Talk:OpenWrt

message: "0 December 2002" really?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.83.244 (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial release

message: The article originally had a link here indicating that Sveasoft claimed "that OpenWRT was illegally distributing software copyrighted by Sveasoft and Broadcom under the GPL".  However, that citation makes no such claim.  It only says that these packages (most or all of which were not written by Sveasoft and therefore not copyrighted by them) are released under terms different from the GPL or LGPL.  As an example, libpcap is released under the terms of the BSD license if I am not mistaken.  I believe the person who added this information initially was in error and I have marked the information with the fact tag to indicate a dispute.  If no reliable citation can be found within a week (and if no significant disputes are raised here), I will remove the information about Sveasoft's counterclaim.  --Yamla 17:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has now been cited appropriately.  Thanks, Stereo!  :)  --Yamla 15:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Do sveasoft really have any claim? The original linksys firmware is GPL open source, Sveasoft's firmware is a modified version of the original Linksys firmware, which is also under GPL. modern versions of OpenWrt contain no original code and were basically linux distros to themselves built from the ground up, much like an LFS distro.  They're not even based on sveasoft or linksys source. linux distros have BSD licensed packages all the time and BSD occasionally has something under the GPL like GCC.--KX36 19:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sveasoft counterclaim

message: Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was PaX. Gronky 15:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The selected article has moved on and is now DragonFly BSD. Gronky 17:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On [[Portal:Free software]], OpenWrt is currently the selected article 

message: :Image:Openwrt-logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Openwrt-logo.png

message: I believe it's misleading to call OpenWrt GNU/Linux; it uses the µClibc library and busybox environment. On my little box, it seems the only GNU packages installed are libgcc and GNU nano. For reference, there are 212 references to “Linux” in the OpenWrt wiki, but only 16 references to “GNU/Linux”, so calling OpenWrt a “Linux distribution” seems consistent with the nomenclature of the project itself.
Personally, I find the entire GNU/Linux controversy somewhat silly, but I believe the arguments for prepending “GNU” aren't relevant to this particular instance.
DanChr 10:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are quite right. I've fixed the article. -- Jon Dowland 10:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ACK; the GNU/Linux controversy is silly, and especially OpenWrt uses software which is not written by the GNU project, e.g. uClibc instead of GNU C Library, BusyBox instead of GNU binutils, etc. Yet, OpenWrt Buildroot relies heavily on GNU software, e.g. the GNU build system or the GNU Compiler Collection. Just FYI ;-). ScotXW (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Is OpenWrt really “GNU/Linux”?

message: it would be useful to differentiate between features included in real WRT firmware and this ddWrt linux distribution, if only to help people choosing to switch or not. I understand that the features may be found out on official pages of these software, but it would be nice to see what improvements has openWRT done in contrast to original firmware. 178.41.54.147 (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Talking about "features" is for sissies. This article should rather give some insights on OpenWrt Buildroot, procd, ubus, netifd, about the numerous OpenWrt patches that have been accepted upstream, about other projects and companies adopting OpenWrt Buildroot, etc. ScotXW (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  No one is stopping your from expanding the article! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

text:  Yeah, but we need to keep in mind that Wikipedia's main audience isn't made of people spitting out bits and bytes. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  differentiation between features 

message: Someone please write a better 5-line intro about what the software actually does, or is targeted to do. Electron9 (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OpenWrt is a project by volunteers. It has developed OpenWrt Buildroot and maintains patches. Applying the patches to existing software with the help of OpenWrt Buildroot, should produce an operating system that runs, e.g. on your NAT-router. ScotXW (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does it do!? 

message: I have been working on a Linux Users Group resource page and need some
 conformity of all the Wiki Linux versions and distributions. Debian has an
 excellent template and I have made an RSS reader to pluck version data from
 the wiki page. Would be nice if I could get all of them to follow this method
 and my page could keep up to date with all the latest versions.  
 RSS source path
 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Debian&feed=rss&action=history     
 RSS Template.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Debian&action=edit  
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarusfactor (talk • contribs) 02:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest Version Layout 

message: Should the Feature section be simplified to be more general?  Perhaps something like:
* Open source
* Free
* Community driven development
* Advanced network routing
** VLANs
** NAT
** Port forwarding
** Bridging
* Wireless networking
** Multiple SSIDs
** Personal and Enterprise RADIUS security support
** Wireless client/bridge support
* Stateful Firewall
* VPN
** Server or Client
** OpenVPN
** PPTP
* File share server
** NFS
** Samba
** FTP
** SFTP
* Web server
* SSH  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbeede (talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature section too wordy? 

message: Is there any information on approximately how many users of OpenWRT are there? 128.197.128.231 (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No. But there are adopters, that are maybe worth mentioning, like e.g. Freifunk or ODMs who use OpenWrt Buildroot instead of the SKDs delivered by the Chip manufacturers, etc. ScotXW (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Installed base 

message: The section heading seems to indicate something more than what it is. The section would be better called Hardware requirements
Moxoed (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello!  Well, "Hardware incompatibilities" still seems like a better choice to me, as the section deals specifically with the incompatibilities between various hardware variants and software versions. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardware incompatibilities 

message: OpenWrt has had a fair share of hardware/software discovery in the past without help from the hardware manufactures but there are some manufactures that are more FOSS friendly, especially SOC manufactures are in focus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-OlUxeS57E
However, there are differences in how cooperative thes manufactures are. As an indication of which manufactures are actively FOSS friendly it could be interesting to have such a section in relation to OpenWrthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lantiq#OpenWrt
Moxoed (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  FOSS Friendly 

message: One should consider a revision of the history with respect to this referance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-OlUxeS57E
Moxoed (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello!  Unfortunately, YouTube videos, in general, aren't considered to be reliable sources. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=63415 Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New minor release (15.05.1) 

message: One editor from Croatia has been repeated blanking my edits about OpenWrt/LEDE remerger stating it is invalid. However based on public sources, the rememger is still ongoing as of August 2017 blocked on asset transferring.  
* http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/lede-adm/2017-August/000565.html (Aug 3) 
* https://forum.lede-project.org/t/lede-v17-01-3-release/5685/6 (Aug 12) - "The merge process has no impact on the releases, the 17.01.3 release is primarily delayed by a lack of time on my side."
SPI = Software in the Public Interest
--Voidvector (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  LEDE remerger 

message: I propose that LEDE be merged into OpenWRT. The LEDE project is folding back into OpenWRT and it should eventually only be a historical event in the long history of the project, however significant. A redirect should be kept, of course. TheAnarcat (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The re-merger of the two projects has not happend, yet. I don't see a need to rush this here either. We'll see than, if this really is just a minor event, as you predict. It's also the nature of forks that they build on great achievements from their ancestors. LEDEs achievemnt is certainly visible in their active release schedule during the first 18 months. --Aeroid (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

text: No,or Not now may be a better answer. Now LEDE is still a separate project and it has not merge back, so the wiki pages should also be separate. When LEDE project folds back to OpenWRT and becomes history, we can merge the wiki page at that time. --ShootSniper (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

text: No. Even once it merges back in, the LEDE's history is still notable enough to have its own page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.95.190 (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

text: Yes, the projects have merged, and so should the wiki pages. 203.176.96.250 (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Merge, per OP's rationale, and the project merger is done now. The LEDE article will never move beyond stub class, and it's best to merge it, and leave a redirect. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 22:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Klbrain (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal