From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Linux (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Mention of Sveasoft[edit]

"Sveasoft's latest Talisman firmware also has this capability in addition to support for simultaneous client and AP modes, including WPA or WPA2 encryption."] Why is this here? This is an article on DD-WRT, not Sveasoft. I'm cuting this line. Maybe there should be a mention of some of the other 3rd party firmwares, but not in the body of the article. 21:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

- That was James Ewing of Sveasoft editing the article. Spankr 02:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

GPL / Proprietary[edit]

Needs to be marked GPL / Proprietary with little explanation. site 1 site 2 --ulcha 03:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added a small section about the controversy surrounding the existence and licensing of the "special version" of the DD-WRT software. In so doing, I have tried to be as neutral as possible, given the lack of rebuttal and support from the DD-WRT side of the argument. I have done my best to locate DD-WRT's official position on the matter, but the brief blurb in the seemingly binary-only licensing text is all I can find (outside of the forums, which are unreliable), so I've put a citation-needed tag in the article in the meantime. --Walkeraj 00:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The page as it stands is valid, neutral, and fair. For clarification on those points:

The controversy will likely continue to exist for some time. It has been quoted by Mr. Gottschall <sp?> on the DD-WRT forums that the site 2 page is written by an individual who was a contributor to the DD-WRT project until a difference of opinion created distaste for the project and its current administration and design strategy. The strong voices of this and a select few people have resulted in this widespread negative publicity.

The DD-WRT source code, including the materials for the special version, is available to the developers and to the general public by way of the subversion system. The appropriate links are intentionally not widely advertised, but a prospective developer or any interested individual can easily find everything required by browsing the forum's development sections and by reading the Wiki entries. As this is a constantly evolving project, not every commit to the svn repository can be expected to compile cleanly. Compiling viable firmware is not a task for a beginner due to the experimental and cross-platform nature of the project itself.

For the benefit of the public, binary releases of stable firmwares are made freely accessible from the DD-WRT site's download section. Binary beta firmwares are also made available to developers and those understanding the involved risks. Only the binary release of the special edition (in which the only differences are original and/or non-GPL in nature) and the x86 images remain restricted as a means of raising money.

Legal representatives, please confirm: The GPL requires release of the source code of the initial code and that of any derivative works. The source code to DD-WRT (including sources to the non-public firmware additions) is freely available. This constitutes compliance with the GPL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 09:00:22, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Now now, this is quite unfactual, and is in my opinion another case of GPL terrorism (FUD, disparagement and/or attack on part-GPL products by free software extremists). GPL does in fact forbid non-GPL derivative works, however the problem lies in what constitutes a "derivative work". As far as I know, the act of statically linking a non-GPL software to a GPL library is the action that creates a violating "derivative work", aside from the obvious "copy-paste" theft of source code. As DD-WRT is a GNU/Linux system made up of independent programs, the addition of a non-GPL program, given that it's linked dynamically (which no doubt it is) to GPL libraries and the Kernel, there is NO GPL violation at all. Publishing the sources of the GPL components only is most certainly enough. Just consider that there are plenty of distributions around that contain proprietary code under a non-GPL licence without source, and the main Linux system and free applications under the GPL or LGPL, and with source. The distribution as a whole is of course not GPL in this case, but is obviously legal, as it can't be considered a derivative work in its whole. Wilderns (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the logic behind "The distribution as a whole is of course not GPL in this case". So DD-WRT could be OK with respect to the GPL in two different ways:
1) The binary firmware that DD-WRT distributes is in fact GPL - in this case the project must distribute all the source code required to build the binary firmware.
2) The binary firmware that DD-WRT distributes consists of a mix of GPL and non-GPL components, somehow without violating the GPL. In this case the project cannot distribute all the source code required to build the binary firmware, and can therefore not describe itself as a GPL project.
So does DD-WRT distribute all the source code required to build the binary firmware? If not, then their use of the GPL license is inappropriate. (I would like to see the source, but casual browsing of shows no link to it.) Lklundin (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
DD-WRT SVNSpankr (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Making some source code available via a version control system is not enough. From the GNU GPL FAQ (
"I want to distribute an extended version of a GPL-covered program in binary form. Is it enough to distribute the source for the original version?
No, you must supply the source code that corresponds to the binary. Corresponding source means the source from which users can rebuild the same binary.
Part of the idea of free software is that users should have access to the source code for *the programs they use*. Those using your version should have access to the source code for your version.
A major goal of the GPL is to build up the Free World by making sure that improvement to a free program are themselves free. If you release an improved version of a GPL-covered program, you must release the improved source code under the GPL".
So to be in compliance DD-WRT needs to specify the exact source code needed to build each and every binary firmware that they distribute. They are naturally free to do so via a version control system, in which case each and every binary firmware needs to distributed with the information of exactly which versions of which files in the repository are used for the build. A release tag would be the natural mechanism for that. Case in point: The DD-WRT repository seems to contain the (extensive) source of several linux 2.6 kernels, but at least one of the binary firmwares distributed by DD-WRT identifies itself as running a 2.4 kernel. So apart from the clear requirement of the GPL, without the release tags it is really impractical to try and identify which source went into a given binary and which did not.
So where are the release tags (or their equivalent) for the various binaries that DD-WRT distributes? Lklundin (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

each binary version is tagged with its svn revision which can be reviewed by telnet (the login banner shows it) or just by clicking on the date within the web gui on the top right of the screen. it will display the svn revision then which can be used to check out the correct sourcecode. BrainSlayer —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The GPL states that the source code must not only be complete but also corresponding. So here is a big problem: A 3 to 4 MB binary firmware, which identifies itself as running a 2.4 kernel, cannot be claimed to be corresponding to 16GB of source code, which includes directories with names such as linux-2.6.{17,19,20,22,23,34}. Any meaningful interpretation of the word corresponding must really lead to: All the source code, and nothing (or at most insignificantly little) else. Lklundin (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
This problem is compounded by the fact that the extensive source code repository includes (and has done so for more than two years) proprietary C code from Broadcom. In addition to the Copyright Broadcom Corporation, All Rights Reserved some source code even contains the statement:
* This is UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE of Broadcom Corporation;   
* the contents of this file may not be disclosed to third parties, copied
* or duplicated in any form, in whole or in part, without the prior      
* written permission of Broadcom Corporation.                       
Regardless of whether DD-WRT has Broadcoms permission to disclose this software to the public, the redistribution of Broadcoms proprietary software is not done under the GPL. It is in other words apparent that the source code that DD-WRT is distributing as corresponding to the distributed binaries is in not purely GPL.
I suggest that the article is updated to state that DD-WRT is a mix of GPL/proprietary, a sufficient citation would be the svn co command, followed by some find+grep command, e.g.
find -type f -name \*.c | grep -vw linux | xargs egrep -li 'copyright.+Broadcom' | xargs grep -li 'All Rights Reserved'
Lklundin (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
According to Broadcom#GPL_Violations - "In 2003, the Free Software Foundation caught Broadcom committing a GPL (or GNU General Public License) violation. Broadcom distributed open source code in a driver for its 802.11g router chipset without making that code public; a violation of terms of the GPL. The chipset was adopted by Linksys which was later purchased by Cisco. Cisco eventually published source code for the firmware for its WRT54G wireless broadband router."
So as long as you've properly identified the Broadcom code in the DD-WRT SVN as not covered under the court ordered release, then you may have a point. I suggest that you remove the above statement unless you can quote the source file and show that it is not under the GPL. Just because it says "copyright Broadcom", doesn't mean it's not GPL as the FSF will attest. --Spankr (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me to Broadcoms copyright on their copyright notice. I am quoting from DD-WRT/src/router/wlconf/wlconf.c in revision 10011 of the above mentioned DD-WRT svn repository. In the USA (where I am not located) I believe such quoting is permitted as so called fair use.
Yes, I agree that Broadcom has the copyright also on source code that they license under the GPL license. However, there is no place where a creator of a work registers the copyright, and no place where GPL licensed works are registered as such. The mere act of publishing a work means that the copyright is granted. Similarly, the only way a copyrighted work can be licensed under the GPL, is by placing the GPL notice in the work. So when the DD-WRT repository contains source code with Broadcom as copyright holder and a copyright notice All Rights Reserved as opposed to the GPL license, then the work is clearly not licensed under the GPL. As such it is irrelevant if Broadcom has received a court order to release that code under the GPL: There is actual code in the DD-WRT repository not licensed under the GPL and that is all that matters in the discussion of the source code that DD-WRT distributes as corresponding to binary firmware the project distributes. Lklundin (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, is "wlconf.c" a piece of code that Broadcom genuinely holds all rights to or is it code that they *said* they held the rights to and then were found to be lying about and really using GPL code? You see, just because I publish some code and say it is "Copyright me, all rights reserved" doesn't mean that it is necessarily so. What if that code is a derivative of GPLd code? Well then I'd be misrepresenting my ownership of that code and anyone would be able to use, distribute and modify it as they see fit. wlconf.c is in this software: OpenWRT and they got it from the wag54gv2-AU_v1.00.39 firmware here: Cisco/Linksys GPL software page.
You're saying that wlconf.c is not GPL code? --Spankr (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
You are asking three questions. As for the two first: Yes, I agree, just replacing a copyright notice somewhere does not transfer the copyright, and modifying a GPLed work cannot make the modified work non-GPL.
And you make a good point that it is non-trivial to establish if a given copyright notice is valid or not. As you have pointed out this occasionally has to be determined by a court. So I will adapt my argument accordingly:
The GPL clearly requires all components in a GPL-derivative to be licensed as GPL. So when some of the source code files that DD-WRT distributes do not include the GPL license, then this distribution of source code is not conforming to the GPL and the DD-WRT project can therefore not be described as (pure) GPL.
So my answer to your 3rd question is not relevant for this discussion. I guess the answer is: "I don't know if wlconf.c is GPL or not, and I am not saying it is one or the other. But the answer to that question is not relevant here. What is relevant is that the license information is incompatible with the GPL".
Now, if your information about wlconf.c is correct then it sounds like the DD-WRT project could have avoided the license issue of wlconf.c altogether: They should just have copied wlconf.c from the GPL-project OpenWRT and they would have been fine. Unfortunately, they have failed to do so and are instead distributing a number of source code files with GPL-incompatible license information and since this has been the situation for more than two years (according to the svn log), I really think the article needs to reflect that.
If your information happens to be true for all the GPL-incompatible source code files that DD-WRT is distributing, then they should be able to quickly resolve their license issues. I guess time will tell - and if it does happen then the articles description of the period during which the project has not been pure GPL can be relegated to a historical section. Lklundin (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on the above I propose to append the following to the controversy section, and to update the articles license information accordingly:

DD-WRT describes itself as a third party developed firmware released under the terms of the GPL[1], and distributes the source code via Subversion[2]. However, DD-WRTs release of firmware does not follow the terms of the GPL for several reasons:

1) The distribution includes as of 2006-02-12 proprietary software from Broadcom. The copyright notice includes: This is UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE of Broadcom Corporation; the contents of this file may not be disclosed to third parties, copied or duplicated in any form, in whole or in part, without the prior written permission of Broadcom Corporation[3]. Even if DD-WRT has a license from Broadcom to distribute this software, the distribution is not in compliance with the GPL.

2) The distribution includes as of 2006-05-27 software with copyright belonging to Atheros[4]. Even if DD-WRT has a license from Atheros to distribute this software, it is missing a GPL (compatible) license.

3) The distribution includes as of 2007-02-12 proprietary software from AvantCom Corporation. The copyright notice includes: This material is the exclusive confidential property of AvantCom Corporation. All rights, including copyrights and patent rights, are reserved. No copies of any portion are to be made by any means without the express written permission of AvantCom Corporation[5]. Even if DD-WRT has a license from AvantCom to distribute this software, the distribution is not in compliance with the GPL.

4) The distribution includes as of 2007-03-09 software with copyright belonging to Intel[6]. Even if DD-WRT has a license from Intel to distribute this software, the conditions of this license are not present nor known, and the distribution is thus not in compliance with the GPL.

5) The distribution includes as of 2007-07-21 software with copyright belonging to Moxa[7]. Even if DD-WRT has a license from Moxa to distribute this software, it is missing a GPL (compatible) license.

6) The distribution includes as of 2007-07-21 software with copyright belonging to Brad Eacker (Music, Intuition, Software, and Computers)[8]. Even if DD-WRT has a license from Brad Eacker to distribute this software, it is missing a GPL (compatible) license.

7) The distribution includes as of 2008-05-02 software with copyright belonging to Microsoft Corporation[9]. Even if DD-WRT has a license from Microsoft to distribute this software, it is missing a GPL (compatible) license.

8) The distribution includes as of 2008-07-12 software with copyright belonging to Greg Ungerer at[10]. Even if DD-WRT has a license from Greg Ungerer to distribute this software, it is missing a GPL (compatible) license.

Lklundin (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


Folks, one thing that some folk here are missing here is that you are allowed to distribute GPL and non-GPL code together, provided that the non-GPL code doesn't link any GPL code, or is a derrivative work. Now, it may be against the non-GPL license to redistribute the non-GPL code, but the GPL is ok with it. I propose we remove the lines which talk about DD-WRT being in violation of the GPL, unless we are sure that linking/derrivation is involved. jonnyt (talk) 22:03, 06 January 2010 (UTC

The problem with this proposal is that DD-WRT describes itself as "a third party developed firmware released under the terms of the GPL", see and that this description is reflected in the article "It is licensed under the GNU General Public License version 2". So simply removing the information about the GPL violation is insufficient.
Additionally, an anonymous edit on 2008-10-23 has inserted '+ Proprietary Parts' into the license information, but this edit is not in accordance with the rest of the article nor with DD-WRTs description of itself. This contradiction is best resolved by undoing that anonymous edit. Lklundin (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

That entire section probably needs to go. See Wikipedia:OR/N#DD-WRT.23Controversy. Pcap ping 17:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I found a WP:SECONDARY source [1]. Needs rewriting from that, although I suspect that some of that was written from this Wikipedia page. Pcap ping 18:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirection to WRT54G[edit]

Why was the DD-WRT page redirect to the WRT54G page? The firmware is not specific to just Linksys routers, but to many Broadcom-based routers, as well as others. - OPaul 00:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I suppose the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomato (firmware) page partially explains it as the fact DD-WRT is primary used on the Linksys branded routers. - OPaul 00:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point about this not being used solely for WRT54G. How about a new page on Aftermarket wireless router firmware or somesuch to merge this and other firmware articles? I always prefer articles on a genre rather than a specific project. Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 04:22Z
Unfortunately that doesn't make the topic of this article any more notable, and so the redirect should probably be reinstated. Perhaps a note in the WRT54G article section observing that many of these firmwares run on other Linux-based routers too? Wikipedia is hardly the right place to get into the niceties of exactly what runs on what hardware, after all. The one article that has stayed, because it has external citations, is the Sveasoft one. Since the citations are principally about the general economic & business impact of such firmware (using Sveasoft as an example), even that probably says too much about the technical details. But given the controversial history of the Sveasoft article it's probably not worth going there. Mjwild 22:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the Sveasoft article, but in general my expereince has been that if there are lots of borderline-notable subjects in one "category" then the category of those things is worth talking about as a group, and also a satisfactory solution to both sides of the inclusionism/deletionism debate. Quarl (talk) 2007-01-01 22:26Z


Fixed the redirecting to itself, but not sure if #REDIRECT WRT54G was the correct revert? KittenMya 16:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know what this means?[edit]

Does anyone know what this means? |latest preview date=2007-07-04
That date has past and there is no new release. 12:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It refers to the latest publicly available beta version. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

reinstating the controversy section[edit]

