Message-ID: <03c501c4a077$9530c410$0901a8c0@test>
From: "www.sveasoft.com" <james.ewing@sveasoft.com>
To: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: WRT54G
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:41:33 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2318
Lines: 50

Just to shed some light on our 'evil claws' I would like to clarify our
development and licensing model for Sveasoft's WRT54G firmware.

We have two versions of firmware, stable and unstable, much like the Linux
kernel.

Stable versions are released for free (beer) with full source code.

Unstable versions are released to Sveasoft subscribers only, during the
development period (20 USD yearly subscription fee).

All GPL code is released under the GPL as per GPL stipulations.

Sveasoft userspace applications entirely developed by us are only released
to subscribers during the development phase. When stable these additons are
released under the Apache 2.0 license with an additional clause that they
may not be released under a more restrictive license.

What folks are mirroring and arguing about are our unstable, development
releases including code developed entirely by Sveasoft and not licensed for
general release. Stable releases are free (beer) with full source code and
are available from many different sites. Mirroring unstable dev releases is
not 'helping your neighbor' plus they contain applications developed
entirely by us not licensed for general release.

Our development cycle is approximately three months from unstable,
subscriber-only to stable, free (beer) releases. We released Nirvana stable
Dec 2003, Samadhi stable Mar 2004, Satori stable June 2004, and will be
releasing Alchemy stable in Sept 2004. We see this as a 'good thing' and a
contribution to the open source community.

Our subscription model is not making anyone rich. It is, however, allowing a
little boutique project to survice while several similar projects have
withered and died.

Why folks insist on mirroring unstable, development code that include
additions we have specifically not licensed for redistribution until stable
under the guise that the GPL gives them this right is beyond my
comprehension. Perhaps gurus like Alan C. can explain why our model is evil
and we should be done away with and why the GPL gives these folks this
right?

James Ewing
Sveasoft Inc.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/