Title: "Dr. Codethief, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the DMCA"

(Author's note: Please use DD-WRT in place of any Sveasoft firmware, but feel free to distribute their firmware to piss James off.)

I suppose I should start at the beginning. From early January 2004 I had been experimenting with the next-generation Internet Protocol, usually referred to by its technical abbreviation IPv6. It was a great little side project to research how to run one of these networks. Unfortunately, the only way for most people to use the protocol is to use a tunnel. So for over a year I was stuck with using a modified "Linux router" set-up, which did its job fairly well.

Unfortunately, having a very large and noisy computer in a small dorm room is annoying at the very least. I decided to do some research on a piece of hardware I had heard about some time ago on TechTV. After a bit of reserch, I found out about the Linksys WRT54G router series. These little routers, retailing for less than $100, are fully Linux-powered. Since the kernel and over half the code was released under the GNU Public License, Linksys had no choice but to release the entire source code for their router firmware.

Almost immediately after the code release, several programmers decided to modify the code to their own liking. One of these programmers created a product called TinyPEAP, a firmware that would require every user to login to access the Internet. Unfortunately, they made the same mistake that Linksys did: they used GPL code, but tried to keep it to themselves. This got them into serious legal troubles. The result of these legal actions is made clear by reading the latest entry on their web site, tinypeap.com:

"6/9/2005: tinyPEAP has stopped distributing the binaries due to the copyright infringement against FreeRADIUS Project."
You would think that programmers would start taking the GPL seriously after the TinyPEAP fiasco -- but you'd be wrong. The award for the "worst of the worst", when it comes to GPL violations (and bad business practices), would have to go to Sveasoft. They're making a killing off of poor saps who think they're paying a $20 yearly "support fee", who believe they can download their firmware for free at any point in time. They'd be wrong, too. The most publicized incident between a (former) Sveasoft subscriber and the company's owner, James Ewing, can he read in full detail at this web site: http://wrt54g.thermoman.de.

Despite what I read, I decided to give Sveasoft a chance. The IPv6 support I got through their software alone made me think the $20 fee was well worth paying, and the other features provided (far too numerous to list) were great as well. I later made the $20 back by contributing back to the Sveasoft firmware, and in a couple of months I gained a huge amount of respect from the programming community.

One day, my account was locked. No refund, no e-mail notice, just a lock. I assumed it was a bug in the web site forum code (they've been having lots of problems). So I sent an e-mail to James:
From:    Me
To:      James Ewing
Subject: Critical Information

I'm not sure what happened. Could you explain the lock on my account (username "-removed-")?
I got a quick response that further made me believe there was a bug:
From:    James Ewing
To:      Me
Subject: Re: Critical Information

What lock? The account seems to be OK.
I send another e-mail, hoping to get everything straightened out:
From:    Me
To:      James Ewing
Subject: Re: Critical Information

Here's the exact message:

"Your access to Sveasoft has been revoked. Please contact the webmaster or board administrator for more information."
I figured they would reset my username to get it to work. Instead, I was sent a fairly brazen e-mail:
From:    James Ewing
 To:      Me
 Subject: Re: Critical Information
http://www.binrev.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=*removed*

[ed: the link lead to a forum where I posted the anti-Sveasoft link, which provides Sveasoft firmware for download without a subscription fee]
Okay, apparently I was going to have to a bit of explaining. So I did:
From:    Me
To:      James Ewing
Subject: Re: Critical Information

I'm somewhat confused. The link I posted was already posted at http://hs247.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=188. If there's a problem with some sort of copyright and/or license agreement, we would've found it, but the UNC-CH law department told me this was OK.
I mentioned UNC-CH because they deal with software licensing issues all the time. Most of the disputes are meaningless, and considering this was (supposedly) a GPL project, I figured he would have to concede...

...but no! He decides my name is "Alex", and sends me this very insulting e-mail:
From:    James Ewing
 To:      Me
 Subject: Re: Critical Information

Alex - aren't you getting a bit old for these antics? If you disagree with our policies, perhaps you should consider writing better firmware instead :-)
I stopped for a minute, calmed down, suppressed my insults, and wrote the most calm response I could:
From:    Me
To:      James Ewing
Subject: Re: Critical Information

Dear James (may I call you James?),

I'm more confused than ever. My name is not Alex, but I'm sure he/she would not appreciate being talked to in this manner. If you must know my real first name, call me "Roy M." [ed: I don't want this wacko knowing my real name!]. I would reveal my entire last name, but with your attitude I'd rather not.

I was serious when I said I had contacted UNC-CH. These are the same people who administer Ibiblio and Wikipedia, along with managing the systems that host hundreds upon thousands of GPL-licensed software projects on SourceForge. Based on all the (idle) threats they've received, they know a thing or two about copyright and trademark law [ed: like telling people to get real]. The university also have a law program that rivals most Ivy League schools. Needless to say, I don't think they'd be very pleased with how you're reinterpreting both software licenses and U.S. law (for example, the DMCA only applies to copy-protection devices -- but perhaps you were referring to the Sonny Bono act?).

If you don't mind, I'd like a full explanation for your inept attitude and your unbecoming business practices. You can contact me at this address, or if you'd like you can leave a voice message for my attorney at +1-610-934-XXXX [ed: a lawyer I was referred to, also remaining anonymous]. Thank you for your time and attention.

-- Roy M.
I thought I had the final word, but apparently James needed a few days to come up with enough rhetoric to try to scare me. There was an unusually long delay before this e-mail came...and I can't make this up:
From:    James Ewing
To:      Me
Subject: Re: Critical Information
Roy or Alex,
 
The GPL covers somewhat less than 50% of the packages and code in our firmware [ed: he's right]. As such it cannot subsume any other licenses, including our proprietary additions [ed: there's only one full addition; the rest are merely copied GPL apps]. Distributing firmware with Sveasoft copyright proprietary code and binaries without authorization from Sveasoft Inc. is a crime [ed: they claim to be GPL, then they don't?].
 
The number you left is a mobile number not assigned to any Law Office. The number is assigned to a residential Philadelphia suburb, not zoned for connercial use [ed: it's a Vonage number]. If you have a real attorney we would be happy to send them an official statement and initiate correspondence about your unauthorized distribution of our firmware.
 
We would also be happy to speak with any officials at the University of North Carolina.
 
The IP address you used to send this email, 65.187.247.180, traces back to Henderson, Virginia. This does not appear to be near the University of North Carolina nor is it near the number you reported as your attorney's. Additional research reveals the handle "-removed-" is quite unique and has been used by a person defacing Internet sites and distributing "cracked" software. Google searches of -removed- postings reveal a writing style very like your own [ed: this is all made up].
 
To date Sveasoft has released four firmware versions to the public with no hope or goal of revenue. Our model is based on a very low annual subscription fee, which covers development costs. During this development period public firmware distribution is not authorized [ed: a GPL violation]. Once a firmware is stable we release it, with full source and binary code, to the public at no charge. Without this model we would not be able to develop firmware [ed: Linus Torvalds would be richer than Bill Gates if he pulled this crap].
 
Despite claims to the contrary, all current 3rd party firmware save OpenWRT and Jim Buzbee's RAM based distribution, are based on our work. These include TinyPEAP [ed: see legal notice above], DDWRT, EWRT, Wifibox, and HyperWRT. Developing feature-full firmware that is stable and works properly is a time-consuming task. You may want to ask yourself if your future, after college, will be a 70-80 hour per week project that pays you nothing? This is what you are asking us to do [ed: this is what Linus did!].
 
Perhaps you could instead conisder the benefits our cheap subscription model has provided and will continue to provide to new firmware development.
 
Best Regards,
 
James Ewing
Sveasoft Inc.
Okay, enough of this. I take this guy to school:
From:    Me
To:      James Ewing
Subject: Re: Critical Information

James,

Thank you for your quick reply. However,
  1. 65.187.247.180 reverse-resolves to cpe-065-187-247-180.nc.res.rr.com. If you resolve the other IP addresses (150.216.x.x), those were from visits from my work (see #5).
  2. Under section 2 of the GPL:
    "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
    ...and...
    "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."
    (both Linksys and TinyPEAP got in trouble for this, too).
  3. Vonage can assign any area code to any VoIP phone. He just happens to have clients from Philadelphia.
  4. I admit to making that post on binrev.com. However, I am not this "Alex" character.
  5. I am a computer programmer, and I do work for the state. There are millions of people who make contributions, big and small, to programming projects solely for the good of mankind. Considering what a state government pays, I might as well be considered working for charity -- but I do it anyway. Take a look at the posts I made on your forums. I didn't demand any payment. I helped people out because I like helping people.
  6. If you charge $20 for "support" and don't allow distribution of source (with or without charging them), then it's not a donation. It's a contracting fee. If you're having money troubles, calm down, stop complaining, and get a paying job.
  7. I do not host any "pirated"/"cracked" firmware, and neither does anyone else. Someone had to pay the fee to download the files; therefore, a subscriber must be distributing it. Read:
    http://indi.doubledaze.com/gmail_commented.html
I'm sure you and your team worked very hard on your firmware, and I appreciate it. I'm also sure that the fine people at Linksys and Cisco regret having to "give away" their firmware source code. But they had to play by the rules. I would recommend that you do the same.

-- Roy M.

P.S. Yes, I'm aware of what the FSF said. Then again, I'm sure they wouldn't be pleased with how you treat your subscribers.

P.P.S. Was I talking to more than one person, or are you bipolar?
...and I get no response. He knows I can have him shut down in an instant. The very last link I put in that e-mail, http://indi.doubledaze.com/gmail_commented.html, is another documentation of James' dirty tactics - and he fails miserably. It's a good read. Unfortunately, it's one of the few times he's failed. James has gone so far as to personally threaten people's lives, and he sends out fake "cookie-cutter" DMCA notices to their ISPs when they don't step down to him. Sadly, it usually works.

I just wanted to get this story out into the open. Linksys and Cisco need to know about this guy: he's basically ripping off Linksys' hard work and calls it "his" hard work. People in general need to know that James Ewing is a vengeful, libelous, and sadistic thief, and that Sveasoft should be avoided at all costs.

-- Tokachu