tdb
join:2002-05-30
Concord, NC
 ·CT Communications
| reply to Sveasoft6
Re: Sveasoft defamation
It's too bad he cut off access to the free forums. Now people who are just getting involved in this can't put the whole thing in context by reading the original threads that started this mess. All we have to go on is what he chooses to tell us.
--
Linux, it's what's for dinner. |
|
MrMoke
join:2002-06-06
Austin, TX
1 edit | reply to pandora
Get a Life!
Really- If anyone wants to complain, then complain to Linksys. They were the ones forced to release the source code for their products due to their violation of the GPL contract in the first place. This, combined with the lack luster performance of the bargain-basement native firmware, led people like Wi-Fi and Sveasoft to build something better.
It's bad enough that users are forced to use third-party firmware just get functionality, and now they complain when the creators no longer wish to enhance & maintain it for free.
This is really terrible. Instead of complaining to the company that caused the problem, you complain to the guys who are trying to fix it.
The next time you get hit by a car, DON'T yell at the EMT who is trying to restart your heart because he cracked a rib. It won't go well for you. |
|
kchan4
join:2000-07-14
Fremont, CA | reply to Sveasoft6
Re: Sveasoft defamation
Is "AfterBurner" the same as "Frame Burst"? Should I leave "Frame Burst" on or disabled for better performance? |
|
tdb
join:2002-05-30
Concord, NC
·CT Communications
1 edit | reply to MrMoke
Re: Get a Life!
said by MrMoke  :
It's bad enough that users are forced to use third-party firmware just get functionality, and now they complain when the creators no longer wish to enhance & maintain it for free.
Actually, my beef, along with several others, has always been with the way Sveasoft overreacts to things. One person puts up a website allegedly fabricating an email conversation and binaries w/o code, and James now banns EVERYONE who hasn't paid money from his boards. In the beginning, James insisted this was just a hobby and that he wasn't making money from it. A few people request source for his releases, one or two start demanding it. His reaction; to go to this whole subscription model and bash those he perceives as "freeloaders" for taking food out of the mouths of his family. This whole thing now becomes a business which he makes money from. I would post links to the threads on his board to back all this up, but I can't do that anymore sonce he deleted some of them and we now can't access the rest. This whole thing could have been avoided with a public CVS server. He, however, refused to do it citing a conflict with his business model. (he tried to claim bandwidth as an issue too, but several people immediately pointed to sourceforge.) Since when does a hobby or project need a business model to protect a revenue stream? If James had said from the beginning that he was in this for the money; then all this would probably have been avoided.
--
Linux, it's what's for dinner. |
|
linksysOLD
join:2002-03-15
NI
1 edit | reply to kkapoor
Re: Somebody's getting to big for their britches
said by kkapoor :
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.
if you get your facts right linksysinfo doesn't distribute it:) we link firmware downloads to another site:) i'll link the source code if you link but that will only be on the same source as sveasofts:) hahaha
--
Regards, Simon
www.linksysinfo.org
WRT54G v2.0 (Alchemy-pre5.1 v2.07.1.8sv Firmware)
|
|
MrMoke
join:2002-06-06
Austin, TX
| reply to tdb
Re: Get a Life!
Keeping in mind that James is the focal point of everyones misplaced anger, and has every right to be angry if he wishes, I can only suggest the following:
1) If you don't like it, don't use it!
2) If you don't pay for it, don't complain unless you want to join the development team.
3) Go back to Linksys and wait for firmware 'til the hot place freezes;) |
|
viper54g
join:2004-07-16
| reply to tdb
said by tdb :
said by MrMoke :
It's bad enough that users are forced to use third-party firmware just get functionality, and now they complain when the creators no longer wish to enhance & maintain it for free.
Actually, my beef, along with several others, has always been with the way Sveasoft overreacts to things. One person puts up a website allegedly fabricating an email conversation and binaries w/o code, and James now banns EVERYONE who hasn't paid money from his boards. In the beginning, James insisted this was just a hobby and that he wasn't making money from it. A few people request source for his releases, one or two start demanding it. His reaction; to go to this whole subscription model and bash those he perceives as "freeloaders" for taking food out of the mouths of his family. This whole thing now becomes a business which he makes money from. I would post links to the threads on his board to back all this up, but I can't do that anymore sonce he deleted some of them and we now can't access the rest. This whole thing could have been avoided with a public CVS server. He, however, refused to do it citing a conflict with his business model. (he tried to claim bandwidth as an issue too, but several people immediately pointed to sourceforge.) Since when does a hobby or project need a business model to protect a revenue stream? If James had said from the beginning that he was in this for the money; then all this would probably have been avoided.
Sveasoft has 3280 subscribers.
3280 * $20 = $65500 in only a half year...
Good hobby  |
|
morph3ous
Premium
join:2002-05-16
Miami, FL
·AT&T Southeast
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to Sveasoft6
Re: Sveasoft defamation
I think you guys are missing the point entirely. Sveasoft provides their stable firmware for free. (Or at least they used to.) Anyone is allowed to redistribute the subscription firmware; however, then their support contract and ability to download new alpha builds will be terminated.
I think James has figured out an ingenious way to comply with the GPL, release code for free, and get paid for development. I paid my $20 for a subscription and am really happy with the firmware.
I do think that if these allegations of Jame's actions are true, then he is going overboard. I hope that this situation will cool down soon.
--
My Mac Commentary | Morph3ous.net | Bustin, Inc. |
|
tdb
join:2002-05-30
Concord, NC
·CT Communications
| reply to MrMoke
Re: Get a Life!
said by MrMoke :
Keeping in mind that James is the focal point of everyones misplaced anger,
How is everyones' anger at him misplaced? It's his own actions that have made people angry at him.
quote:
and has every right to be angry if he wishes,
He has every right to do whatever he wants to. Just as I have every right to point out how he is overreacting.
--
Linux, it's what's for dinner. |
|
tdb
join:2002-05-30
Concord, NC
·CT Communications
| reply to morph3ous
Re: Sveasoft defamation
said by morph3ous :
I think James has figured out an ingenious way to comply with the GPL, release code for free, and get paid for development. I paid my $20 for a subscription and am really happy with the firmware.
It is, actually. Too bad that wasn't the plan when he started. The subscription model came entirely out of the blue. Most all of us found out about it one day when we were locked out of the message boards for a day. Prior to that, James was just a really cool guy who added some nice features to the firmware and gave us a place to hang out. Overnight this whole thing became a source of revenue for him. If that isn't the case, then he, at the least, misled all of us in the beginning.
--
Linux, it's what's for dinner. |
|
kkapoor
join:2003-09-07
2 edits | reply to linksysOLD
Re: Somebody's getting to big for their britches
if you get your facts right linksysinfo doesn't distribute it we link firmware downloads to another site i'll link the source code if you link but that will only be on the same source as sveasofts hahaha
Part of quote removed. ~sorto'
Hey, there is no need to get nasty. If you read my posts, I was seeking clarifications and trying to provide information based on the actual GPL license. It was not a designed as a criticism of your site. Your site provides an excellent service.
This is exactly the kind of nonconstructive reaction that we don't require in the open source community.
Please keep personal attacks out of the threads.
|
|
viper54g
join:2004-07-16
1 edit | reply to Sveasoft6
Re: Sveasoft defamation
Today he closes the forums without warning, maybe tomorrow he will stop completely with the project... |
|
hg1981
join:2003-08-10
Los Angeles, CA | reply to Sveasoft6
I dont feel safe having this firmware ,can anybody provide proof that there is a backdoor?? |
|
dellsweig
Extreme Aerobatics
Premium,MVM
join:2003-12-10
Campbell Hall, NY
 ·Time Warner VOIP
·Vonage
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Sveasoft6
There is literally NO WAY to know if there is a back-door built in - either by a 3rd party software providor like this OR by a vendor!!! At least with the vendor - there may be some level of control by the management and some recourse from the consumer
you get what you pay for |
|
tdb
join:2002-05-30
Concord, NC
·CT Communications
1 edit | reply to hg1981
said by hg1981 :
I dont feel safe having this firmware ,can anybody provide proof that there is a backdoor??
My assurance is that the source is available to everyone (at least up until yesterday) and that there are at least hundreds of people out there with substantially more education, training, and experience then me who just *love* pouring over source code. I figure if there is a back door, they'll spread the word soon enough.
--
Linux, it's what's for dinner. |
|
dervari
join:2000-01-17
Atlanta, GA
clubs: | reply to Sveasoft6
If you're running a plan AP, it's easy to prevent any backdoors or phone homes. Just set a policy to deny outgoing traffic from the LAN IP of the AP.  |
|
ff1324
Everybody Goes Home
Premium
join:2002-08-24
On Four Day
1 edit | reply to Sveasoft6
Wow, conspiracy theorists unite!!!! Back doors, GPL violations, hurt feelings....whatever happened to the love around here.
I have tried Sveasoft's firmware, I liked it, but I prefer wifi-box's software better. That being said, I completely agree with what Sveasoft is doing. Let me explain,
If I get together with some of my friends, acquaintances, and my dog and we write source code for something covered under GPL and we generate binaries for our own use, I don't have to give everything out. Why distribute beta software that is not complete? Once I'm comfortable with the finished product, release that publicly and include the source as required.
So, we can either view the $20 as a technical support fee or a membership fee to join the club for a peek into the beta world.
FWIW, reading the information I believe was on linksysinfo.org, Sveasoft has already clarified the licensing issues with those that manage the GPL system.
It seems to me that Linksysinfo.org and sveasoft.com are two seperate and different entitites run by completely different people. As both of these organizations have contributed very much to the world of the WRT54G router, I think we owe them gratitude for going where Linksys/Cisco hasn't. Someone with a beef against sveasoft has gone out to smear their name. Let's not help the weasel.
PS...I can understand why Sveasoft has secured their forums for now, but once this blows over, I hope they will open the WRT54G forum back up in the spirit of the internet and open development. Call it....a sign of good faith towards those that aren't the rotten apples.
--
The funny thing about firemen...night and day they're always firemen |
|
pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
·ooma
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Comcast
| My interest started when an anonymous user indicated she had interference from Sveasoft as a result of offering a redistribution of a GPL binary of the firmware.
Personally I have no interest in Sveasoft per se, but do have an interest in any potential undermining of the GPL (as we all do). Users should not be prevented from using GPL rights, it appears Sveasoft on their own website is indicating it reserves the right to terminate a client access if they redistribute ( »www.sveasoft.com/modules/phpBB2/···p?t=1258 ), this seems to me to undermine explicit GPL rights, by invoking a threat of sanction for mere exercise of an explicit GPL right. That coupled with the claim of censorship (see rebuttal to Sveasoft denials at »www.linksysinfo.com/modules.php?···e&sid=81 by "The Truth"), caused me to become very concerned. The ongoing viability of GPL really is more important than Sveasoft and any issues surrounding Sveasoft per se.
Ultimately it's up to EFF to take a look from time to time and see where GPL is wandering... my hope is Sveasoft will comply with whatever EFF indicates is required for compliance with GPL... It'd be nice if we do not read again of a site being shutdown for redistributing Sveasoft GPL product, or of anyone redistributing it being referred to as a Pirate. It is my hope this board will look kindly on requests for redistributions of Sveasoft GPL binaries as other boards look kindly on other public GPL distributions of binary and source. Time will tell |
|
linksysOLD
join:2002-03-15
NI
| said by pandora :
My interest started when an anonymous user indicated she had interference from Sveasoft as a result of offering a redistribution of a GPL binary of the firmware.
WHy is this such a vendetta against sveasoft pandora?
look at Linksys WRT54G beta firmware.... NO SOURCE CODE whatsoever yet you dont have a go at them for violating gpl licensing. why not start a flame war thread against linksys? no... thats right you wont.
Linksys's support is no exsistant in forums terms and yet u dont say nothing about them in any of your posts.
wtf are you on guy? can you not just let things be for once in your life.... ooops silly question really i already know the answer to that:)
--
Regards, Simon
www.linksysinfo.org
WRT54G v2.0 (Alchemy-pre5.1 v2.07.1.8sv Firmware)
|
|
pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
·ooma
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Comcast
1 edit | said by linksysOLD :
said by pandora :
My interest started when an anonymous user indicated she had interference from Sveasoft as a result of offering a redistribution of a GPL binary of the firmware.
WHy is this such a vendetta against sveasoft pandora?
I have absolutely no vendetta against Sveasoft... I however am very pro GPL. It appears at least on first glance that Sveasofts reservation of a right to cut off redistributers of code appears to infringe upon explicit GPL rights to do that... is it ok for to protect the GPL? The more I looked into the situation, the more a wrongness appeared to me... tell me, do you have any fear of retaliation from Sveasoft cutting off YOUR access to it's site because you redistribute? If not... why? Did you see the link I offered, which indicates Sveasoft reserves the right to cut you off... are you different from everyone else? If so, why should some be treated differently when using GPL rights? If not, why would Sveasoft hold out a threat if an explicit GPL right is used? Do you think that's right?
Also tell me, should users be able to request GPL products on this board? In particular should users be able to request redistributions of Sveasoft GPL stuff on this board? What is YOUR opinion? Have you noticed it happening much? |
|
