll find:
...a digital musical recording may contain statements or instructions constituting the fixed sounds and incidental material, and statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in order to bring about the perception, reproduction, or communication of the fixed sounds and incidental material. (Emphasis mine.)
In other words, even if a digital music recording may look like a computer program, it's not one according to the US Copyright Act.
Don't kid yourself into believing that the people who write these laws don't know anything about computing. Both Congress and the lobbies have lots of competent staff and attorneys. They thought about this issue long before you did.
So, it appears that Sveasoft, who makes firmware that is derived from GPLed software for Linksys' WRT54G router, has found an interesting way to 'discourage' recipients of their source and binary software from redistributing it -- apparently without violating section 6 of the GPL ('You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.').
/future/ pre-releases without subscribing again, for a certain fee.
/the particular version of the software you received/, it does not trigger GPL section 6.
Their trick is that in order to receive binary + source prereleases, you need to have a paid subscription with them. That's fine under the GPL of course. However, they say that once you excercise your right to redistribute granted by the GPL, they will terminate your paid subscription, which of course does not revoke any rights to the software you've received (which were given you under a GPL license after all), but it does make it impossible to get
They seem to think that because the 'punishment' for excercising certain rights granted by the GPL does not place any additional restrictions on
It's all very interesting and could be a way for software companies that build their products upon GPLed software to harass their customers into not redistributing them.
Worrisome indeed, if you ask me.
Cheers,
Emile.
All generalizations are false, including this one. (Mark Twain)
A compilation copyright would seem to make sense in this case. I wouldn't think the selection of packages would be protectable in itself, though, as that's purely functional (and to the extent that together they form a whole, I'd think that the whole would then need to be licensed under the GPL as well). Cosmetic aspects, such as the layout of directories (beyond what the individual packages require), graphical elements, etc. could all be copyrighted or contribute to a compilation copyright. It might also not meet the "mere aggregation" test of the GPL. Regardless, all it really means is you can't make a verbatim copy of the CD, just as you can't necessarily make a copy of a book just because it has a Linux CD distributed with it.
It's very cut-and-dried is it?
You realize that all programs are just data, too, right? That's the idea of a stored-program computer - there's no distinction (new NX instructions notwithstanding) between data and instructions in a computer program. It's all a matter of what the computer chooses to interpret the data to mean.
On a certain architecture, say x86, a certain sequence of bytes is interpreted as code, and when the computer encounters it, it starts executing winamp, because instruction 1 is whatever. On a different architecture, say, an iPod, a certain sequence of data is read as a series of instructions, and the iPod behaves appropriately, creating output and waiting for input. It is certainly possible to make apure hardware mp3 player that is the equivalent of a machine that understands mp3 as its native machine language.
You gave no definitions, no distinctions, except to give examples that demonstrate that you didn't understand the argument of the parent poster - the point is, anything that does mathematical operations is a computer, and the definition of what's an executable and what's data rarely these days means things (for example, look at the fact that winamp had a bug a long while back where a malformed ID3 tag could cause arbitrary code to execute - such a file would be running code, even though you defined it as "data".
If I have a text document as a text file. Is the text file a software?
If I give you an example where the answer is "yes", will you admit that the distinction isn't as simple as you think it is?
What about a text file whose first line is:
#!/usr/bin/perl
Really? What about data that happens to use a buffer overrun in the interpretting software and then feeds machine code?
The point is that there is no native distinction - any file that one calls an executable could be interpretted as data, and vice versa - it's just a matter of what the system is told to do, admittedly, most data formats would not be recognized as executables by most computers, but that doesn't mean that there isn't some system that will recognize it.
I'm a little sad to see that a software developer doesn't realize one of the most basic operating principles of the stored-program computer.