For those with an account @ Sveasoft and which were looking for their sources, the last Talisman 1.1 release code is now on their the new source build system (and is buildable according to the annoncement).

A new devel version is now out as well with sources.

(Last edited by MathieuM on 5 Apr 2006, 07:00)

Heh, interesting.

I'll have to take a look at it when I get home.  It will be interesting to see what source is included...

I have notified the BusyBox people (again, it's been two years since) to terminate sveasoft's use of busybox. Now that we have gpl-violations.org its time to make sure they understand THEY are violating the license.

An Update the author has told me they have begun this process.

(Last edited by iwillkeepanonymous on 5 Apr 2006, 07:39)

Isn't the goal of all this to have sveasoft release their sources of any GPL software they publish as binary in their firmware/packages in a timely manner as they should have done a long time before  ?
If this goal is reached (this has to be confirmed) - why continue the process ?

AFAIK no one terminated linksys source to GPLed code now that they have released everything.

You dissmissed the point: Sveasoft started up on editing GPL code (that means that many of what sveasoft "wrote" is based on gpl code), which they put in their own Programms or code.
They do not rlease the sourcecode, or release but want actually money for it, and not the whole code, but only parts.

Now the GPL says that you have to open source if you have used GPL licensed code to create your own project. (I think so) In this case sveasoft violated the GPL.

Linksys/Broadcom wrote the main part of the drivers itself, so they do not need to release the sourcecode of the drivers.

(Last edited by redhad on 5 Apr 2006, 13:34)

They wrote the driver for sure (or a contractor), but they used to not distribute their complete firmware sources (back in 2003).
Their firmware was then (and still is) based on GPLed code. And they earned (and still do) money selling binary firmwares in their routers - with downloadable sources.

Sveasoft has to distribute the source to people which they give binary firmware to - their subscribers. It seems they are going to comply, current source for current stable and devel firmwares can be accessed by peoples which have access to those firmwares.
They are not asking for additional money for it AFAIK.

The only stuff to check are the binary only stuffs provided in their sources (which should not contain any GPLed part) - and that no copyright notice has been altered or removed from GPLed code (or non GPLed code, but that's another story).

IANAL though

(Last edited by MathieuM on 5 Apr 2006, 13:57)

Linksys opened the source. For all gpled and gpl derivated code.
You can download the binary firmware and the sourcecode if you wish, and what a wonder: it do not cost a penny.
You buy only the hardware with the "preinstalled firmware"

what? You like a router for nothing? Where do you live?

EDIT: And how do you want to operate a router without preinstalled firmware?

Is Sveasof much better then as Linksys? Linksys released the gpled/gpl derivated code. Yet Sveasoft do not released code like Linksys. (You probably must pay $20 before you can download the sveasoft code,as far as I know you must to subscribe in order to get the source code, which is than not actual and indeed the subscription costs $20, but at linksys you can download it for free) I'm very sure there are some things based uppon gpl code sveasoft provide as "their code" they telling they wrote themselves.

Also you can find this on sveasoft forum:

(Last edited by redhad on 5 Apr 2006, 14:53)

There's really nothing wrong the money issue...  all that is important is that the GPL is complied with and code is provided to those who are entitled to the binaries.

Example 1: Linksys
- Situation: Linksys distributed firmware binaries containing GPL work in their WRT54G routers without making the source available.
- Those who are owed code: Anyone owning a Linksys WRT54G, as they were improperly provided binaries without source.
- Resolution: Linksys eventually caved to community pressure and posted the firmware source for download
- Note:  One reason that linksys code and binaries were posted freely on the their website was that they had no way of tracking to whom they owed the code.  While GPL code can be shared to anyone, linksys was under no particular obligation to provide it to anyone other those who were entitled to the binaries (i.e. the hardware owners).  It just happened that using their website was a real quick and easy method for compliance.

Example 2: Sveasoft
- Situation: Sveasoft is (was) distributing firmware binaries containing GPL code to paying subscribers without offering source.
- Those who are owed code:  Paying Sveasoft subscribers, and those to whom binaries were provided.
- Resolution:  Sveasoft eventually started providing source for GPL components after some harsh criticism
- Note: Sveasoft subscribers now have access to the code, which they can possibly share at their discretion.  As much as "the community" complains, sveasoft's obligations are to provide the code to his subscribers, not the entire planet.  However, distributing sveasoft files, while generally following the spirit of the GPL will often terminate your forum account (which is a different issue altogether).

