Talk:Sveasoft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] James Ewing

Shouldn't there be somthing about James Ewing, the founder of sveasoft? I came to this article looking for more info about him, that I read a while ago. Things like where he lives and how much money he makes are of interest to me. Also, information about where this project came from (his desire to connect to the mainland of Sweden from the island he lives on to cut broadband costs--found in this interview: http://www.linksysinfo.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=272). If anyone knows more about him, or where to find information, please add this.

--Raztus

Yep, there should definitely be a section on Mr. Ewing. I've added pretty much all that I know about the company, but if you have info to add about Ewing or Sveasoft please feel free. Just remember to keep it verifiable and neutral. Rhobite 21:48, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Seems that James has taken to calling my residence at various hours of the night. Interesting - The RCMP are busy, but they say they are going to look into this. A number of the calls have been traced.

He is also editing the article through various open proxies again - look at the history: 220.118.208.214 161.53.6.25 61.222.136.170... --Spankr 06:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Then let the RCMP handle it and do not bring it to wikipedia. Do not post comments like that here. Rearden9 13:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That's why I'm posting it on the "Talk" page, not the main page. It's a fact that Mr. Ewing harasses former customers. Posts from his company IP range have displayed personal identifying information of other Wikipedia members. It's also a fact that he edits the Sveasoft wiki article to suit himself from open proxies. I think any content purporting to accurately reflect information on Sveasoft should include these points. --Spankr 17:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I was curious about that. The IP address 62.20.102.130 posted personal information on Wikipedia, but wasn't blocked. Is there a reason why James was given a get-out-of-jail-free card?

Maybe I should start an abusive company so I can get my way on Wikipedia. --Tokachu 19:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

How do any of you know this is being done by Ewing? You don't know who's calling you in the middle of the night - please keep this stuff out of wikipedia. Thanks. Secretlondon 21:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, his phone number was posted on Wikipedia under the fake user name AndrewBourke by IP address 62.20.102.130, an IP address owned by James Ewing himself. --Tokachu 00:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

And he just did it again - posted my personal info to this page under from 203.153.45.50 and Zubbfor1. Coincidentally, my phone rang at the same time with dead air on the other end...--Spankr 14:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GPL Discussion

Just a note, many or most ethernet cards can change their MAC addresses:

ifconfig eth0 down
ifconfig eth0 hw ether ab:cd:ef:ab:cd:ef [or whatever you want]

So MAC "locking" may not be useful.

It seems some people want to use this site to flame Sveasoft and post false information, guess nobody read what you said Rhobite. kf4hzu Tue Aug 2 04:12:11 EDT 2005

Please list the information which you feel is false, Mr. Ewing. BTW there is nothing illegal about linking to TheIndividual's journal. If you have a problem with his journal, please feel free to send baseless DMCA complaints to Slashdot. Rhobite 08:16, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah. You said that they "currently do" distribute all source code. If this claim is true, please provide a link to the Talisman source code. Thanks. Rhobite 08:27, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I believe Mr. Brown is the name you are looking for. First, you (or whoever wrote the "Founders" section) has no clue who does what. James actually contributes the majority of the code. I am currently the only other developer actively working on the firmware. We do currently distribute all GPL source code, but TheIndividual doesn't want the public to know. The MAC lock system by default will allow 1 image to work on up to 5 routers. Subscribers can request this to be increased up to a reasonable number (25?). Anything past that we recommend an OEM build to them which is not MAC-locked. If you have other questions, and want accurate information as opposed to anti-Sveasoft FUD, I will be more then happy to have an e-mail exchange, or you can call my company's 800 number (no, not related to Sveasoft) and we'll have a nice long chat. I'll give you the entire history of Sveasoft if you wish. kf4hzu 4:29AM

If you'd like a copy I will send you one. I'd rather not post a link here as my server can not handle the load. It is available to all subscribers at: http://www.sveasoft.com/modules/phpBB2/dlman.php?func=file_info&file_id=172 kf4hzu

Oh, and there is no "product activation" - the images are branded with the list of authorized MAC addresses when you download. This is authorization, not activation, and is completely offline-based. kf4hzu 4:37AM

So subscribers do get access to the Talisman source code? I was mistaken about that I guess. You're also correct about the activation bit, it should be more accurately described as authorization. I apologize for reverting that.