In this edit an anon author removed the entire "Controversy" section, which included two citations. I have reinstated this section, although the editor's claims that it is incorrect should be investigated further. -- Jon Dowland 16:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous contributor User: has blanked the controversy section with the comment "wrong, all sources are published including these comercial variants". I have reverted it because 1) he failed to provide additional sources 2) the blanked content is backed up with sources. --Voidvector 22:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Author removed it since this bitsum article contains false and untrue informations. the source for this is pretty easy. I'm BrainSlayer, the Author of this firmware and the target of this long term attack. so i know whats true and whats not. So please do not support these spoilers. From my point of view jerremy did this to bring his own WRT Firmware in front. He was part of the DD-WRT project for a short time and indroduced some bugs into the sourcecode and claimed later that i was just doing crap on it. Personally i dont have the time and will to react to any of these bad words. I just want to keep my work alive and to provide a good firmware. So dont make my life harder than it already is by supporting such people —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the correct action should be editing the controversy section so that it reflects what actually happened, not blanking it so it simply "disappears". I have tagged it {Disputed-section} for now. --Voidvector 10:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

that may be correct. but in times of google. the ranking of such sites will still be improved. thats the true background of clearing such articles. beside this dd-wrt is not just a hobby. it has a company background and such situations having a absolutelly negative influece for our business like services and firmware customizations. i added now my own comment to this controversy —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for posting a response on such matter. However, I need to point out, "Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way." (See WP:OR) Is there a blog/forum post/webpage where we can cite the same/similar response?
Regarding Bitsum, I also want to point out that this Bitsum article has the signature of "db90h" on the buttom. According to this article, he is Jeremy Collake, the same guy who wrote the X-Wrt blog. So the accusation only has 1 reliable source. --Voidvector 09:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the accusation has no reliable source. The first "source" (1) is a link to the $ version of DD-WRT. It's not a source for the accusation that DD-WRT violates the GPL in any way shape or form. Just because sonething is released under the GPL doesn't mean it's free (as in beer), only that it is free (as in speech). The truth is that the source for the $ version is fully available and thus satisfies the GPL under which it is released - "controversy" over. --Spankr 22:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

i agree. about the blog. yes there is a blog answer about this controversy. it was a initial response to another blogspot blog by db90h.

BrainSlayer —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not in anyway connected with developers of WRTG54 or any of the derivatives. BUT projects like DD-WRT, if encouraged will kill off the OSS model that has contributed enourmously to the world. period. You can make money of OSS, RedHAT does, so do many others, by charging for services. You can even steal OSS projects and sell them and just dont care about complaints. Nobody can stop you. Or you can act smart by providing some source files and claim to comply with GPL. But if that source cannot be compiled into ALL of the binaries you sell, you know you are breaking the letter and spirit of OSS. This article should say the truth about this item (DD-WRT). It does'nt have to be free as in beer, but it sure has to be free as in freedom, if you sourced it out of OSS. You may need money to live, but find something else to do, if you want guarantee of monetary benifits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpppwiki (talkcontribs) 20:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds to me like the familiar old WP:SOAPBOX situation. I say, nix it, unless there's someone reliable (i.e. a Linux news outlet) we can source to indicate there genuinely is a controversy here. Wikipedia is not a place to publish one guy's grudge as historical fact. 10:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of which side is true, the argument should not be going on in the article itself. That's what Talk pages are for. I'm copying and pasting the current version of the poorly titled "Accusations" section below; I'm replacing that section with a neutral statement about the fact that there is a disagreement. Fwiw, I agree that this whole section should be deleted--I agree with the earlier comment that it's a case of WP:SOAPBOX--but I'll leave that up to others to decide; I'm just removing the material that clearly does not belong in Wikipedia. --Elysdir 22:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Former contents of the "Accusations" section:

In July 2006, DD-WRT Shop started offering a pay-only "special version" of the router firmware.[11] It includes increased functionality such as per-user bandwidth control. Since then, DD-WRT has been accused of violating the GPL provision against binary-only public distribution of derivative works.[12][unreliable source?][13]

Sebastian Gottschall's (BrainSlayer's) response:

The Sourcecode for these "special versions" is available as well in the same repository as the DD-WRT source. so its no violation. i charge some money for it, thats true. but this money is more a support for our work since it would be almost impossible to maintain this project without any financial support. GPL doesnt mean that i cannot charge money for my work. I have to provide the full sourcecode of GPL derivate work. instead of doing this. i'm providing all sourcecodes, GPL or not, also work which is not originally GPL based, but written by Me or our Team. We additionally relicensed also almost all sources to GPL in our current source distribution. the sourcecodes can be reviewd at or downloaded with a svn client from svn://

About the license text included in v23 sp0. this text was originally introduced to force people to use our company provided services for customizations. its absolutelly clear that the web interface content which is mentioned in this text, is no gpl derivate work. its a complete new development made by us. later in sp1, we decided to leave this text out and to make it more open. the sourcecode for the webinterface was provided in any way. also in sp0, the full sources are provided. we just wanted to prevent the comercial exploit done by serveral companies in this time. i found several dd-wrt based firmwares which are identical. except that the name dd-wrt and the copyright was removed by these companies. This is a GPL violation as well. my only chance in these times was to create a more strict license to enforce our rights on these software parts


Just have to add that the Controversy section is severely lacking, and trite at best. I have no connection with the project. However, while the criticism is cited as an unreliable source, and the accuracy is disputed, the coverage of the reply states -uninformatively- that the maintainer states he is not violating the GPL. That is really all it states, while providing the arguments as to why he is accused of violating the GPL. The discussion page actually contains information stating that he is providing source code for all derivative works. Shouldn't this be included so as to provide some justification?

The controversy section now provides a reliable source for DD-WRTs GPL-non-conformance. Since this non-conformance started prior to the stated commercialization controversy, I think it would be appropriate to move the commercialization controversy to the end of the controversy section.
Also the disputable part of the controversy section is now greatly reduced, so I believe it would be proper to replace the disputed section tag with a Wikipedia:Disputed_statement link for any still disputed statement - but exactly which ones, if any?
I agree that the description of DD-WRTs commercialization controversy is severely lacking. Since it can be difficult to get reliable sources for what has really happened between the developer who left and the projects main developer, perhaps the article can make the non-disputed statement that a developer left the project, publicly citing concerns of the commercialization strategy and of GPL violation. As for the sections description of the main developers counter-statement (and I agree that it is a vague statement), I don't think much can be done.
I would like to see a source (preferably with a date) for the statement: The license text was reverted back to the unmodified GPL license.
Lastly, how should wikipedia treat discussion page statements (purportedly) coming from S. Gottschall (aka BrainSlayer)?
If such statements can be regarded as coming from DD-WRT then I believe the following item can be added to the list of GPL license problems:
9) DD-WRTs instructions for determining the version of the software that corresponds to a given binary release are: "each binary version is tagged with its svn revision which can be reviewed by telnet (the login banner shows it) or just by clicking on the date within the web gui on the top right of the screen. it will display the svn revision then which can be used to check out the correct sourcecode. BrainSlayer". This implies that to determine the version of the software that corresponds to a given firmware, one must acquire the matching hardware, install and activate the firmware on that hardware. This requirement is not compliant with the GPL.
Lklundin (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I vote on reinstating this section back. I have not seem the content of this section but I feel wiki should at least mention it. Because it is a notable dd-wrt event and there are published articles regarding this subject meeting wiki's reference requirement. Whether the accusations are true or not is irrelevant. I understand BrainSlayer have first hand and is most the knowledgeable person on this matter however I feel his removal of this section is advancing his point of view. (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Remove the controversy section[edit]

I believe that the entire controversy section must go for the following reasons;