As much as I like the idea that most GPL code and software is released to the world free of charge, the GPL is largely a contract between the coder and the recipient.  Third-parties can complain all they want, but that doesn't mean that they're entitled to anything.  Imagine the following hypothetical scenario:

Example 3: Lockheed-Martin (or some other defense contractor)
- Situation: Lockheed creates a new spy satellite using GPL code and sells one to Canada.
- Those who are owed code: Anyone who has the cool spy sat (i.e. Canada)
- Resolution: Lockheed gives the code to Canada.
- Note: Even if the world finds out about GPL software in orbit, there is absolutely no way, or legal reason, that Lockheed or Canada will provide the code to other countries or any entity not in possession of the binaries (a satellite).  There's no stopping the GPL code if it is leaked to a third party, but that doesn't mean that the third-party was somehow entitled to it in the first place.

Just because the GPL tends to foster goodwill and sharing, it doesn't mean it is mandatory.

/Man, this thread won't die.  Are we having fun yet?

(Last edited by tamerlane on 6 Apr 2006, 02:41)

tamerlane : you got my point

redhad : linksys is doing everyone a favor by providing the source to anyone, not just peoples buying their hardware.
Oh, and about redistribution, sveasoft FAQ states :

Which means everything except what they wrote and which is not GPLed (but then, as I said, only if they are honnest and didn't integrate GPLed code in there)

Heh.  It's not just that I get your point, its that we're apparently some of the few people people who've spent the two minutes it takes to read the GPL. 

It always seems that there are a lot of uninformed opinions about the GPL that mix up the concepts of "free as in speech" with "free as in beer"

Well, my Sveasoft account was disabled, threads deleted, ip address blocked,... after asking for the code.  Does that sound like freedom of speech?
Quote from the message of James: "We're sorry we are not meeting your expectations. Violating our posting policies is not an acceptable way to voice this however"
So according to him asking for the code was violating his policy...

But now he seems to have realized that his greedy business is in danger.  I am surprised he was not hired by Microsoft yet...

See what you missed is, according to James you are NOT ALLOWED TO QUESTION HIM.  It's probably not so much that you asked for the code.  It's that you posted comments about him somewhere on some forum, and he read it. He lurks in lots of forums looking for traitors.  He views any comments about him, as treason, and your account is executed for it.

Oh, I'm not allowed to ask for the source code? Wow, isn't it gpl?

James whole practic is somehow very rude and harsh. (somehow like microso..)

(Last edited by redhad on 19 Apr 2006, 11:54)

Well, I still don't have access to the code either. Here is a summary of messages between James and I:

Mar 22, 2006

Mar 29, 2006

Mar 30, 2006

Mar 30, 2006

Apr 01, 2006

Apr 19, 2006

Still no code yet!

I think you missed my point. If you so much as try to make a post on his forums with the string "DD-WRT" you will find the swear-filter replaces it with "an Alchemy fork" and you will soon be on the receiving end of a warning message from him.  If you post ANYWHERE any criticisms of him, his product or his business practices, you will be banned. My crime was posting on the linksysinfo.org forums what I thought were some reasonable criticisms of his poor handling of a 3-day unannounced downtime on his download server. For that I was kicked out of the club.  It's not the GPL per-se, although that is obviously another area where he cannot resolve his conflict about basing his work on GPL but not honoring it, so he takes it out on his users. Read his comments earlier in the thread.

Oh, we share quite the same point of view.

Hmm, I don't think James is really interested in complying with the GPL.

I still don't have access to the source code. All e-mails to James are simply being ignored.

Sent to rridley (Ephraim)  on April 19, 2006. Fully buildable source with GPL, BSD, MIT, Artistic, and proprietary licensed packages in source form. Fully compiles to the Talisman/Basic V1.1 binary image. Source tarball is available to all current Sveasoft subscribers.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Sveasoft Support" <support@sveasoft.com>
To: "Randy Ridley" <rridley@anr.net>
References: <1143068749.6083.3.camel@gandalf.network.anr.net> <059a01c64e40$d1e16180$0901a8c0@winxp> <1143676177.9043.0.camel@gandalf.network.anr.net> <103ed01c6541f$3bdd8350$0901a8c0@winxp> <1143862964.11257.1.camel@gandalf.network.anr.net> <107b301c65596$e77e7e80$0901a8c0@winxp> <1145447623.9518.0.camel@gandalf.network.anr.net>
Subject: Re: request for GPL sources
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:18:37 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
    boundary="----=_NextPart_000_BA9C_01C663BC.261500F0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_BA9C_01C663BC.261500F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
    format=flowed;
    charset="iso-8859-1";
    reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Ridley" <rridley@anr.net>
To: "James Ewing" <james.ewing@sveasoft.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: request for GPL sources