The thing I disagree about is the link to TheIndividual's journal. It seems to me that you are removing the link because it could lose your company revenue. What he is doing is completely legal, and Wikipedia's link to his journal is both legal and relevant to this article. You have a clear conflict of interest in editing this article, and I request that you please stop removing the link. Rhobite 08:54, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about facts, right? TheIndividual is slander and has nothing to do with Sveasoft, other then _illegally_ redistributing cracked versions of our firmware. This page is about Sveasoft, if you want to discuss TheIndividual, start one about him. As I said, I would be more the happy to discuss this in detail if you are interested. For now, you are turning an encyclopedia into a blog/forum used for false information and propoganda, not fact on the subject matter. kf4hzu 5:00AM

It's not illegal to redistribute GPL'd software. You guys agreed to license your stuff under the GPL when you decided to base your firmware on GPL code. I'm not really interested in discussing this privately. I'm not sure what you would say to me in private that you are reluctant to say here. This is a free encyclopedia and we do not make "back room deals" about article content. Tomorrow I will probably list this dispute on a page soliciting comments from a wider group of Wikipedians. Rhobite 09:09, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing I would say that I havn't said publicly many times before - I figured it was too much information to post on a discussion page. It is much easier to answer questions. As for GPL code, Sveasoft (as was the original Linksys firmware) is a distribution of Linux, just like Slackware, Debian, RedHat, so on. Parts are GPL (kernel, some daemons, etc) and parts are not (mostly BSD or others). The 3 binaries we lock with the MAC lock system are pure non-GPL components (httpd, libshared, and rc which is a multi-call binary). None of this code was ever GPL, and still contains no GPL parts. These 3 components are essentially the glue code that makes the router run. Without them, it is not Sveasoft firmware, but a collection of packages and a kernel. Since TheIndividual distributes firmware images with the MAC locking system removed from the 3 binaries, he is distributing non-GPL copywritten cracked code, which is illegal. This whole GPL discussion has been hashed over soo many times I'm getting tired of it. The folks at FSF and even a bigwig Linux kernel developer have looked at what we are doing and agree that Sveasoft (as all WRT firmwares) are distributions, not solid binaries, just like an ISO of Slackware is installed to your PC, so is the firmware image installed to the router (and even boots the same). Kf4hzu 09:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

References -

http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0411.1/0157.html

http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0411.1/0291.html

http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0411.1/0347.html

http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0411.1/0970.html

Kf4hzu 09:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

None of the non-GPL code even belongs to Sveasoft; it belongs to Linksys. Nevertheless, if anything done is illegal, why hasn't James Ewing actually filed any charges? I'll tell you why: he'd lose time, money, and the case. --Tokachu 23:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

File charges against some anonymous kid on the internet? Ya, thats reasonable. And I'd guess by your comment the code Sveasoft has written is somehow GPLed? Most of the CyberTAN/Broadcom code has been rewritten, and large parts added. Either way, none if it is GPL and we can restrict distribution of it however we see fit. What is left of the CyberTAN/Broadcom code is copywritten to them, the rest is copywritten to us and we have no obligation to release source, or allow everyone to use the binaries. Cracking the MAC lock system is no different then cracking the registration system of a shareware program, for example. "TheIndividual" and his lackies know what they are doing is wrong, which is why they hide behind the anonymity of the Internet. Kf4hzu 00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

If there were real copyright infringements, it would be quite easy to get the real account data though the Individual's service provider. As "The Individual" has stated in various posts, he/she does live in Germany, not under some rock in who-knows-where. There is only one reason why no legal action has been taken and that reason is the simple fact: there simply is no copyright infringement. No crime, no lawyers, no case, no penalties. And having in mind the various threats that James Ewing has been sending him/her via E-Mail (which, by the way _ARE_ illegal in Germany), it's quite likely that even if it came to a legal dispute, the one going to prison would be James himself.

Kf4hzu, you reverted my cleanup edit without comment. I don't think your names should be bolded in the article, and I think that my version of the GPL/non-GPL sentence presents Sveasoft in a better light than the one you reverted to. My question was also in an HTML comment - so it was not displayed in the article text. So I am curious, are you simply reverting me for no reason? Anyway, about my question. I am geniunely curious, does Sveasoft release their work under the GPL once a final version of the firmware is released? i.e. are all the Alchemy additions now GPL-licensed? Rhobite 00:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Please develop an understanding of the jargon of copyright before proceeding with life. There is no such word as "copywritten", perhaps you mean "copyrighted", the legal right granted to an author to exclusive distribution of a work. It's easy and excusable to make such a mistake when you don't pay attention to the details of a body of text, but since this is a debate about a very specific piece of text, the mistake brings in to question your entire understanding of the argument. Also, since this is a controversial topic, why not simply post links to countervailing arguments instead of repeatedly removing links to points of view that you disagree with. Do you not trust the reader to consider all the available evidence and to judge for him/herself?

I did comment, and your sentence does not put Sveasoft in a better light. What I said is fact, Sveasoft additions are not the only non-GPL packages used in the firmware. Please confirm your information before editing. Also, Wolf is not a "screen name" - I don't use AOL/AIM, which is where this term is popular. Using pseudonym is more appropriate, espcially for a site like this. Kf4hzu 01:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delete this

Wikipedia should not be a advertising space for corporations. Sveasoft is not realy significant such as MS, IBM, SUN. Sveasoft only rewrite an open source firmware made by Linksys/Cisco. So why there is an article about Sveasoft?

Because they are a well-known firmware maker, and there is verifiable information about them. I think you're setting the bar far too high in terms of notability. If we have a list of every Pokemon character, we can have an article about Sveasoft. Rhobite 08:22, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Pokemon are kind of famous like Superman oder Batman. Sveasoft is a little company rewriting the open source firmware of Linksys' (based?) Router. So where is the meaning for mankind? Wikipedia is not a yellow pages and so this article should be deleted.

Nominate it for deletion if you want. I have no doubt it'll be kept since they're a well-known company. I think this article is very useful - many people use third party firmware on their routers. Rhobite 19:32, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest

Kf4hzu is an employee of Sveasoft. 62.20.102.130 is an IP address in Sveasoft's address space. Self-promotion is definitely against Wikimedia policies. Imagine if Microsoft's employees, or even Bill Gates himself, started editing the Microsoft page. Would you expect a neutral point of view from any of them? --Tokachu 01:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

This is about facts, not point of view. This isn't Wikiforum or Wikiblog. Kf4hzu 01:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It's about a conflict of interest. IMO one should refrain from editing an article about one's own employer. You claim to be adding facts, but a great many people disagree with you. Should we just forget that you have a financial incentive to present your company in the best possible light? Rhobite 01:23, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

If the people editing it would stick to facts instead of misinformation or opinions/guessing, I would have no reason to edit the entry. The only information on that page that promotes Sveasoft was not added by anyone working at Sveasoft. Kf4hzu 01:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted to the last un-tainted edit by Rhobite. I have neither added nor deleted any content from his edit. Also, I have added Sveasoft's Wiki article to the Request for Page Protection. This is mainly because Kf4hzu a.k.a. Wolf continues to claim that a late 2004 conversation is a legal decree, when in fact, Talisman is a direct slap in the face for all those at the FSF. No source code has been released, and any non-GPL code was released by Linksys themselves! Sveasoft customers, not the employees themselves, should comment on their business practices...but until then, I highly recommend that this page be protected from any edits from non-administrators. To quote Rhobite, Please do not remove verified information simply because it is critical of the company you own/work for. --Tokachu 01:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Although I do think TheIndividual needs to be mentioned in the article, there were also some factual changes which kf4hzu and I made, e.g. the WAP42G support. You guys should both keep in mind the Wikipedia:Three revert rule as well. Rhobite 01:50, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Why should someone involved in criminal activities, and completely unrelated to Sveasoft other then illegal distribution of cracked versions of our firmware, be mentioned on the Wikipedia page for Sveasoft? I didn't know about the revert rule, but I will be contacting the administrators if this isn't solved. Kf4hzu 02:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Because you guys had a shitstorm of an e-mail exchange with him which was widely reported on various web sites. At Wikipedia we report relevant information. He's relevant. Rhobite 02:38, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] People

Listing the founder makes sense. Listing someone who posts on the company's forum makes less sense. Could his relationship to the company be defined or his name removed from the article? kmccoy (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Done Kf4hzu 01:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed FSF 'quote'

I removed the following text from the page:

Peter Brown, the Free Software Foundation's compliance officer, stated that he did not see a problem with Sveasoft's subscription system and that it does not violate the GPL, so long as they distribute all pertinent source code.

This statement isn't sourced, and in fact it is not even a quote. It shouldn't be added without a source and ensuring that the wording is exactly that of Peter Brown.

kmccoy (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Added link to the public FAQ entry containing the quote. I believe James still has a copy of the original e-mail. Kf4hzu 02:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

If you could cite the source and put the e-mail directly into Wikipedia rather than linking, that would be even better. --Tokachu 03:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia: "We report, you decide".

I've completely re-written the Sveasoft Wiki. Links that support Sveasoft, as well as those that criticize Sveasoft, are now included.

There is now a warning on top of the article, where edits should only pertain to either grammar, punctuation, formatting, or fully citable material. Material taken out of context, deleted links, or any sort of further changes merely disrupt Wikipedia's purpose to provide pure, unfiltered, and unbiased information.

If you have any questions on the legality of any content on this Wiki, do not edit it out. Instead, you should contact Wikipedia directly. --Tokachu 03:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Mixed feelings about your rewrite. I am not sure all the rearranging was necessary, but I like the verbatim quotes - no way the Sveasoft guys can talk their way around those. I think the BBR and Slashdot stories should be linked, was this removal inadvertent? Also I am worried about the recommendations made in the article. We can say that most people use Alchemy, but we should not recommend specific firmware versions. Words like "debacle" are POV and should be changed. Overall, I think the rewrite is a step in the right direction. Rhobite 03:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] comment from FuelWagon

Saw the article RFC and dropping a quick comment. The article as of 15:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC) sounds like it follows NPOV. I'm not familiar with the topic adn cannot comment on whether the facts reported are actually true, but what is reported in the article looks like it is within NPOV. FuelWagon 15:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Massive revert

User:Kf4hzu reverted the article back several days in this edit. This edit removed tons of improvements the article, and the edit summary was "reverted to last edit by Kelly Martin - revert authorized due to Tokachu not responding to medator's requests after accepting mediation". Just because you and tokachu are having a disagreement on the content of the article doesn't mean you two own the article. It's entirely inappropriate to make such a massive revert without discussion on the talk page. Please explain why, content-wise, the article should not be as it was before this revert. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The later revisions were full of false information, speculation, and outright lies that were oriented to a specific viewpoint. The revision I reverted to contains facts that are all verifyable. I agree that it needs improvement, but linking to warez sites is not appropriate and I won't allow Wikipedia to be used that way. If the edit war starts up again, I will seek out more help from the wikipedia community to stop it. kf4hzu 22:20, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

What orifice of your body are you pulling this information out of? Did you read the DMCA notice at all? It clearly says that the web site is hosting files with the following name:

WRT54G.Sveasoft Firmware.Alchemy.pre5.3_by_wrt54g.streamfire.netzip
WRT54G_Wolf_W14_Alchemy_5_2_3_by_wrt54g.streamfire.net.zip
WRT54G_Reformed_B8_Alchemy_5_2_2_ by_wrt54g.streamfire.net.zip
Firmware_Alchemy-pre5_2_1.bin.zip
Firmware_Alchemy-pre5_1.bin.zip

...and at the very end, Google did not remove the page. It's still there, and to this day, both TheIndividual's Sveasoft WRT54G Firmwares and FreeWRT are still, and always have been, indexed on Google. Search Google for "sveasoft" and see for yourself.

I don't know why you found my complete overhaul of the article "full of false information, speculation, and outright lies". I included all your information, and cited all references in the Wikipedia style. But I'll let the Wikipedia administrators decide. --Tokachu 03:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Kf4hzu, you cannot possibly maintain a neutral point of view in editing a company in which you have a financial stake. You can't just dismiss days of editing with "The later revisions were full of false information, speculation, and outright lies that were oriented to a specific viewpoint." You need to be specific. You do not control this article -- in fact, because of your personal interest in this subject, you really should be using more restraint in editing this article. Thanks. Tokachu, Wikipedia adminsitrators don't decide on article content. :) kmccoy (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I've just done a merge in from the information lost in the large revert. I've gone through the entire article and tried to ensure that relevant information is included. What specific disputes are there at this point? kmccoy (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll post what I e-mailed the mediator when they asked the same question...

Following will be quotes from the page, with a brief explination after
them. The misinformation is extensive, and it is very obvious that the
person doesn't do his/her research.

Format:
====
Current online text
----
Comments

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

====
Sveasoft is a Stockton, California based software company that
develops modified distributions of GPL-licensed firmware for Linksys
models WRT54G and WRT54GS home routers. The firmware is "flashed", or
uploaded via TFTP to the router, replacing the manufacturer's official
firmware.
----
The firmware is not GPL-licensced, individual parts of the firmware
are GPL, and others are not. The firmware as a whole is a distribution
of Linux, just like Slackware, RedHat, etc.

====
James Ewing of California is the owner Sveasoft's main proprietor.

Jesse Brown of Florida is the lead developer for Sveasoft. He is
commonly referred to under the pseudonym Wolf.

Although Sveasoft personnel are mainly located in the United States,
the majority of Sveasoft's hardware is operated from Sweden.
----
James is the head developer, I (Jesse) am the assistant head
developer. All personell are not located in the US, James is in
Sweden, tho the company office is in CA.

====
Sveasoft firmware is typically advertised as being able to boost the
router's radio transmission power from 28 milliwatts to 251
milliwatts, as well as being able to use all 14 channels for 802.11b
transmissions instead of the usual 11. These modifications may be
illegal in some jurisdictions. The act of increasing the transmission
power is illegal in the U.S. due to FCC regulations, although there is
no law prohibiting the firmware itself. Wi-Fi experts recommend that
users stay on channels 1, 6, or 11.

