Talk:DD-WRT

message: "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)
replies: text:  - That was James Ewing of Sveasoft editing the article. Spankr 02:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of Sveasoft 

message: 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 http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/What_is_DD-WRT%3F 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)
thread_title:  Aggregate 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: It refers to the latest publicly available beta version. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone know what this means? 

message: I believe that the entire controversy section must go for the following reasons;
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.
# Using GPL code in a commercial product does not have to violate the GPL under certain conditions such as (but not limited to):
## The commercial product acquired licensing from the copyright holder for inclusion into a non-GPL product (multiple licensing of code).
## The commercial product is released under a GPL license and the source code is available.
## 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).
# 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)
replies: text: I vote for keeping the controversies section. --JHP (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with keeping it; this is interesting and relevant and currently vital. --John Bessa (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the controversy section 

message: 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 76.104.2.80 (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instate Controversy Section 

message: --BorisFromStockdale|Discussion|Contributions 19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible inclusion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  v24 RC7? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Missing Features Section 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Change to First Statement 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other open (persumably linux) software for routers 

message: 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)
thread_title: Wikipedia New Paragraph Inserted 1/2014

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree, and since almost a month has passed with no discussion, I have gone ahead and done it. 130.215.112.161 (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Written as advertisement? 

message: The article would benefit from more information on the current means of producing releases e.g.
* Why the formal release process stopped after v24 sp1 (inc. if there will ever be a v25).
* How security vulnerabilities are identified/publicised and how updates for addressing those vulnerabilities are made available.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willfurnass (talk • contribs) 07:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beta releases