> James,
>
> I'm still waiting for access to the code.
>
> Ephraim
>
> On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 16:16 +0200, James Ewing wrote:
>> The dev-snapshot is whatever I have on disk on a given day. It will
>> compile
>> a firmware that will work with whatever router's MAC addresses are in the
>> list in our database.
>>
>> We won't issue a refund in your case.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Randy Ridley" <rridley@anr.net>
>> To: "James Ewing" <james.ewing@sveasoft.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 5:42 AM
>> Subject: Re: request for GPL sources
>>
>>
>> > The latest snapshot would be preferable
>> >
>> > Also, I would like my $20 refunded please, since I only had two weeks
>> > of
>> > access on the full year.
>> >
>> > Thank You
>> > Ephraim
>> >
>> > On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 19:27 +0200, James Ewing wrote:
>> >> The source creation system is up now. I can either send a tarball of
>> >> Talisman/Basic V1.1 or the latest devshapshot (which is whatever
>> >> working
>> >> code I have on disk - I don't archive the snapshots).
>> >>
>> >> Which is preferable?
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "Randy Ridley" <rridley@anr.net>
>> >> To: "James Ewing" <james.ewing@sveasoft.com>
>> >> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 1:49 AM
>> >> Subject: Re: request for GPL sources
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > James,
>> >> >
>> >> > I was just wondering when I was going to get access to this tarball?
>> >> >
>> >> > Ephraim
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 07:12 +0100, James Ewing wrote:
>> >> >> Hi Randy,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'll build one tarball for the 20060315 release. You can hand edit
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> svea_conf.h file if you want to change the params to build
>> >> >> Talisman/Basic
>> >> >> or
>> >> >> Talisman/VPN.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Best Regards,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> James Ewing
>> >> >> Sveasoft
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> >> From: "Randy Ridley" <rridley@anr.net>
>> >> >> To: <support@sveasoft.com>
>> >> >> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 12:05 AM
>> >> >> Subject: request for GPL sources
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Sveasoft,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > please allow me to access the sources for the latest Talisman
>> >> >> > developer-snapshot released on 2006-03-08 and 2006-03-15
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thank you
>> >> >> > Ephraim/rridley
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>>

------=_NextPart_000_BA9C_01C663BC.261500F0
Content-Type: application/x-gzip;
    name="TalismanBasic_V1.1g.src.tar.gz"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="TalismanBasic_V1.1g.src.tar.gz"

[Binary image]

(Last edited by sveasoft on 14 May 2006, 20:26)

From what I can see right now, I didn't found where to download TalismanBasic_V1.2_rc1 source tarball.

NB : didn't bothered asking via PM as I don't need it for myself right now.

(Last edited by MathieuM on 15 May 2006, 19:39)

Well, my wife complains because I never throw any email away but the last e-mail I have from sveasoft is dated Apr 01, 2006

Don't know what happened to it if it was sent.

Please send it again.

A few days ago I sent a polite email to Sveasoft asking for the sources to TalismanBasic 1.2 RC3b, and he refused access, saying that he only distributes it to subscribers. When I informed him that he has to give it to me as well, because he's not accompanying his binaries with the complete corresponding source code, he first ignored me completely and then, when I asked again a few days later, I got this angry response:

I know that a lot of your hard work went into his software, which he does not give you credit for at all... Am I right in assuming that I am entitled to receiving the source code as well? If so, I believe something should be done about this scam.

dmiller, I am confused by your post.  Did you have a subscription?

No, but he stated in public that he does not accompany the binaries with the complete corresponding source code, but instead offers to supply it. The GPL has this to say about this method of distributing the source code:

Hmmm, I see your point.  James Ewing doesn't take kindly to "lawyering" so I'm surprised he didn't throw in some cartoony threats.  That's his usual style. Good luck!

IANAL, but you are cut-n-pasting from Section 3 of the GPL.  I am rarely the devil's advocate, and it feels particularly weird in this case, but.......

Since the start of section 3 refers to people receiving the binaries, it seems logical that it would be the people receiving binaries, who are the "third party" referred to in this section.  If you are not a binary-receiving subscriber, you may not qualify under this section.    It would be useful to know how that interpretation has been regarded previously.

(Last edited by vincentfox on 26 Jun 2006, 23:51)

I also have no idea how this part is to be interpreted, the only thing that bothers me is the large amount of stuff that he 'borrows' from us without giving us credit for.