Other features include QoS support, Wireless Distribution System
support, and a VPN server. Next-generation Internet Protocol support
is also available in some unofficial releases.
----
The power modification is legal in the US when using the stock
antennas. Using the upper 3 channel (12,13,14) is illegeal in the US.

Next-generation Internet Protocol support (aka IPv6) has been in the
official Talisman builds since 1.0 (the first release).

====
This is the current "development" release, which Sveasoft distributes
solely to developers and subscribers. "Miniature" versions of Talisman
specializing in VoIP routing, VPN services, and Wireless Distribution
are currently under alpha development, and are not yet functional. It
is only recommended to use Talisman for development purposes.
----
They are not Miniture versions, they are supersets of Talisman/basic
(the current Talisman build series).

====
The WRT54G-series routers run a version of Linux, which is released
under the GPL. Many portions of the software are versions of, or are
derived from, GPL-licensed software. Non-GPL software, while not
required to be released by Linksys, is included. The majority of
non-GPL software is copyrighted by either Broadcom or CyberTAN, who
have developed the wireless drivers and Web interface, respectively.

Sveasoft allows customers to purchase a subscription for firmware
downloads for 20 U.S. dollars per year. Talisman requires that the MAC
addresses of each router (up to 5) be registered on Sveasoft's web
site to prevent redistribution. The "activation" software writes each
authorized MAC address to the firmware while it is downloaded.
----
The majority of non-GPL software is NOT Broadcom/CyberTAN work,
originally or otherwise. The web interface was rewritten for Talisman
by one of our developers.

More then 5 MACs can be "burned in" to a single image. Extra MAC slots
can be requested by subscribers. It is NOT activation, it is
authorization.

====
In mid-2004, James Ewing had reportedly e-mailed a former subscriber,
claiming that redistribution of Alchemy firmware and source code was a
violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act [1]. Some hosters of
the firmware cancelled the distributor's accounts, though a web
hosting company called WebDogPro retaliated [2].
----
FUD, the only DMCA that was sent out was to Google about a russian site.

====
Sveasoft was briefly justified by Alan Cox on the Linux Kernel Mailing
List ([4]):
----
This is not the only thing Alan Cox discussed, and other links/info
should be posted.

====
Talisman, unlike earlier Sveasoft releases, does not include source
code (whether one is a subscriber or not). It also has very strict
distribution guidelines; specifically, a limit of 5 routers per
subscriber. Modified versions of Talisman, called Freeman, have been
distributed in response to the Talisman debate [5].
----
Blatent lies, even after the conversations in the discussion section.
I posted a link to the source code which is available to all
subscribers and freely redistributable. The source tarball contains
all the GPL code used in the firmware build. Again, limit of 5 is a
default limit and can be increased on request. Mention of Freeman,
which is a cracked version of our software (which is illegal) is not
appropriate unless Wikipedia wants to support warez groups by posting
information about them.

====
# Journal of TheIndividual - a former Sveasoft subscriber's blog with
critcisms of Sveasoft, hosted on Slashdot.

   * Sveasoft.de - further links critical of Sveasoft.
----
Slander, FUD, lies, warez, all non-factual and very anti-Sveasoft -
these links have no place on Wikipedia. Yes, one points to Slashdot,
which is one of many TheIndividual hate pages and contains links to
the warez/hate mirrors/forums. Linking to it links to his page and
everything else.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is hard to pick out 3 points out of all the above. Mainly the
general theme is: wrong information about the GPL and firmware, wrong
information about the company and peoeple involved in it, and links to
warez/hate sites. I'd say the most important parts are the links, 2nd
is the misinformation about GPL/firmware, 3rd is the misinformation
about the company&employees.

...happy? Kf4hzu 03:37, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice if people would discuss the facts, get all the information, have verifyable sources, and look at what all the links actually lead to. Just saying "oh, its a slashdot page" means the person never actually went to it. At the very top is a post about the latest cracked firmware and many links to download it. If you include these, you may aswell go to all the software pages on wikipedia and post links to the "free" versions of their software too; Microsoft should have an extensive list, for example. Kf4hzu 03:46, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

There you go again. If the links were "warez", would they be mirrored at the University of Toledo [1]? Microsoft would send a few thousand lawyers to any college hosting a web site where someone could download Windows XP, or at the absolute least, send a cease-and-decist. --Tokachu 03:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The firmware is cracked by the distributor's own admission, removal of the MAC locking that protects specific binaries in the filesystem (firmware = filesystem + kernel) that contain no GPL code at all. This is warez. Sveasoft doesn't have the funds to go after every mirror this guy has running. Oh wait, fall back on "Sveasoft makes major $$$! YOU LIE!" - that I hear all the time. It always seems to amaze me how people are able to get P&L reports on Sveasoft. Kf4hzu 06:02, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. Can they not afford a 37¢ stamp, or the 2¢ worth of power it requires to send an e-mail? Call the BSA! They've got a new poster child! --Tokachu 06:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Facts please, the stuff on this page is ridiculous

"Increasing the emission power can cause EMI with other devices. Some publications have also concluded that it can be harmful to health.

