maybe you finally should try something like this guy to settle the sveasoft problem once and for all:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/74625

(Last edited by thefRont on 27 Jun 2006, 00:21)

Or why not continue this discussion in an apropriate forum?  One that when enough people know about - it may act as a warning to others:

http://forum.sveasoftsucks.com/

c

(Last edited by Chloe on 12 Jul 2006, 14:05)

Not to beat a dead horse or raise a dead topic, but....

There might be a simple solution to this, if you can find a corporate attorney willing to do pro-bono work. It is called a class-action lawsuit. At this point, this is virtually the only way to put this offender on notice and to get absolute compliance. Has anyone attempted to contact the Electronic Frontier Foundation with a proposal, list of offenses, burden of proof or proof of concept, comparison matrix or any other legimate materials that validate the claims  of the potential plaintiff in this case?

GPL is an exacting agreement with no provisions for sub-text policy allowing for varied applications of the agreement. IF, GPL code has been utilized and public source access has not been made available, the application engineer is liable for misuse and/or damages under the letter of the law. However, specific examples or a burden of proof MUST be identified and documented appropriately.

The issues with this case, is that there is nothing to gain other than a handful of potentially complex and more-than-likely probably useless features that haven't been verified by an external or independent auditor as to their authenticity in the modification of code.

Sifting through a haze, if you read through the license, monetary gain is not necessarily within the restrictive scope of the GPL, as long as you provide for the provisions and requirements that the GPL requests additional software engineers abide by, it is still an effective marketing license to the audience looking for convenience. The other confusing element is the integration of non-GPL code with GPL code which however is legitimate, only if the non-GPL code isn't interdependent on GPL code, per say - however, this is probably the second most controversial topic regarding GPL release on the Internet today.

If OpenWRT is interested in validating their claims or picking up a fight on behalf of the GPL community, I would potentially be interested in donating my time from a production/presentation standpoint to verifying, validating and/or correcting an injustice that this seems to be turning out to be. SVEASOFT, by most angles, seems to be in direct violation of the GPL license and potentially several US and International statutes protecting licensing and developer's intellectual property rights. Consultation of a corporate law attorney is imperative to research this thoroughly though. I'm sure there are many other professionals here that have interest in ensuring the legacy and benefits of the GPL program are upheld here on the site.

(Last edited by shizniz on 10 Dec 2006, 08:02)

Look, why don't  you guys get all this info together and submit it to Pamela Jones's (PJ) site http://www.groklaw.net/ .  She was a paralegal and is a journalist with a large community.

Info at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Jones http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groklaw

This is the site that uncovered major irregularities with SCO vs IBM/Novell about their licensing with the Linux kernel.  It's been so many months now that obviously sveasoft doesn't care about your community (which is extremely unfair and WRONG), so bring it to a larger one with experience with these issues.

What about the Electronic Freedom Foundation http://eff.org

BTW I wonder if the GPL 3 contains something about "perpetual betas".  I've also seen the awful emails sent to TheIndividual by you-know-who and this makes the case even more disturbing.  So take more action from someone profiteering off your work using a license that was designed to benefit everyone in the chain.

In any case---are you guys planning to move to the GPL 3 as soon as its done?  One of the goals was to stop Tivoization, no?

(Last edited by disguested on 8 Jan 2007, 03:31)