how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
 Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
kudos:1
 ·Comcast
| reply to PorkRind
Re: Sveasoft's vs WiFi-Box said by PorkRind:
There, does that help? 
Don't take this the wrong way because I'm not trying to be insulting, but it really doesn't. The whole post basically boils down to WiFi-Box makes his own set and Sveasoft forums (group of people) make their own set with some tidbits about home vs WISP thrown in. It doesn't state the features that each provide (for example WiFi uses telnetd, while Sveasoft uses openssh).
The one thing I didn't think too much about until you brought it up was that WiFi-Box is ignoring the GNU GPL which is very bad from both a legal and ethical standpoint. It makes it worse that he has stated that he borrowed code (static DHCP) from people posting in the Sveasoft forums and included them in his firmware (I would think they would be annoyed at that). | |
| said by Morac:
said by PorkRind:
There, does that help?
The one thing I didn't think too much about until you brought it up was that WiFi-Box is ignoring the GNU GPL which is very bad from both a legal and ethical standpoint. It makes it worse that he has stated that he borrowed code (static DHCP) from people posting in the Sveasoft forums and included them in his firmware (I would think they would be annoyed at that).
Well if its open source like you say and it should be shared, then it shouldn't matter if he does use some of the sveasoft code as long as the person gets credit for their work.
Personally I feel that most of the stuff sveasoft is adding most people will not use in my opinion. WDS from what little I understand, shares your internet connection with a wide area, which to me seems very risky.
One thing I like is that Wifi organizes the new options on the menus instead of putting them all on one page like the sveasoft firmware does.
I'm more disappointed in Linksys for putting out a router firmware lacking features compared to other lesser known brands. So much so that we have to resort to using hacked firmware to get features (which probably is a security risk in itself). | |
Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by tc17:
Well if its open source like you say and it should be shared, then it shouldn't matter if he does use some of the sveasoft code as long as the person gets credit for their work.
Unfortunately that's not how GPL works. Since LinkSys uses GPLed code (linux) for their router they have to, by law, release the source code for any derived code (meaning that it wasn't 100% developed by them). Similarly if someone takes LinkSys's source code and modifies it they have to release the source code if they release the binary. That's how the GPL works. It's not just open source, it's GPL open source. So if WiFi-Box releases the binary but does not make the source code available his is violating the GNU GPL and thereby violating the copyright license.
said by tc17:
Personally I feel that most of the stuff sveasoft is adding most people will not use in my opinion. WDS from what little I understand, shares your internet connection with a wide area, which to me seems very risky.
I've read they've added QOS ability to the router which is useful if you use VOIP. They also came up with the static DHCP implementation and remote logging which is useful to home users. A list of features is here though some of it is a bit cryptic and I don't think it's complete.
I agree though that most of the hacked firmwares put LinkSys's one to shame. Linksys should fire their firmware writing team and hire these guys. | |
1 edit | reply to Morac
Don't take this the wrong way because I'm not trying to be insulting, but it really doesn't. The whole post basically boils down to WiFi-Box makes his own set and Sveasoft forums (group of people) make their own set with some tidbits about home vs WISP thrown in. It doesn't state the features that each provide (for example WiFi uses telnetd, while Sveasoft uses openssh).
OK, then let me restate my point in a less wishy-washy way:
"Wifi-Box's firmware is in violation of the GNU General Public License, under which the original LinkSys source was distributed. It may contain malicious and/or vulnerable code. Until he releases the source to the public, there is no way to verify this without an intensive effort that will, for the individuals undertaking it, provide virtually no reward. Use this firmware only if you implicitly trust Wifi-Box's intentions and coding skill, and expect him to remain available to support it."
"Sveasoft's firmware contains all of the functionality present in Wifi-Box's firmware, along with a number of significant security enhancements, albeit in a somewhat less user-friendly form. However, Sveasoft has completely complied with the GNU General Public License, and the complete source code is publicly available for review, modification, and redistribution. Because of the number of people with access to the source, it has a much lower likelihood of containing undetected malicious and/or vulnerable code. In the event that Sveasoft should disappear, the source will remain for future enhancements and bug fixes."
In my opinion, all the comparison points needed are right there in the two paragraphs above. Until Wifi-Box complies with the terms of the GPL and posts his source, I would not recommend it over the Sveasoft firmware, regardless of the intended use. The Sveasoft firmware's only downside is some additional complexity in configuration when the hardware is used for more advanced/specialized purposes.
Wifi-Box's refusal to provide his source is a mystery. Given that he's legally required to do so and has been aware of that fact for some time, I am concerned with regard to his long-term intentions. I certainly hope he will do the right thing, as many are happily using his firmware distribution and he has been providing very good support for it here. | | |
|
|
