| Sveasoft defamation An individual is distributing binaries of Sveasoft firmware via a web site that also includes several pages of text designed to defame Sveasoft and our work.
1) This individual has never subscribed or contributed to Sveasoft hence has never had the ability to download firmware from us to the best of our knowledge.
2) To the best of our knowledge no subscriber has knowingly or willingly distributed our firmware to this individual.
3) Due to 1 & 2 it is likely that this firmware is either not from Sveasoft or that it has been taken from someone's machine without their consent.
4) This firmware is distributed without source code in violation of the GPL.
5) The statements and text on the website are designed to defame Sveasoft and are there for no other reason than to dirty our reputation.
6) We have contacted several authorities but have been told in each instance they are powerless to stop this kind of behavior. Should anyone know who this individual is please contact your local authorities and report them. |
|
 DrunkulaPremium
join:2000-06-12
Denton, TX | I don't have anything useful to add but that sucks! The world is full of buttheads....
--
'I just love scanning for lifeforms!' |
|
| reply to Sveasoft6
The Linksysinfo site and Linksys corporate web sites were both the target of hacking attempts recently and it is likely the same individual is responsible. |
|
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
 ·Comcast
4 edits | reply to Sveasoft6
Let me ask the source.
1) The above picture is credited to Sveasoft, and was found where a would be redistributers attempt to offer a version of a Sveasoft GPL binary was made. Could you please indicate, IS this a jpg for which you are responsible or which you in any way have an affiliation with? If so, please explain your affiliation with the jpg. Explain if this is yours, why on investigation of a claim of censorship I should endure baseless slurs and profanity from your company?
2) Has Sveasoft written as it has been accused elsewhere on dslreports to either DSLReports, Yahoo.com or 30mb.com and complained about any persons seeking or distributing Sveasoft GPL source or binaries? If so, could you please explain the nature of the infraction in seeking a Sveasoft GPL source or binary in detail as to why they would not be permitted to redistribute or aquire GPL code from a place other than Sveasoft?
3) If you have ever writen moderators or webhosts to prevent redistribution of Sveasoft GPL code or binary or requests for the same, please explain the basis; do you assert a right to request moderators on this board or webhosts elsewhere to remove user requests or links for alternative redistribution of Sveasoft GPL code or binaries?
4) Is the email listed at a questioned website a legitimate transcript of email you exchanged with the user anne3154juul@yahoo.com. If not, can you please provide either a flat denial of any exchange of email from you or a link to your unedited email to that user?
5) Do you assert any right beyond GPL for source or binaries in development? That is do you make a claim to be able to preclude redistribution of GPL code AND binaries in development which a subscriber has obtained from your site (or a licensee has obtained from a redistribution under GPL), or do you assert any right to preclude redistribution of Alchemy source or binary in any way, provided the distribution retains gpl licensing? If so, please state the nature of the right.
Thanks, hey I'm looking forward to great or at least revealing answers!  |
|
| reply to Sveasoft6
Sveasoft is not responsible for the above picture.
The text at the defaming site is ficticious and no such exchanges ever took place.
If a Sveasoft subscriber chooses to redistribute their firmware under the GPL they are free to do so.
Sveasoft is not the "bad guy" here. We produce firmware and give it away for free (no cost).
Why are we on trial here and why do you wish to defame us? |
|
1 edit | reply to Sveasoft6
The above p2p alchemy 5.1 firmware is different from the official one. Almost 150000 bytes different. (4 bytes in the beginning and the other in the end).
The strange thing is that the firmware is not larger, just different.
Looks to me like sveasoft tags their firmware to see which customer leaks it 
The 4 byte difference in the beginning is probably to identify the username and the other bytes are encrypted with this username to prevent people from simpely erasing their username from the firmware.
Or I could be wrong and this firmware contains a big backdoor. |
|
|
|
 BranoI hate VogonsPremium,MVM
join:2002-06-25
Burlington, ON
kudos:3
 ·Bell Fibe
| I seriously doubt that they're compiling firmware for each client ...
I'm not their subscriber but from what I hear and read to subscribers they're giving for download latest development snapshot. The one which is on P2P may be simple just older date (but maybe not and it's a modified one  ) |
|
| Firmware version is the same. Custom firmware for each subscriber can be easely made with a PHP script.
I'm just curious if it's a username tag by sveasoft or a backdoor... |
|
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
| reply to Sveasoft6
Thanks for the reply.
I wonder, a moderator claimed Sveasoft had requested threads containing links to sites with Sveasoft software be pulled. Is it your claim that any moderator claiming to pull a thread on dslreports due to request of Sveasoft regarding links to redistribution is making this up... if you look there are many many threads pulled. Are you claiming that the mods are taking this initiative despite the wishes of Sveasoft?
BTW, thanks your answers have been most helpful... I'm almost tempted to subscribe |
|
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
| reply to Brano
said by Brano:
I seriously doubt that they're compiling firmware for each client ...
