Linksys → Re: WRT54G firmware advice

said by DaDogs:

---

Lol...

What do you mean by "static DHCP"? Do you mean that you want the DHCP server on the device to hand out IP addresses to local networked devices by MAC address?

---

Yes, i want to be able to set a specific IP based on MAC address. I started to play with Alchemy 5.2.3 as someone suggested and it did indeed have QOS (based on the latest linksys revision) and static DHCP however i was having many issues with standard networking functions.

I was able to ping various machines from my wireless devices, however DNS did not seem to work. If i tried to ping "server" it would not resolve the IP. but if i tried to ping "x.x.x.x" it would work.

Right now i am back to using the stock firmware until i find a 3rd party firmware that has those features and still maintains reliable network connectivity.

Actually Sveasoft had QoS about six months ago and the Linksys code is based on Sveasoft's, not the other way around.

said by WifiCrazy:

---

Linksys code is based on Sveasoft's, not the other way around.

---

LOL I honestly hope you don't believe that yourself.

Without linksys code there would be no sveasoft or any other 3th party firmware.

Edit : Looks like you're the same annoying anonymous guy from my topic. You can keep the 'I love James' and 'I hate HyperWRT' for yourself

said by Avenger20:

---

said by WifiCrazy:

---

Linksys code is based on Sveasoft's, not the other way around.

---

LOL I honestly hope you don't believe that yourself.

Without linksys code there would be no sveasoft or any other 3th party firmware.

Edit : Looks like you're the same annoying anonymous guy from my topic. You can keep the 'I love James' and 'I hate HyperWRT' for yourself

---

too bad linksys still managed to get the interface friendly.

said by Avenger20:

---

said by WifiCrazy:

---

Linksys code is based on Sveasoft's, not the other way around.

---

LOL I honestly hope you don't believe that yourself.

Without linksys code there would be no sveasoft or any other 3th party firmware.

Edit : Looks like you're the same annoying anonymous guy from my topic. You can keep the 'I love James' and 'I hate HyperWRT' for yourself

---

Avenger - I really had to bite my lip on this one....

"LOL I honestly hope you don't believe that yourself" --Avenger20

HypedWRT is just a cut and paste of the most basic Sveasoft Satori features onto the latest Linksys source code. But I guess you don't really want folks to know that, do you

And, yeah, I've seen the HypedWRT source code. Get real.

said by WifiCrazy:

---

"LOL I honestly hope you don't believe that yourself" --Avenger20

HypedWRT is just a cut and paste of the most basic Sveasoft Satori features onto the latest Linksys source code. But I guess you don't really want folks to know that, do you

And, yeah, I've seen the HypedWRT source code. Get real.

---

.

Hi James

said by WifiCrazy:

---

And, yeah, I've seen the HypedWRT source code. Get real.

---

funny, with three lines of code, he takes the official release and makes it work...

As real as it gets....

=====

and at least we get to see the source code without having to pay $20

said by AVD:

---

said by WifiCrazy:

---

And, yeah, I've seen the HypedWRT source code. Get real.

---

funny, with three lines of code, he takes the official release and makes it work...

As real as it gets....

=====

and at least we get to see the source code without having to pay $20

---

Regarding the comment, "funny, with three lines of code, he takes the official release and makes it work..."

I downloaded the official release yesterday. It took me zero lines of code to make it build and I am running it on my WRT54G right now. It builds out of the box. It takes practically no skill to build a stock release and very little more to hack in some trivial changes.

Regarding the trolling comment, "and at least we get to see the source code without having to pay $20."

Is that his current development tree or is that the source code for his current released code? Just curious... Your twenty bucks buys you access to the forums. The source code will be released when the new versions are released. You need to come to grips with the idea that the people who are responsible for protecting the GPL have already reviewed his distribuiton model and signed off on it. They signed off on it because his distribuiton model is *EXACTLY* the same as SuSE's, Red Hat's, Mandrakes, and Slakware's... You don't get access to the code under development. You get the binaries and the source code released at the same time.

said by DaDogs:

---

Your twenty bucks buys you access to the forums.

