Here is a company that is trying to make money at producing the firmware:
The group who first started modding the firmware and encourages community wireless nodes:
On 11-May-05, at 9:18 AM, Bill Reid wrote:
Here is a company that is trying to make money at producing the firmware:
And they are breaking the GPL by refusing to release the source and actively going after people (including Google) that share the firmware. They have also implemented a mechanism that locks a specific download of the firmware to a specific router (by MAC and serial number).
Here is a slashdot article (I can't find the other site I read about a bunch of this stuff)...
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/21/2255239
I personally wouldn't send them my money
shawn
Shawn Wallbridge wrote:
On 11-May-05, at 9:18 AM, Bill Reid wrote:
Here is a company that is trying to make money at producing the firmware:
And they are breaking the GPL by refusing to release the source and
The source for the released version is available: http://www.wrt54g.com/
They have also implemented a mechanism that locks a specific download of the firmware to a specific router (by MAC and serial number).
I have not seen this. I run the same binary on two routers.
Here is a slashdot article (I can't find the other site I read about a bunch of this stuff)...
A comment from the Slashdot article: "The thread summary at DSLReports only makes it clear that this is all very complicated." I agree it is not as open as other projects.
The $20/yr is for support and access to the pre-release version of the software. The debate is whether they have to release the source for the pre-release. Isn't this sort of like what sendmail and ghostscript are doing?
I have no problems supporting their effort.
-- Bill
On 11-May-05, at 2:26 PM, Bill Reid wrote:
Shawn Wallbridge wrote:
On 11-May-05, at 9:18 AM, Bill Reid wrote:
Here is a company that is trying to make money at producing the firmware:
And they are breaking the GPL by refusing to release the source and
The source for the released version is available: http://www.wrt54g.com/
Yeah, but that is a MUCH older release.
They have also implemented a mechanism that locks a specific download of the firmware to a specific router (by MAC and serial number).
I have not seen this. I run the same binary on two routers.
They implemented it in the last release.
Here is a slashdot article (I can't find the other site I read about a bunch of this stuff)... http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/21/2255239
A comment from the Slashdot article: "The thread summary at DSLReports only makes it clear that this is all very complicated." I agree it is not as open as other projects.
The $20/yr is for support and access to the pre-release version of the software. The debate is whether they have to release the source for the pre-release. Isn't this sort of like what sendmail and ghostscript are doing?
I have no problems supporting their effort.
I don't have a problem with them charging for the support or supporting them to develop it, it's the efforts they are putting into making sure people can't share and then going after people that do share (they ban people from the forums as soon as they share, they have contacted people's ISP's and claimed it violated the DMCA, etc, they even sent Google a cease and desist letter). I will try to find the site I saw earlier that documented the hell they put people through that tried to share.
shawn
Here is the letter they sent google....
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1471
shawn
On 11-May-05, at 4:45 PM, Shawn Wallbridge wrote:
On 11-May-05, at 2:26 PM, Bill Reid wrote:
Shawn Wallbridge wrote:
On 11-May-05, at 9:18 AM, Bill Reid wrote:
Here is a company that is trying to make money at producing the firmware:
And they are breaking the GPL by refusing to release the source and
The source for the released version is available: http://www.wrt54g.com/
Yeah, but that is a MUCH older release.
They have also implemented a mechanism that locks a specific download of the firmware to a specific router (by MAC and serial number).
I have not seen this. I run the same binary on two routers.
They implemented it in the last release.
Here is a slashdot article (I can't find the other site I read about a bunch of this stuff)... http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/21/2255239
A comment from the Slashdot article: "The thread summary at DSLReports only makes it clear that this is all very complicated." I agree it is not as open as other projects.
The $20/yr is for support and access to the pre-release version of the software. The debate is whether they have to release the source for the pre-release. Isn't this sort of like what sendmail and ghostscript are doing?
I have no problems supporting their effort.
I don't have a problem with them charging for the support or supporting them to develop it, it's the efforts they are putting into making sure people can't share and then going after people that do share (they ban people from the forums as soon as they share, they have contacted people's ISP's and claimed it violated the DMCA, etc, they even sent Google a cease and desist letter). I will try to find the site I saw earlier that documented the hell they put people through that tried to share.
shawn
Roundtable mailing list Roundtable@muug.mb.ca http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable
Shawn Wallbridge wrote:
The source for the released version is available: http://www.wrt54g.com/
Yeah, but that is a MUCH older release.
They just updated it on April 21, 2005. It apparently is the same as the last pre-release Alchemy-pre7a which is 3 months old.
As a late followup to the Linksys WRT54G firmware thread, here's a link on Seattle Wireless that gives an angle on the Sveasoft story that is, I think, more important than the legal GPL angle. It's a story about open source community. It gets interesting near the end of the large third paragraph - search for "Buzbee".
http://www.seattlewireless.net/~mattw/index.cgi/seattlewireless/hacknight/20...
Stuart Williams.
Stuart Williams wrote:
As a late followup to the Linksys WRT54G firmware thread, here's a link on Seattle Wireless that gives an angle on the Sveasoft story that is, I think, more important than the legal GPL angle. It's a story about open source community. It gets interesting near the end of the large third paragraph - search for "Buzbee".
http://www.seattlewireless.net/~mattw/index.cgi/seattlewireless/hacknight/20...
Stuart, thanks for the link. It does put another spin on it. Sveasoft's development is obviously built on the work of Seattle Wireless.
My position is pretty close to Cringely's article(link at bottom of page).
I appreciate the work that Sveasoft is doing and even through I am not in love with their business model I do not feel they are violating the GPL.
Generally people do have to make money so they either work on OSS part time, receive support from companies, ask for donations or come up with schemes like Sveasoft to fund the development.
-- Bill
-
Bill Reid -
Shawn Wallbridge -
Stuart Williams