  1. all eight points are about copyright material. The GPL does not disallow copyright material in GPL software. Indeed, most GPL software are themselves copyrighted and cannot be used in commercial derivatives without the express written permission of the copyright holders. The fact that DD-WRT contains copyrighted code does not mean that they violate the GPL.
  2. All eight points are about the included copyright notices of third-party source code. The GPL requires that all source code that is included also contain the un-modified original copyright notices so that, if someone wishes to make a commercial derivative, they know who to contact about licensing the code. Excluding the original copyright notices would violate the GPL. Leaving in the original copyright notices is in compliance with the GPL.
  3. Just because the editor of the article does not know the condition nor existence of a GPL license does not by that fact make the licensing incompatible with nor in violation of the GPL and to state that it is in violation is entirely speculation. The best that they can say is that it may possibly be a violation but that is weaselling. It could just as easily not be a violation.
  4. Using GPL code in a commercial product does not have to violate the GPL under certain conditions such as (but not limited to):
    1. The commercial product acquired licensing from the copyright holder for inclusion into a non-GPL product (multiple licensing of code).
    2. The commercial product is released under a GPL license and the source code is available.
    3. The commercial product, although it contains GPL code, none of the code is statically linked to proprietary modules and all the source code for the GPL code is made available. (Source code for proprietary modules that are dynamically linked do not need to be released to fulfil the GPL as long as those modules themselves do not contain GPL code).
  5. All controversies are not about the status of DD-WRT and the GPL but are controversies generally about what constitutes a proper GPL distribution.

As such, the controversies should be discussed in a forum (not the Wikipedia) about what constitutes a GPL distribution but it does not belong here. I motion that the controversy section be removed in its entirety for reasons that it does not bring any substantial facts about specific violations by DD-WRT of the GPL but merely points to items that may possibly be violations, unproven without further research into the licensing agreements. Wikipedia is not for the publishing of unverified accusations.

I will remove it myself later if there is no objections or someone else does not do so. I just thought it fair (after so many deletions and restorations) to give it time and not jump the gun.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am not associated with DD-WRT but I do use the free/libre firmware (DD-WRT v24-sp2 (07/22/09) micro - build 12548M NEWD Eko) on a Linksys WRT54GS v6 using the Broadcom BCM5352 chip (rev 0).

--The.Kings.Servant (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I vote for keeping the controversies section. --JHP (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with keeping it; this is interesting and relevant and currently vital. --John Bessa (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but what is it *for*?[edit]

Instate Controversy Section[edit]

The controversy is an important part of DD-WRT, and should be included for completeness. Omitting it is less desirable than the simple statement "John alleged[citation] and Doe denies[citation]." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This article provides technical details for people who understand them, but it doesn't provide any useful information for people not already familiar with the topic. It really needs an introductory paragraph that explains what the idea of replacement router firmware is, why you would want to do it, what the advantages and disadvantages are. Or, if that information is already in Wikipedia somewhere, then we need to explicitly say so and link to that. I would do all this myself, except that I don't know the answers; I came to this article to find out the advantages and disadvantages of installing dd-wrt, because the dd-wrt site itself doesn't appear to contain any overview/background information. --Elysdir 22:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A year late, but hopefully what I added will assist you and others with the question. --Julien Deveraux (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

possible inclusion[edit]

Dd wrt.png

--BorisFromStockdale|Discussion|Contributions 19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

v24 RC7?[edit]

Where is this official v24 RC7 stated on this page? Their download page only show RC6.2 as of now. There are a few builds made by forum users which I don't think is official. --Voidvector (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The official v24 RC7 builds are located here. None of those builds are from regular forum users. Brainslayer and Eko (a maintainer) are the only ones releasing builds. If you notice, the builds have Brainslayer in front of them showing that they are built by him. H3xis (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Um... no. Those are pre-RC7 test builds, not finalised. See relevant DD-WRT forum discussion. When the finalised RC7 is ready for mass consumption it will be placed in the "release candidates" directory of the download page rather than the "eko" directory. Griffinn (talk) 08:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing Features Section[edit]

What was the point of this section? I reverted it because there is no place for this in an encyclopedic article. DD-WRT also does not have rack-and-pinion steering, but is that a "missing" feature? --Spankr (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

v24 released[edit]

v24 firmware has been released. Can someone update the section with mention of the new features?--LF2 (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Change to First Statement[edit]

The first statement said that "DD-WRT is no longer free Linux-based firmware..."