---

No it doesn't. Access to the forums is free. Your $20 buys you beta firmware and "support" for it.

If you don't like people bashing him then stop reading and post in the threads here. The more you whine about people bashing him, the more people will do it because it pushes your buttons the wrong way.

Also note, you can get beta versions of all the Linux distributions that you mentioned for free, unlike Sveasoft firmware.

Ok let me break it down for you once and for all.

First: Sveasoft forums are closed, you can only get inside by paying.

Second: Sveasoft is NOT releasing source with binaries, they only release the source for the previous binary when they release the latest one.

Third: Difference between all mentioned companies: they don't start a witch hunt for people who distribute software that is under GPL. They don't tag files just to make sure the witch hunting works. They don't release binaries without source code just to prevent people from compiling (tag-) free versions. They don't lie to ISPs and mail providers just to defame those who use their GPL-given rights to redistribute. Sveasoft does all this and this is what stinks about them.

I don't care about the 20$ thing, I had paid it a long time ago and got my account canceled for redistribution. I don't want software for free, I just want free software!

Regards, TheIndividual

Seems what happened is you shared a file and didn't expect to get caught. When you did you got mad and this is the result.

If someone asked you (or your Mom or Dad) to work for free you would probably get mad too. Why is it fair to ask the same of this Sveasoft?

Geez FredoF, go back and read the GPL. Don't get mad at TheIndividual for doing something the license says he can do. It is Sveasoft that is in the wrong here. They are enforcing their own extra set of distribution rules on top of the GPL, in violation of the GPL. TheIndividual tried to exercise his GPL rights, and they canceled his $20-paid-for account. Don't try and say "well the GPL people looked at our maneuverings and gave the OK" because we all know that's not true. Get an up-to-date interpretation of your crappy business tactics and see if you don't get bitch-slapped into next week by the GPL.

Exactly!!

said by ctceo:

---

Exactly!!

---

In case you have trouble with the link below... here is the full text of the FSF's reading on the Sveasoft source code distribution model:


I see no problems with this model. If the software is licensed under the
GPL, and you distribute the source code with the binaries (as opposed to
making an offer for source code), you are under no obligation to supply
future releases to anyone.

Please be clear that the subscription is for the support and
distribution and not for a license.

Peter Brown
GPL Compliance Manager
Free Software Foundation



Well, actually Gronk33073 was wrong in his assertions ... but by all means do not take my word for it ... Just go read what the FSF has said about it:

»www.sveasoft.com/modules ··· 77c870b5

It seems perfectly clear to me that FSF (the people responsible for the enforcement of the GPL) have no problem with Sveasoft's business model.

It may be that we actually have some copyright attorneys posting in this forum. I doubt it, but if we do, I suspect that they agree with the FSF on their approval of the Sveasoft business model. If you are a copyright attorney, kindly raise your hand, and post your opinion. Barring that, perhaps we have someone who feels so strongly that Sveasoft has violated GPL, inspite of FSF's reading, that they would take it upon themselves to go get a second opinion from Mr. Brown and/or the FSF. However, if you do take it upon yourself to go to the FSF and get a second reading (and they actually trouble to give a second reading) you should post it here so that we can all see if they (FSF) will stand by their original opinion.

Sveasoft's forums:
»www.sveasoft.com/modules ··· .php?f=8

Sveasoft's license and the FSF blessing of it:
»www.sveasoft.com/modules ··· 77c870b5

And for those of a mind to truly understand the GPL, instead of simply opining on something they have never actually read...

»www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl ··· faq.html

Now I know this post isn't going to put this argument to bed, but I do wonder why. AFIAK only FSF has the authority to rule on these matters outside of a court of law. FSF has ruled, we should honor that ruleing or challenge it in court.


This forum is the Linksys forum and not the place for a debate about compliance with GPL. It is strictly coincidental that the subject of the GPL compliance debate is Linksys related. There are already web sites and forum dedicated to this argument, it should be discussed there, not here.

Just my two...


I see no problems with this model. Peter Brown, GPL Compliance Manager, FSF