Increasing the number of channels used can cause interference with governmentally-used frequencies and can cause risks to national security."

National security? Jeesh. What comic book did this come from? Wifi at 251 mw is a fraction of cell phone output. Wifi units sit 2 meters - 100+ meters from people, cell phones are put up against the skull and put out more power. Microwave ovens use the Wifi 2.4 GHz frequencies and put out 500W - 1000W. Posting this drivel is just silly.

Unfortunately, it isn't as silly as it seems.

First of all, EMI is a serious problem - you wouldn't find it very funny if your neighbor's WRT54GS would disturb your cell phone's connectivity, your internet-PDA or your TV set's remote control all the time. And companies dealing with field returns that cause horrendous cost wouldn't find that very funny neither - covering all service cost just because some idiots in the neighborhood think they stand above the law.

Secondly, comparing tightly sealed microwave ovens with fully open antennas is just nonsense. Plus: people who increase their tx power tend to use high-gain yagi antennas as well, thereby increasing the health risks even further. Common sense is that FCC as well as ETSI regulation has been performed to reduce all these risks and ignoring their legislative exposes your environment to unecessary risk.

It is against FCC regs to increase the power on Wi-Fi devices, but there is no proof that increasing the power presents any risk to health or national security. These claims need to be cited. They also don't belong in the Sveasoft article at all, they belong in Wi-Fi. Rhobite 19:52, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

This is just plain wrong.

A) HEALTH

There is absolutely no doubt that electromagnetic fields do have impact on health, and that increasing the field's power presents risk to health. The 2.4 GHZ band emits wicrowaves. The question discussed among experts is not whether microwave beam can cause damage to tissue (this is known for sure), it is the question at which EIRP level this can occur and whether or not there are health risks other than the direct heating of tissue. As for the direct heating of tissue, a power level of 250 mW will unlikely heat organic tissue enough to cause direct damage - unless you increase punctual beam strength by adding high-gain antennas like YAGI antennas (which, by the way, some people do). As for other effects, various studies have concluded in different directions at different suggested power levels. The statement that there is no evidence at all ist just plain ignorance.

The world's leading health organization, the WHO, rates this issue high enough:

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/

Since Sveasoft's firmware does allow people to increase the device's power above the level allowed by authorities and the device's manufacturer (a feature that off-the-shelf-software does not provide for reasons named above), it is important to inform people that they might not only break the law but expose themselves, their children and their neighbors to risk.

B) EMI

There is absolutely no doubt that electromagnetic fields do interfere, and that one device's radiation does effect other devices' reception within the field. This can effect near-field-communication (RFID, Bluetooth, PC cases, TV sets, RF remote controls etc.), mid-range-technologies (WLAN, GSM, UMTS, CDMA, TETRA, police radio, etc.) and long-distance radio (terrestrial radio, TV, airport-to-plane-communication etc.). This is why it is becoming increasingly important to keep the air "clean" and protect devices from being influenced by others as well as from influencing others. If you install Sveasoft Firmware and choose frequencies that are not permitted in your region, then you are breaking the latter rule - you are starting to influence others where you shouldn't. Since you are doing it deliberately, you not only start disturbing your environment, you can also be punished for doing it deliberately.

http://europa.eu.int/information_society/policy/radio_spectrum/docs/current/mandates/rsc04_63_imt2000.pdf

http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/attachments/60228.htm?CFID=747381&CFTOKEN=64993994

A microwave oven emits more radiation (and I'm refering to what isn't blocked by the shielding) then several routers running 250mW with large parabolic dishes. Many 2.4Ghz portable phones put out more then 250mW. I think Rhobite is correct, power and health information belongs on the WiFi page not this one. Kf4hzu 16:36, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Why did you even link to the WHO? I quote the article you linked to: "To date, no adverse health effects from low level, long-term exposure to radiofrequency or power frequency fields have been confirmed." [2] Get back to me when low power 2.4Ghz has been conclusively linked to health problems. The reason for the power regulations is interference, not health concerns. And as for the idea that microwave ovens are safe because they are shielded, ever try to use 2.4Ghz Wi-Fi while the microwave is on? Your signal levels will drop or you may even lose your connection. Same for cordless phones. This issue has nothing to do with Sveasoft. If you insist on spreading this speculation, please take it to Talk:Wi-Fi. Rhobite 20:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Are you aware that you have just given a good proof that the EMI issue is a serious one? One of the reasons why power level and interference specs are much tighter in Europe than in the US is the fact that a situation where a microwave oven interrupts cordless phone telephony or WLAN connections must be avoided. Also, I cannot confirm the statement that an intact microwave oven interrupts cordless telephony or WLAN connections. Are you operating all your electronic equipment out-of-spec at home?-)

Also: if your statement was correct - the one that there was no health risk involved with increasing device power - why, what do you think, why is there even a legal FCC or ETSI regulation for it? I mean, if your assumption was true, then there'd be no need for legal regulation, am I getting you right?