I'm not their subscriber but from what I hear and read to subscribers they're giving for download latest development snapshot. The one which is on P2P may be simple just older date (but maybe not and it's a modified one )
Undoubtedly the safest place to acquire a Sveasoft version is from Sveasoft. However, there seem way too many dead threads requesting Sveasoft firmware on the board here, and the Sveasoft reply seems at least at first glance inconsistent with a discussion I had with a moderator on dslreports yesterday... my questions weren't all directly answered (though the first was). It'll be up to the community now, to post if they've had difficulty redistributing code or binaries, or had anything pulled. Part of the "freedom" of GPL requires the community to act as one... it'd be nice to read of peoples experiences redistributing Sveasoft firmware as we have a claim here that people are free to do so per GPL directly from Sveasoft.
|
|
| said by pandora:
Undoubtedly the safest place to acquire a Sveasoft version is from Sveasoft. However, there seem way too many dead threads requesting Sveasoft firmware on the board here, and the Sveasoft reply seems at least at first glance inconsistent with a discussion I had with a moderator on dslreports yesterday... my questions weren't all directly answered (though the first was). It'll be up to the community now, to post if they've had difficulty redistributing code or binaries, or had anything pulled. Part of the "freedom" of GPL requires the community to act as one... it'd be nice to read of peoples experiences redistributing Sveasoft firmware as we have a claim here that people are free to do so per GPL directly from Sveasoft.
you all seem to miss the point. redistribution IS allowed HOWEVER... you must distribute both binary and source code together. just showing a binary is in violation of GPL licensing and this guy who hides behind a false ID only allowed Binary to be downloaded. HE is in violation not SVEASOFT. so why not target him.
can we now quit this saga to sveasofts blood.
--
Regards, Simon
www.linksysinfo.org
WRT54G v1.0 (Satori-v4.0 v2.07.1.7sv Firmware)
|
|
 richk_1957If ..Then..ElsePremium
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith
1 edit | reply to Sveasoft6
Please explain I see a lot of talk about Sveasoft & the GPL, could somebody clear up a few points for me
[and since I'm not great on legalese, someone correct me if I'm wrong]. -
If you are operating under the GPL license, all software must be distributed not just as binaries, but with the source code. The software must be freely distributable with the only fee being a charge for the media that the software is distributed on, and if support is offered, a fee may be charged for that also
Now, as far as I know, Sveasoft is operating under the GPL, so where do they get off charging for downloads? Support, I can see [Red Hat does that, you can download the Linux ISO files, but if you want support for the downloaded product, there is a charge - understandable] |
|
 jkonradKonmanPremium
join:2001-10-04
Mount Airy, MD
1 edit | Re: Somebody's getting to big for their britches GPL allows you to charge for support.
Looking at Sveasofts website the stable firmware downloads are stilla available at »www.linksysinfo.com :
"The Sveaoft forums are only open to subscribers. If you would like to test driver older, public versions of our firmware please see »www.linksysinfo.com ." |
|
richk_1957If ..Then..ElsePremium
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith | I realize that the GPL allows you to charge for support of a product, but not for the product itself - I can see & agree with that.
The links you sent »www.liksysinfo.com come up with a 'page not found' [I tried www.linksysinfo.com and it didn't work either]
Thanks |
|
| It's linksysinfo.org |
|
| reply to jkonrad
(Disclaimer): Before the mod decides to shut down this thread please note that the following is intended to provide clarification and is no way intended to defame any persons or parties:
Is Sveasoft not in violation of GPL since they don't distribute the binaries and the source code together? I don't see the source code with the Satori Firmware distribution.
Also isn't the Sveasoft firmware based on the original Linksys source code available on the Linksys site - or did he develop his own from scratch. If it is based on the Linksys source code then he must release any modified source code to the public since it wasn't his from scratch.
Any clarifications would be helpful since it is not possible to get any info from the Sveasoft site anymore. |
|
richk_1957If ..Then..ElsePremium
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith | reply to viper54g
Again, thank you |
|
| reply to kkapoor
Sveasoft firmware is based on the Linksys GPL code. You *could* find the Satori4 firmware and source code on sveasoft.com
But now you can't (as non subscriber) download anything anymore from sveasoft.com
On linksysinfo.org you can find the binairies, but not the source code. It is also unlikely that many people have the bandwidth to host the Satori4 source code.
And likely I think that there will not be anymore *free* firmwares from sveasoft  |
|
1 edit | In that case then Linksysinfo is not allowed to distribute the Satori firmware without also hosting the source code. This is in violation of the GPL.
This is the same thing that Sveasoft was accusing 'that other guy', who had posted the Alchemy firmware, of doing. (i.e. Distributing the Alchemy firmware without the source code)
This seems completely duplicitous to me.
These are the criteria that need to be met for a GPL distribution:
* Does the distribution contain a copy of the License?
* Does it clearly state which software is covered by the License? Does it say anything misleading, perhaps giving the impression that something is covered by the License when in fact it is not?
* Is source code included in the distribution?
* Is a written offer for source code included with a distribution of just binaries?
* Is the available source code complete, or is it designed for linking in other non-free modules? |
|
jkonradKonmanPremium
join:2001-10-04
Mount Airy, MD | reply to kkapoor
imo they need to have the source code on »www.Linksysinfo.com, but what do I know |
|
