Talk:DD-WRT

Mention of Sveasoft

"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. 24.249.205.250 21:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

GPL / Proprietary

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)[reply]

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 71.88.99.6 (talk) 09:00:22, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Redirection to WRT54G

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Redirect

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?

Does anyone know what this means? |latest preview date=2007-07-04
That date has past and there is no new release.
12.40.253.154 12:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

reinstating the controversy section

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)[reply]

Anonymous contributor User:84.179.120.69 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)[reply]

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 84.179.91.207 (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 84.179.92.94 (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

i agree. about the blog. yes there is a blog answer about this controversy. http://dd-wrt.blogspot.com it was a initial response to another blogspot blog by db90h.

BrainSlayer