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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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
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'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)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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/
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