|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Sveasoft and the GPL

Sveasoft is a small company which makes its living by selling supported versions of Linux-based firmware for a number of wireless routers. Paying subscribers can download current versions of the firmware, which adds a number of features not normally found on those routers. They can grab updated versions as they become available, and participate in support forums as well.

Sveasoft's products are based on free software - Linux in particular. The company's approach to GPL compliance has raised eyebrows for a couple of years now. One tactic employed by the company has been to terminate support accounts for any subscriber who further redistributes the Sveasoft binaries or source. The GPL says that customers are entitled to that code (for the GPL-licensed portions of Sveasoft's products, at least), and that they have the right to pass it on to others. Sveasoft has responded that, when this redistribution happens, it is no longer obligated to provide future versions of the software. The company has employed various schemes for determining which subscriber has redistributed any particular version, and has been quite aggressive at shutting down accounts.

To some, it looks very much like Sveasoft is attempting to add restrictions to the GPL-licensed software it uses for its products. It is, in essence, imposing a penalty on anyone who redistributes its products. In the end, however, challenges to this model have not gotten far, and the Free Software Foundation has stated that Sveasoft is in compliance with the GPL - at least, with regard to its support agreements.

It seems that the story does not stop there, however. Sveasoft makes "pre-release" versions of its firmware available to subscribers. In practice, it seems that these "pre-release" releases are the actual product; the "public" releases tend to lag far behind. It also seems that the corresponding source is not made available to anyone - not even subscribers. Sveasoft argues that, since this is a limited, "pre-release" distribution, it is not obligated to provide source as well. The GPL, however, makes no exceptions for "pre-release" distribution.

The OpenWRT Project, on whose work Sveasoft's product is based, has had enough. So, in March, the project notified Sveasoft that its OpenWRT license was terminated due to GPL violations. From OpenWRT's point of view, Sveasoft no longer has any rights to be distributing OpenWRT's work in any form. Sveasoft responds that it remains in compliance with the GPL, and that OpenWRT has improperly incorporated Sveasoft code which was never meant to be licensed under the GPL - a charge that OpenWRT developers deny.

Since then, there has been a great deal of discussion, and Sveasoft's proprietor has come forward with an offer to create source tarballs on request for any subscriber who has received a copy of the binary firmware. There is also apparently an updated source tarball available to subscribers, though there has been no independent confirmation, yet, that it contains all of the source it should. The OpenWRT project has not, in any public way, rescinded its revocation of Sveasoft's license. Still, it would appear that public pressure has helped to move things in the right direction.

For now, at least. History suggests that Sveasoft will continue to push the boundaries of the GPL. Recent history also suggests, however, that Sveasoft may become less relevant in this area; by many accounts, the fully-free alternatives - beyond OpenWRT itself - go beyond the Sveasoft offerings in a number of ways. See this page on LinksysInfo.org for a detailed comparison of a few projects.


to post comments

Sveasoft and the GPL

Posted Apr 6, 2006 2:47 UTC (Thu) by charlieb (guest, #23340) [Link]

> the Free Software Foundation has stated that Sveasoft is in compliance

That's not 100% accurate. The FSF is quoted, by Sveasoft, as responding to a description by Sveasoft of their own distribution conditions. We have no evidence that Sveasoft fully described the punitive measures that they had taken when subscribers have executed their rights under the GPL.

The FSF announced in July 2004 that they were preparing a legal opinion regarding "the GPL-compatibility of business models that have accompanying service contracts" - http://www.fsf.org/news/news_item.2004-07-27.3469994098
- but the preparation of that legal opinion seems to be taking quite some time.

They are completely irrelevant...

Posted Apr 6, 2006 20:36 UTC (Thu) by ernest (guest, #2355) [Link]

... And have been for a while now. There are fine alternatives, and of these DD-wrt has made me happy.

They were interresting for a short while, but should be forgotten. Please don't even name them, just... ignore them.

It best for all of us.

Cheers,

Ernest.

Sveasoft and the GPL

Posted Apr 7, 2006 19:41 UTC (Fri) by job (guest, #670) [Link] (2 responses)

There is nothing wrong with having a GPL version lag behind a restricted version, Aladdin has done it for years and it is a perfectly valid business model. What's wrong with Sveasoft is that they don't own the copyright to the code, it surprised me a great deal that the FSF didn't have a problem with that.

As for the code, OpenWRT is a completely free replacement. It's also more competent and has fewer bugs so just use that instead. I haven't tried DD-WRT yet.

Sveasoft and the GPL

Posted Apr 7, 2006 20:49 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

There is nothing wrong with having a GPL version lag behind a restricted version ... What's wrong with Sveasoft is that they don't own the copyright to the code, it surprised me a great deal that the FSF didn't have a problem with that.

If FSF didn't have a problem with that, it's just because FSF didn't know. The article says only that FSF doesn't have a problem with the support contract issue (i.e. with Sveasoft offering updates selectively to people who haven't exercised their GPL right to redistribute the code).

Sveasoft and the GPL

Posted Apr 7, 2006 21:42 UTC (Fri) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link]

There is nothing wrong with having a GPL version lag behind a restricted version, Aladdin has done it for years and it is a perfectly valid business model.
Yes, that's viable when the company OWNS the copyright. Then they are entitled to license it in any manner they like.

But Sveasoft is incorporating GPL'd code whose copyrights are owned by others, therefore they have no legal right to use that code under terms more restrictive than the GPL. If they ship a binary to someone, they are obligated to provide source code, as per clause 3 of the GPL. They have three choices, paragraphs 3a, 3b, and 3c. They are not currently in compliance with any of the three. None of this is exempted for preliminary or test releases.

I subscribed to Sveasoft's support just before they announced that they would no longer provide source code even to subscribers. That was clearly 100% non-compliant with the GPL. I requested to cancel my subscription are get a prorated refund; in fact they refunded all of my money. At the time I was satisifed.

Later they announced that they would provide source on request to subscribers, but cancel the subscriber's subscription. This may have been GPL-compliant, but I wasn't impressed, and did not resubscribe.

Unfortunately, Paypal thought I was still a subscriber, and I did not realize that. One year to the day after my first subscription payment, Paypal transferred another $20 from my account to Sveasoft. I told Paypal to cancel the subscription, but they would not refuncd my money. I requested a refund from Sveasoft, and got no reply. So now I've paid $20 but do not have any access to the Sveasoft firmware and support for which I've (unwillingly) paid.

Although Sveasoft does some good work technically, I strongly recommend sticking to either their old public releases, or alternative projects like OpenWRT.


Copyright © 2006, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds