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.

Comments

Is Sveasoft violating the GPL?

[jgerry]

Certainly, almost probably 100% for sure. I think.

It is complicated

[zaxios]

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'.

Re:I believe that GPL is pretty clear on this

[Kiryat Malachi]

For the last time, the FSF has approved Sveasoft's scheme. They don't seem to have any problems with it, and as such I doubt there will be any lawyers involved, or any changes to the GPL relating to this case.