Is Linksys Anti-GPL?

Today I was out looking for the WRT54GL, the router with the Linux based firmware. I can't seem to find it in stores ANYWHERE! It's like Linksys is anti-GPL so they created this router just to get people to shut up about how they changed the WRT54G when someone noticed it was Linux based and they should have provided the source code.

I'd like to get a WRT54GL so I can load DD-WRT on it as DD-WRT looks like excellent firmware. My router, WRT54G v5 can only support the mini-DD-WRT because Linksys decided to go evil with this version and made the firmware non-Linux based (probably why my router crashes every now and then) and the chip that holds the firmware only 2 MB, not the 6 MB flash chip.

I think the folks at Linksys should just open their eyes and start marketing the open-source routers more. I'd love one. I think they would be a hit out there on the market. I love my Linksys router so much that when my band director wanted to know what kind of router to buy, I immediately responded with Linksys! He purchased his almost a year after mine so he got version 6 of the WRT54G. As far as I know, he's had no problems with it.

But I think that Linksys really has nothing to worry about. They can sell the hardware as that is really needed, but the firmware shouldn't matter at all. I really think all their firmware should be open-sourced. It could do them some good!

[N]F

 

 

 

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

couldn't u use the NDISWrapper for the driver modules?

xboxrulz

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Although it might be nice if their routers and other hardware worked with 3rd party and open source firmware, I imagine they have good reasons for keeping their firmware closed party. Even more so than drivers, firmware that can be reverse engineered can tell a lot about the hardware. This is critical for a company like Linksys to protect. Further, they construct their firmware to work with their drivers, if either were made open source, it would help construct the other, which could help make the details of the hardware exposed. Open source is great in theory, but for many business applications, it doesn't make much sense, and is actually a lot harder to do.

~Viz

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I worked in programming and 3D Animation systems admin for about 10 years and now on into Law School for IP Law. We came across this issue a lot of times when first exploring applications like CineGimp back in the day. We liked what we saw, but with the GPL, anything we developed had to stay internal. About half the company's profits came from reselling tools and plug-ins we first developed for in house needs and figured others out there could use what we had developed for a price.

The GPL issue, and I'll be up front: I don't like linux period, was one reason we looked at the BSD systems for development. We could bundle NetBSD or FreeBSD into our producted without releasing any code...just including the BSD license and telling people it was a Unix based system.

Now it's a moot point since just about everyone in our industry that was running IRIX, ALPHA, or SUN, are now on Macs. A few went to Linux, but just about everyone is on Macintoshs for workstations with Linux reserved for the renderfarms.

I've read through the GPL 3 drafts, and when I finish law school, if clients ask me what I think about using any GPLed software, I'll tell them to avoid it all costs, especially if they want to add/modify/extend the program. I've seen a few people create some cool extentions, but then turn around a realise they can't sell the product and hope to make a profit.

 

 

 

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I understand that the GPL is actually no longer widely the favored open source license. I've come to understand that Creative Commons is becoming preferred for many things.

~viz

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I don't like like how GPL v3 is coming out at all, I just hope that Linus would just drop the license if it's gonna be covered by GPL v3.

However, I don't mind GPL v2. Many open source projects use this license and it has worked since 1991 when it was created.

I'm starting to not like Richard Stallman's view 'cuz he's acting like a "communist".

Anyways, I could care less about having Linksys open sourcing the firmware, it's not important at all. It's not like it's for a driver for Linux or anything.

xboxrulz

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I have also a linksys wrt54g v1.1 router. I wanted to use the device as an access point. With original firmware it is not possibile. In the computer shop they suggested to buy an access point.

I use openwrt. Now I use my router as a firewalled nat capable access point.

I think the story is not about rage against GPL rather about money.

With the mentioned 'hacked' firmwares you can use 'stupid' and cheap router as a widely configurable expensive official one. How will linksys sell the expensive ones when the cheaper one can do the same?
And how they will sell the access points?
And what about those products which have the same hardware different firmware and different prices?

I think similar questions lead the designers to prevent hackers replacing firmware.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)