As I said, the regulations are there to prevent interference with other people's devices. We all have to share the same small piece of spectrum. Rhobite 17:52, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TFTP

Isn't uploading the firmware via TFTP a last resort? I'm sure that the normal upgrade process is just using HTTP POST to send it.

[edit] Tone

The tone of this article is wrong. We don't care about which personality banned which other personality from another's internet forum. Secretlondon 14:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. --James Ewing 03:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lots of NOR violations, POV stuff

This was a pretty bad article. Let's build it again from scratch. REAL REFERENCES ONLY please, no digging up random accusations from web forums and so on.--Jimbo Wales 21:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. (and if it makes a difference, I am just stumbling across this 2 months later, I don't have any skin in the game) IMHO, the article (Tokachu version June 8,2006)up to the controversy section contains much more useful information than the current version. The controversy section could be another matter, but I wasn't interested in that part, so I didn't read it. The entire article should not have been reverted if the controversy section needed some work. Move it to the discussion page and leave the informative parts standing. Rearden9 18:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The current version is probably too short, not that informative, but how hard is it to find good references for the topic? Wesley 19:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to reinstate the Tokachu version of the article and move the Controversies section here, where hopefully the parties involved and hash out their differences here and stop the juvenille anonymous deletion cycle. Rearden9 13:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe something a little clearer than the {{protected}} template at the top should be put into the Controversies section. Currently, the entire section reads "There are several controversies surrounding Sveasoft, involving the distribution of the software, the personalities involved and GPL-related issues." This is blatantly lacking, particularly for those who came looking for information on the controversies. --Neurophyre 23:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distribution

One former subscriber published emails received in mid-2004 allegedly from Sveasoft's James Ewing. The emails threaten the person for distributing copies of the firmware. [3]

Another subscriber has also presented email sent by Ewing to the subscriber's web hosting provider, alleging DMCA violations for providing copies of the firmware. The web host, WebDogPro, responded that the redistribution was supported by the GPL license of the firmware, an argument which Ewing disputes. [4]

Sveasoft sent a DMCA takedown letter to Google [5] in an effort to prevent a Russian download site offering cracked versions of their non-released firmware as FreeWRT from appearing in search results. Sveasoft cancelled the subscriptions of multiple customers after they publicly posted links to similar sites.

LinksysInfo.org, once the main distributor of Sveasoft's firmware, has recently terminated ties with Sveasoft. As per Wolf's statement [6]:

Linksysinfo is no longer associated with Sveasoft in any way. They have continued to take cheap shots at Sveasoft publicly, and I have reached the end of my tolerance for them. I was a moderator on their forum, and now my account has been deleted for posting that they no longer have the right to use our trademarks. (Which they promptly deleted)

WRT54G.com is the only authorized public firmware support site for Sveasoft. Linksysinfo was asked twice to remove the Sveasoft forum, but they refuse and have banned James and now myself from their forum. They are now guilty of trademark violation since they have been asked twice to remove our trademarks from their site.

Sveasoft has since migrated to WRT54G.NET.

[edit] Personnel

James Ewing of California is the founder of Sveasoft and its sole developer.

As of November 15, 2005, Wolf, a former Sveasoft employee, had been removed from the Sveasoft development team and was banned from Sveasoft's web site [7]:

Today, there was a "falling out" between myself and James that has been building for the last several weeks.

James and I recently went in on a new hardware deveopment venture to make extra money for Sveasoft. About 3 weeks ago James reduced communication to one-liner answers in PMs. Today we had a short one-liner exchange from this morning until a few hours ago, consisting of me asking him to call, and him simply replying with single-line questions such as (paraphrased) "What about?". I answered this question several times, but kept having it repeated to me in one form or another. I finally decided that it was time to end the partnership, which I received a swift ban from sveasoft.com for.

