  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
 ·T-Mobile US
| marxist license ... which provided sveasoft with revenue! Let me see, as long as its free for svaesoft to get the code, they're happy to work with the open source license, but the instant they're held to the rules, they get mad! Pathetic
--
|-In a fascist government, National Security ALWAYS overrides Personal Freedoms.-| |- »www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml -| | |
|
 |  John_WPremium
join:2000-04-25
Worcester, MA | Re: marxist license Sveasoft are a bunch of deadbeats. I subscribed to their firmware updates for a year and found them ok. But when that year was up and I didn't want to resubscribe, Sveasoft decided on their own to resubscribe me and refuse to refund me my money when I requested a refund.
It wasn't until I filed a grievance with PayPal that they decided to refund me my money.
Greedy Deadbeats!
--
Free Hat!! | |
|
| | macaholicPremium
join:2003-08-31
Jackson Heights, NY
2 edits | Re: marxist license all subscribers to sveasoft need to do a payment history and find a link to the sveasoft subscription from there you can cancel it... Sveasoft claims only the paypal user can do this...its very convenient and not easy to do with paypal unless you have a link to the last time the subscription transaction took place.... I could find no direct link to active subscriptions...
Ben
--
"You don't subject minority rights to a referendum." Justice Minister Irwin Cotler of Canada | |
|
| | |  qthrul
join:2002-10-20
Morrisville, NC | Sveasoft paypal auto-renew scam In case you were wondering how Sveasoft managed to squeeze folks out of another $20 a year later I've pulled together the screen shots that will help people avoid or possibly correct this. Let's hope someone from Sveasoft reads this or search engines pick it up.
Screenshots:
»www.flickr.com/photos/jcuthrell/···0662249/
My blog about this whole Sveasoft Paypal thing:
»fudge.org/2006/04/30/nice-try-sveasoft/ | |
|
 Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 |  OpenWRT would have a problem in court
The GPL itself is an "all or nothing" license based on the economic and political theories of Karl Marx. It claims it can subsume any other license if a single line of "GPL" licensed source code is used anywhere in the source files. Should this occur, all source code files become magically GPL licensed in their entirety. Naturally this claim by the GPL has never been tested in court and the GPL folks have adroitly avoided any and all court cases that might lead to a thorough legal review of the GPL license terms.
Projects like OpenWRT have "re-licensed" large portions of Broadcom copyright source code (and Sveasoft copyright source code) as GPL licensed source code. Since the above license terms specifically and clearly forbid this, this means the entire distribution's copyright and license terms are in doubt. Since the GPL is "all or nothing", according to the terms of the GPL none of OpenWRT is covered by the GPL license anymore. Quite a catch-22.
Hopefully a US court will decide the validity and legal reach of the GPL sometime soon (GNU is a US-based organization). IF the highlighted info above is correct as to the facts, then OpenWRT would have a very hard time winning anything in court. I doubt Sveasoft has much to worry about from OpenWRT's threats.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
|
| nshulga
join:2002-06-06
Morrisville, PA | Re: OpenWRT would have a problem in court said by Romney2012:» www.linksysinfo.org/modules.php?···&thold=0The GPL itself is an "all or nothing" license based on the economic and political theories of Karl Marx. It claims it can subsume any other license if a single line of "GPL" licensed source code is used anywhere in the source files. Should this occur, all source code files become magically GPL licensed in their entirety. Naturally this claim by the GPL has never been tested in court and the GPL folks have adroitly avoided any and all court cases that might lead to a thorough legal review of the GPL license terms.
...
IF the highlighted info above is correct as to the facts, then OpenWRT would have a very hard time winning anything in court. I doubt Sveasoft has much to worry about from OpenWRT's threats. The highlighted info is not factually correct. It's plain old BS.
Suggested reading: GPL license, Groklaw, wikipedia. | |
|
| | | | Re: OpenWRT would have a problem in court Right. If you use GPL licensed code in a non-free license, you're in violation of copyright, but that doesn't automatically mean the remedy is to release all your code under the GPL.
As for Sveasoft, they're violating the GPL left and right. Distributing binaries without source, refusing to allow redistribution of binaries without penalty, "re-licensing" other people's code which was already under the GPL, etc. | |
|
|  AmeritecTechChange we can believe in, 1922Premium
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX
kudos:6 | said by Romney2012:» www.linksysinfo.org/modules.php?···&thold=0The GPL itself is an "all or nothing" license based on the economic and political theories of Karl Marx. It claims it can subsume any other license if a single line of "GPL" licensed source code is used anywhere in the source files. Should this occur, all source code files become magically GPL licensed in their entirety. Naturally this claim by the GPL has never been tested in court and the GPL folks have adroitly avoided any and all court cases that might lead to a thorough legal review of the GPL license terms.
Projects like OpenWRT have "re-licensed" large portions of Broadcom copyright source code (and Sveasoft copyright source code) as GPL licensed source code. Since the above license terms specifically and clearly forbid this, this means the entire distribution's copyright and license terms are in doubt. Since the GPL is "all or nothing", according to the terms of the GPL none of OpenWRT is covered by the GPL license anymore. Quite a catch-22.
Hopefully a US court will decide the validity and legal reach of the GPL sometime soon (GNU is a US-based organization). IF the highlighted info above is correct as to the facts, then OpenWRT would have a very hard time winning anything in court. I doubt Sveasoft has much to worry about from OpenWRT's threats. GPL is solid, and the fact that no one has ever tried to defy it in court is a testament to the fact that it is considered strong. Linux and many of the programs distributed with it are also licensed under the GPL.
Anyway, anyone who doesn't want to use GPL-protected source code doesn't have to. They can ignore it and write their own code.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."-John Callari | |
|
| |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
 ·Frontier FiOS
| Re: OpenWRT would have a problem in court said by AmeritecTech:Anyway, anyone who doesn't want to use GPL-protected source code doesn't have to. They can ignore it and write their own code. Actually, the "viral" nature of the GPL only really kicks in once you redistribute the code. You are free to use, modify, and keep to yourself all the code you want. Only when you start giving it away (or charging for it) that you must make your changes available.
Sveasoft was ok, although probably not in the spirit of the GPL, charging for their subscriptions. Booting people from their forums and restricting access also was crappy but still technically within the limits of the GPL. But when they started distributing binaries and not releasing the source code it became a problem.
--
"What gives them the right to come in and do this?" she said. - Lady complaining that she was getting FIOS in her backyard. | |
|
| AmeritecTechChange we can believe in, 1922Premium
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX
kudos:6 | said by Romney2012:» www.linksysinfo.org/modules.php?···&thold=0The GPL itself is an "all or nothing" license based on the economic and political theories of Karl Marx. It claims it can subsume any other license if a single line of "GPL" licensed source code is used anywhere in the source files. Should this occur, all source code files become magically GPL licensed in their entirety. Naturally this claim by the GPL has never been tested in court and the GPL folks have adroitly avoided any and all court cases that might lead to a thorough legal review of the GPL license terms.
Projects like OpenWRT have "re-licensed" large portions of Broadcom copyright source code (and Sveasoft copyright source code) as GPL licensed source code. Since the above license terms specifically and clearly forbid this, this means the entire distribution's copyright and license terms are in doubt. Since the GPL is "all or nothing", according to the terms of the GPL none of OpenWRT is covered by the GPL license anymore. Quite a catch-22.
Hopefully a US court will decide the validity and legal reach of the GPL sometime soon (GNU is a US-based organization). IF the highlighted info above is correct as to the facts, then OpenWRT would have a very hard time winning anything in court. I doubt Sveasoft has much to worry about from OpenWRT's threats. OpenWRT became possible because Linksys USED GPL-protected code. When they were notified of the fact that they were now part of the GPL, they RELEASED THE CODE, making OpenWRT possible. Sveasoft can't take part in GPL and then not abide to its terms. If they have a problem with that, they can write their own code.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."-John Callari | |
|
 yockTFTCPremium
join:2000-11-21
Miamisburg, OH
kudos:3 | Which GPL? Version 1? 2? Latest draft of 3? It would be nice to know which "Section 4" they allegedly violated before passing judgement. | |
|
| AmeritecTechChange we can believe in, 1922Premium
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX
kudos:6 | Re: Which GPL? Here's a link on the matter: »forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=4768
Their violation is that they are not releasing source code (none since July). Any version of GPL prohibits this.
Sveasoft claims:
I suspect this is in reaction to our latest "developer-snapshot" release, which is for internal use by members of our internal Test Group. Developer-snapshots are alpha builds for internal testing and are not for general subscriber use. That's BS. ANYONE can subscribe to their "Internal Test Group".
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."-John Callari | |
|
| | yockTFTCPremium
join:2000-11-21
Miamisburg, OH
kudos:3 | Re: Which GPL? Yeah, the "alpha" moniker is nonsense. The GPL doesn't care about the release status of a product, only that the source code must be available either via download or in the software package itself.
This may end up being one of those "who cares?" moments, though. Sveasoft has complied with the GPL for this long, even if they do just barely fall into compliance. I just don't see the FSF getting to deeply involved unless OpenWRT really pushes hard. In the end, by kicking around Sveasoft, OpenWRT is only pushing back the cause of for-profit free software. That isn't in anyone's best interest.
--
Wiki Wiki
First of all, if what I write appears to be too simplified, please excuse me. --Martin | |
|
| | | | | Re: Which GPL? said by yock:Yeah, the "alpha" moniker is nonsense. The GPL doesn't care about the release status of a product, only that the source code must be available either via download or in the software package itself. This may end up being one of those "who cares?" moments, though. Sveasoft has complied with the GPL for this long, even if they do just barely fall into compliance. I just don't see the FSF getting to deeply involved unless OpenWRT really pushes hard. In the end, by kicking around Sveasoft, OpenWRT is only pushing back the cause of for-profit free software. That isn't in anyone's best interest. That is the heart of GPL. If Sveasoft, or anyone else violates the GPL, and the violator isn't called to task there will be no free/open source software. Sveasoft should abide by the rules, or remove the GPL'd code from their product, period. If that puts their lame ass out of business, tough shit! There is nothing wrong with writing code for profit, but you can't privatize GPL'd open source code, which is what they've done. I do not wish Sveasoft any luck whatsoever in violating the GPL. I hope the FSF sues, and I hope Sveasoft gets their ass handed to them in a court of law. | |
|
| | | | yockTFTCPremium
join:2000-11-21
Miamisburg, OH
kudos:3 | Re: Which GPL? Thus far, Sveasoft hasn't really privatized any code of substance. This was an internal build meant for alpha testing, not a public alpha or beta. Now, I'm no GPL expert and I can't speak to how it falls in line with compliance, but common sense tells me that OpenWRT is cashing in on Sveasoft's recent unpopularity. If it happens that the FSF cares to get involved, then I'll change my tune, but until then OpenWRT really needs to get a grip and realize just who they're hurting.
--
Wiki Wiki
First of all, if what I write appears to be too simplified, please excuse me. --Martin | |
|
| | Who cares? I was unwittingly sold a Linksys v5 router and can't choose the firmware I want to update with anyway. I'll snub my nose at both of these companies. They're all out to get your money anyway. | |
|
| HossSauters A Walrus
join:2000-10-05
Tulsa, OK | Re: Who cares? Only Sveasoft is, since they're the only one charging money for the firmware.
There's better firmware out there then that crap they're pushing... | |
|
| | | How were you unwittingly sold a version 5 router? The serial number prefixes denoting version levels are all over the web and the serial number is on the outside of the box. | |
|
| | | | Re: Who cares? I had already researched and decided to buy a Linksys router just before it was disclosed you could not use third party firmware to update the V5. I purchased online from Tiger Direct. Subsequently I learned about the inadequacies of the V5 router. Linksys did not disclose it and neither did Tiger Direct. Only after a lot of research and from this wonderful forum did I discover the router I was about to receive was a "dumbed down" version. They didn't even change the basic model number. They were sneaky. I must say, however, the router performs as advertised once I updated the firmware to the latest version. In their haste to "cheat" their customer, they released a broken, under performing product to unsuspecting customers. They lost a lot of good will in my opinion. | |
|
| | |  envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA | Re: Who cares? It's called Cisco wanting to charge you up the a$$ for something more useful.  | |
|
 Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1
 ·Bright House
·Sprint Mobile Br..
2 edits | Who Shot J(r) Ewing?...... This is small taters. I can't count how many time I've seen this particular spat....
With J(r)Ewing on one side and a developer or customer on the other; bickering over GPL.
It's always the same spat. OpenWRT joins a long line of people accusing J(r)Ewing of violating the GPL in one way or another.
They bring a charge, he blusters (or threatens) and a week later it's over for another 3 months.
Sue him or forget it already. I don't know anyone wants to see J(r) puff his chest out one more time.
Sheese.
If he sends me a threatening email over this post, I'll post it over in the comedy forum.
NV
this be edited for gramma
Abortion: Improves the Gene Pool! | |
|
| | why sveasoft? i don't like Sveasoft, personally i don't think they should charge people with those firmware, they could encourage ppl donate instead, and honestly for me it seems Hyperwrt variant like thibor is better than sveasoft. if i pay $10 or 20, i am expecting something that's better than those free outside in terms of performance, stability , features. | |
|
|  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
 ·VOIPo
|  Re: why sveasoft?
said by lemonade:i don't like Sveasoft, personally i don't think they should charge people with those firmware, they could encourage ppl donate instead, and honestly for me it seems Hyperwrt variant like thibor is better than sveasoft. if i pay $10 or 20, i am expecting something that's better than those free outside in terms of performance, stability , features. True, and maybe be open to a little criticism. I mentioned in the Sveasoft forums that I did not think it was worth the money, and was promptly banned from the site. Real great business model that clown has.
--
Make a Difference-Join Team Helix! | |
|
|  rideboarderwelcome to the socialPremium
join:2003-07-28
Snohomish, WA | said by lemonade: it seems Hyperwrt variant like thibor is better than sveasoft. Couldn't agree more. The thibor variant of Hyperwrt is excellent! | |
|
|  BillPremium,VIP
join:2001-12-09 | At one time, all those other firmwares didn't exist. There were only a few available. | |
|
| | i love openwrt it is great firmware , i like it alot | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Marxist? quote:
James Ewing of Sveasoft claims the GPL itself is "an 'all or nothing' license based on the economic and political theories of Karl Marx." Dirty Commies!
Did Ewing even bother to read anything written by Karl Marx before making such a stupid statement? People writing software and then choosing how that software is to be distributed is a prime example of the individual freedom which is nullified by Marxism.
If this thief doesn't want to abide by the terms of the OpenWRT license then he cannot use the software. If he had been pilfering code owned by Microsoft he would be in all sorts of legal trouble. How does OpenWRT being licensed under the GPL automatically weaken any protections that it already has under US copyright law?
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! | |
|
| envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA | Re: Marxist? The Sveasoft clan lives in their own little world where they and everything they do is great for mankind or the galaxy. Just look at how they ban people for opining about the pay model. (I think it is funny tho how they charge you so you can be a beta tester for them.) They started bending rules and crossing lines and it's about time they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. | |
|
mikefxu
join:2004-10-05
Titusville, FL | DD-WRT DD-WRT works great for me and I didn't have to pay a thing. | |
|
| | | Re: DD-WRT I'm using 'HyperWRT 2.1b1 +tofu11' on my linksys router. | |
|
| | | I am also using DD-WRT v23 on 3 WRT54GL's set up as a WDS mesh network. The main router is set up as a VPN server as well. DD-WRT works exceptionally well for these tasks and many more. Best of all it is free for personal use. | |
|
lgkahnPremium
join:2005-02-15
Londonderry, NH | get a life I don't agree about sveasoft booting people for complaining but it is their forums and their right..
get a life..
20 is not much to pay for firmware per year.. and what that gets you is instant response to problems etc. and ongoing maintenance.. ie they are adding new features etc.. and their firmware out of all I have tried works the best with wds and non linksys devices.. | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
|
