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.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
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
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.
Ok let me try to explain it to you.
It is not about GPL violations. It is about the way Sveasoft reacts to the legal act of redistribution.
After I posted a binary of Alchemy 5.1 they send me threat emails, lied to my mail provider to get the account banned, lied to my webhost ("pirated versions") and got that account banned.
I am sick of Sveasoft's fanboys pretending that everyone else is a cheap bastard just because we stand up for our rights. It's fine with me if Sveasoft charges 1.000$ for a firmware binary as long as they let people pass it on freely.
If you're still not convinced read the emails that James send me.
A nice quote:
"You really should do some background research on who you are fucking with. I will eventually find out exactly who you are and where you live and
then we're gonna have some real fun."
http://wrt54g.streamfire.net/