After being questioned about the situation from BrainSlayer, a developer of a similar project, DD-WRT, Wolf lashed out by referring to him as "BrainFailure", erasing his posts, and locking the thread. A similar discussion took place on DD-WRT's official forum. [8]

[edit] GPL disputes

Since the Alchemy firmware was released, former users and subscribers alike have questioned the legality of Sveasoft's distribution model [9] [10]. While not necessarily charging for the software, they have charged a yearly fee for access to both the software and support. If a subscriber redistributes the firmware, their subscription is terminated and they lose access to future firmware. Since no free download sites existed at the time, many believed this was a violation of the GPL. Sveasoft's arguments to the contrary were justified by Alan Cox who supported Sveasoft's model of "if you distribute the source then I won't supply you updates" on the Linux Kernel Mailing List [11]. Sveasoft has also posted a message on their forums with a message from Peter Brown, the Free Software Foundation's compliance officer, who says: "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." However, their policy of cutting off support for people who redistribute GPLed Sveasoft firmware remains controversial.

On March 11th 2006, the OpenWRT developers publicly announced[12] that Sveasoft had violated its GPL license terms, and that Sveasoft's continuing distribution of OpenWRT was prohibited. In return Sveasoft claimed[13] that OpenWRT was illegally distributing software copyrighted by Sveasoft and Broadcom under the GPL. Both parties deny each other's allegations.

[edit] The Talisman controversy

Talisman (up through version 1.0.4), did not include source code (whether one is a subscriber or not). However, this was corrected starting with the Talisman 1.0.5 release and Sveasoft claims all future releases will follow suit. It also has very strict distribution guidelines for the firmware images. Cracked versions of Talisman, called Freeman, have been distributed in response to the Talisman debate. [14] Currently, the 1.0.5 release is the only Talisman source code release, though many newer binaries have been posted.

[edit] Payment disputes

Some consider that Sveasoft has a somewhat draconian approach to complaints. Signing up for Sveasoft engages you to a recurring annual payment if you don't cancel the subscription. Merely pointing this out on the Sveasoft forum has led to banning of users, citing the "flamebait" clause in their FAQ (which Sveasoft uses as a terms and conditions of services document).

[edit] External links

I see we seem to be reverting the actions of an IP user who is removing a blog and a website called 'sveasoftsucks.com'. At a glance, these links look highly innapropriate and they have no business being in this article, unless I am missing something. Could someone please explain what is so wrong about removing these potentially inflammatory links? Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 00:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree that the blog should be removed - the page has been under attack by the same individual who keeps removing critical information. When the user is banned for reverting 3 times in 24 hours they come back as another IP address. In this case I think I was too hasty in reverting that deletion. Secretlondon 00:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The IP has also been removing this link. I don't see anything inherently wrong with it at a glance, though. Does this link look fine to be in the article? Cowman109^Talk 17:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with that link and have no idea why it keeps being removed - I tried to reinstate it, but it was gone hours later. --Spankr 17:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted changes from 221.245.244.13, because they replaced "sveasoftsucks.com" with a bunch of X's and removed Cowman109's comment completely. I have no doubt in my mind that this is James Ewing's doing, and I'm sure that (by the end of the day) he will have used open proxies to post the information (name, address, phone number, etc.) of people he doesn't like on Wikipedia.

This guy really needs to be stopped. --Tokachu 18:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restored protection

I noticed that the article had a protection notice, but was unprotected today. I protected it in case the unprotection was accidental, but defer to those of you who are following this more closely than I am. If you're an admin, feel free to unprotect this if you think it is justified, but if you do so please also remove the protection notice from the article. --Zippy 05:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi

I've semi-protected this, there is too much anon reverting. Discuss: William M. Connolley 23:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tokachu

Tokachu, edits this page and others (WRT54G) with non-NPOV updates. Perhaps he can comment on why he is doing this and why the vendetta against Sveasoft? Tokachu has published the names and addresses of several folks involved in Sveasoft but insists on trying to protect his own anonymity. This just isn't right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.250.137.87 (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

All I see is him readding the controversies section, IPs removing it and you broadcasting him name across Wikipeida. BJ^Talk 17:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously Tokachu has serious personal issues and is using Wikipedia to express them. This is not Wikipedia's purpose. Renny^talk

If I'm violating any rule, ban me. Right now. I'll go quietly. But make sure you prove it.

83.250.137.87, stop acting so immature. I'm not posting anyone's personal information on Wikipedia. You, on the other hand, are erasing information from the Talk pages of Sveasoft and WRT54G. That's out of line. --Tokachu 17:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Huston Ewing

Someone removed the names of the owners of Sveasoft (James Huston Ewing and Asa Birgitta Erlandsson).

My question is this: why is this information being removed? Does a certain someone not want the public to know public information about a company, such as who owns a company and how much money they make? --204.11.35.133 22:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's because he's a wimp.

James Huston Ewing, James Huston Ewing, James Huston Ewing.

It must annoy the hell out of him that people know his real name! --75.110.55.89 04:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/v/e/Talk%7ESveasoft_05f9.html"