DD-WRT going Sveasoft?

Published: 2008-02-10
Updated: 2021-02-12

The views and facts in this article may be outdated. While I did my best to back up statements with reputable sources, it may contain errors. Some relevant web pages have since been removed by their authors. Rectifications at the end (marked with *).

Joy oh joy. Remember the good ole days when OpenWrt accused Sveasoft of violating the GPL, only to be accused by Sveasoft themselves in return to do something similar? Welcome to the déjà vu then.

It seems DD-WRT is doing the same thing. DD-WRT does have one thing going for it: it is tightly integrated, and has a very nice web interface that allows you to configure almost anything. The downside, for me, was that it is very unfriendly on the CLI - not to say crippled, when compared to OpenWrt. My router has USB ports that I'd like to use, but DD-WRT had no nice solution for it. I tend to go for solutions that show a lot of thought has been put into their design and implementation. Ergo: exit DD-WRT.

Questionable practices

Back in the days when I was trying to pimp my router (I'm a geek after all), I already noticed DD-WRT was offering 'specialised' versions, and sold routers pre-flashed with DD-WRT. So far, no biggie. Everyone is entitled to get something back for the work they put into a project, but this seems different. It seems the main developer is letting his desire to make a living of the project get the upper hand on the freedom of its users. For those not bothering to read the whole (possibly tendentious) article, I'll sum up what he seems to be doing:

  • Rebranding GPL'ed software.
  • Taking credit for other developers' work.
  • Falsely pretending to be a FOSS project while solliciting donations from users.
  • Encrypting the DD-WRT Web UI to protect against modification.
  • Restricting the use of DD-WRT, hereby violating the GPL.*
  • Requiring you to obtain a (paid) license for the x86 version, enforced by product activation. The x86 is also said to contain copy protection measurs.

Besides this, there also seems to be a tendency to prevent users from building their own versions from source code. Sources are hard to find or seem to be uncomplete. I can personally testify to this. I was been looking for those sources too some time ago, and was only able to find old stuff. On the other hand you can pull down the source code from SVN.*

It also claims to be working closely together with OpenWrt (from which it borrowed some code) and contributing code back, but in a Digg thread called DD-WRT sliding down the slippery slope: Give 'em hell, Digg users, mbm, an OpenWrt developer, firmly denied this:

As one of the OpenWrt developers, I can't remember a single instance of BrainSlayer contributing back to OpenWrt or working with the OpenWrt developers. Parts of DD-WRT are copied from OpenWrt, but DD-WRT is not based on OpenWrt.

I can confirm myself building one's own image is for example quite easy on OpenWrt. Actually, for a firmware that is generally perceived as the nec plus ultra when it comes to embedded Linux, building one's own image from source code is a real piece of cake. Isn't it at the very least surprising to see that DD-WRT, a firmware touting usability and userfriendliness, does not honour the same motto when users want to take matters into their own hands?

Controversy and GPL compliance

I understand not all these allegations may be true (or some things DD-WRT does may not conflict with the GPLv2, while they seem to conflict with the GPLv3). Although this particular ex-developer (db90h) seems to have a bone to pick with the main DD-WRT developer, he's not the only one asking questions. On his blog (WARNING: Google reports this as a malicious site, proceed at your own risk), C. Jeff Keeme raises similar concerns. He points out the available firmware is quite old while development no doubt goes on (very much a Sveasoft practice). He also had difficulty finding the source code - it is not clear whether he eventually found it or not. Just like me, he notes OpenWrt offers full clarity on (and even actively encourages) building from source or rebranding firmware, whereas DD-WRT seems to go to great lengths to prevent users from doing so. Is this all just rumour?

Wikipedia

At the time of writing, even Wikipedia's DD-WRT entry was not free from controversy. The article at some point contained a paragraph titled Controversy, which seems to have been added by db90h, and was subsequently removed by another Wikipedia contributor.*

Until the DD-WRT team takes a clear stance on these issues, I am encouraging everyone running DD-WRT and who cares about the open source movement to ditch it and use an alternative that not only values the input of developers and its community, but also unambiguously respects the GNU Public License.

Notes and rectifications

  • The clause that restricted usage to the home has been lifted in the license for v23 SP1.
  • The Digg thread has been taken off-line.
  • Both articles on DD-WRT's practices were written by db90h, former DD-WRT contributor and X-Wrt developer. They were taken offline without further explanation.
  • Source code can be readily downloaded from the SVN repository.
  • As of July 2013, the Wikipedia article is listed as 'having multiple issues' and 'reading like an advertisement'. A call was made to provide additional citation for verification.