I think someone might have sneaked that in there because of the controversy of whether this is totally free or not because of the non-free code included in the software. Regardless, it should state what DD-WRT is, not what it's not. If we can't state that it's free software, than the phrase stating that it's free should be removed completely in my opinion. Pr0gr4mm3r (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Other open (persumably linux) software for routers[edit]

I am thinking that these should be mentioned, such as OpenWRT, and the underlying tech be described briefly in each case, in anticipation of a separate page and/or category. I am guessing that this field should go emebedded/microkernel eventually, which in turn, will move upwards to the desktop -- if there will be such a thing in the future! (I have been increasingly finding that self-appointed miniguards tend to attack new pages leveraging the oligarchy, even with respect to the most obviously needed pages, so I am reluctant to start new pages here -- but there are other wiki projects that can be referenced and copied.) --John Bessa (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

So what does "DD-WRT" stand for?[edit]

 Wouldn't that be the first definition for this, assuming it is an ABBREVIATED term?BrianAlex (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 I couldn't find any reference as to what the DD meant nor the WRT.  Perhaps Wireless Receiver and Transmitter?  Linksys never said publicly why they put that in the model number. Rbeede (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)rbeede
 Does it mean DumbedDown-WirelessRouterTechnogy or more polite could be DedicatedDevice-WirelessRouterTechology?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC) 

DD_WRT? I dunno. My wife started calling it my Dead Duck-WRT project, and that was too much for me -- all I had to do was brick the router and I'd be out on the street. It turns out WRT comes from the Linksys WRT54G -- as we all suspected -- for which the firmware was first written, and DD is the German license plate for Dresden, where the Brainslayers development team lived. Here is my correspondence with a developer, then the paragraph text I'm changing. Does anyone know how to site the email? In academe, we say "Correspondence with the author, William Jones".

Key developers Björn Geschka, Sebastian Gottschall, both at New Media Net. E-mail:

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:20:48 +0100
From: Bjoern <>
Subject: Re: [DD-WRT Info] DD-WRT name
DD is the automobile licence plate for Dresden Germany, Brainslayers home.
WRT is part of the model number from linksys WRT54G (which was the original platform for DD-WRT)
Mit freundlichen Grüssen / Regards
Björn Geschka
NewMedia-NET GmbH
Firmensitz: Berliner Ring 101, 64625 Bensheim
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Darmstadt, HRB 25473
Geschäftsführer: Peter Steinhäuser, Christian Scheele /
Tel.: +496251-582650 / Fax: +496251-5826565
Am 29.12.13 22:14, schrieb []
Jerry Nelson sent a message using the contact form at
I talk about DD-WRT, my wife can't remember the name. Open-source wireless router . . . I keep telling her. Please make up something for DD-WRT to stand for. She: "So you don't know?" He: "Wireless RoutTer something, I don't know." She: "So it's your Dead Duck router." I am not happy with this, I haven't bricked anything (yet). Please help.
WashDC with all the other idiots.

Wikipedia Original Paragraph[edit]

The WRT part of the name comes from the history of the firmware from the original hardware model number used which was the Linksys WRT54G. Other distributions also use this nomenclature such as OpenWRT. The actual meaning of WRT in the model number is not known, though it is likely shorthand for "Wireless RouTer".

Wikipedia New Paragraph Inserted 1/2014[edit]

The firmware project's name, DD-WRT was taken in part from the Linksys (now Cisco/Linksys) WRT54G model router, a successful home router popular in 2002-2004, for which the first replacement firmware was written. "DD" are the German license plate letters for all cars from Dresden, where the "Brainslayers" development team lived. "WRT", also used by the OpenWRT router firmware project, is coming to be a generic acronym for "Wireless RouTer", which may have been Linksys's original meaning.
Jerry-VA (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Written as advertisement?[edit]

I am just a regular free (as in beer) user of the DD-WRT firmware, and came here to read up on its history and main competitors. I notice that someone has marked the article as an "advertisement" but without stating here on the Talk page why that is. I don't see it; the article in its current form seems short, neutral and to-the-point. If no objects are made, and no discussion is started on this subject, I'll remove the advert flag in a week or two. SplatMan DK (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree, and since almost a month has passed with no discussion, I have gone ahead and done it. (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)