Fork 380.57 HGG-FINAL

[GGavan]

HGG ways are not the GPL ways.
HGG is mysterious, folks. Live with that!

 

[Nullity]

I'm glad to hear you appreciate options or choices. The rule of game in open source is exactly to guarantee choices and no individual or company will take away the source code and prevents more choices.

Sadly, your understanding/attitude towards open source on the contrary is killing..choices on the long run.

I agree with you a large majority of the time, but I think your attitude is too absolutist here. It reminds me of Richard Stallman (whom I greatly respect and personally agree with).

Is HGG trying to help or hurt with his firmware?
He might be breaking some rules, but so what... if the majority benefits, then "hooray!". This type of thing should not be encouraged, but desperate times call for desperate measures (I say that with a hint of sarcasm).


This is pure opinion though, so criticism is encouraged.



@L&LD, no, if the code was originally GPL, all forks must obey GPL. Also, yes, users can do whatever they want, but it is the responsibility of those who have more experience to offer warnings.

 

[Nullity]

HGG ways are not the GPL ways.
HGG is mysterious, folks. Live with that!

This is not something to brag about...

 

[GGavan]

looking at the discussions...
There are not many or big issues reported and I see that there are many downloads.
It means that it is a great FW.
Found this fork (previous version) 4-5 months ago I think and it didn't disappointed me yet, still happy!

 

[Nullity]

looking at the discussions...
There are not many or big issues reported and I see that there are many downloads.
It means that it is a great FW.
Found this fork (previous version) 4-5 months ago I think and it didn't disappointed me yet, still happy!

No issues != great firmware.

There are more concerns than the end-user experience.

 

[kvic]

There are many examples of open source being used as the source to develop private forks.

GPL is pivotal in starting the open source movement since 1990s. Many people, especially those in the industry do find it too restrictive. Hence, later and nowadays there are quite a few different open source licenses. One of them is so called LGPL which allows you to use the source code and redistribute the binary without the obligation to disclose your derived work in the form of source code.

So you may be seeing some examples like that. But for GPL, once GPL'ed any derived work is also GPL'ed. Upon request the original codes together with the derived work in source code form shall be disclosed.

He is not providing nor forcing anyone to use his forks.

As others have said, choice is good and the users can decide on their own.

The gpl, choice and other points being brought up is dismissing the main point; anyone can do what they want with the public code.

It's not public code. Decades ago and before the open source movement, shareware/public domain ware were in the vogue. Your thinking is very close to the idea of "public domain" source codes. I.e. codes are public and hence people can make use of it in whatsoever way. Open source is very different from "public domain".

@Nullity, if nothing to hide, why not disclose the source codes, and let hggome conduct and serve his users openly on this forum?

 

[GGavan]

Yes, it is working with no issues + appreciations = great job!
Pushing again and again on a thing without having something which prove that, directing always the discussion in the same subject, has a name... paranoia.
As I said before, it should be two different treads, one for GPL.. whatever... and one for functionalities, issues related specific to the version.
It is difficult to find relevant things with two different subjects going in parallel.
Who can split this, please give us the choice of choosing the subject we like.

 

[Nullity]

@Nullity, if nothing to hide, why not disclose the source codes, and let hggome conduct and serve his users openly on this forum?

Closed-source software = malicious?

Yes, it is non-GPL, but implying that means obviously malicious is illogical.

PS - An intelligent adversary can hide in plain sight. There's always someone smarter.

 

[BreakingDad]

@Nullity, if nothing to hide, why not disclose the source codes, and let hggome conduct and serve his users openly on this forum?

That is the part that concerns me, that and threads about "what it might contain"

I meant what are the USP or main themes, points of distinction between the three. That won't be apparent from all the details in the changelog.

Some of the other guys can probably give you more techy answers but I think..

Asus Based Firmwares
Official = nerfed sdk6 new driver, functional, more or less stable, no additional features.
Johns's = pre nerf, old sdk5 driver therefore performance on par with "how it used to be" however still compliant with regulations and licenses, now with many additional nice features, see changelog, it's a really nice firmware.
Merlins = nerfed sdk6 new driver, is very stable modified version of asus's original firmwarm with a huge number of additional features and bug fixes, "stability being its USP over Performance and perfomance over features". again an amazing piece of work.
HGGomes= not sure which driver this one uses, however it is loosely based on Merlins firmware with I would guess "performance" at the expense of regulations being it's USP, this firmware essentially allows the user to push transmit power levels,channels and throughput to max, however it should not be used in countries where these power levels and channels are not allowed by law, it is also not officially released (I think) and there has been no source code released for it, so no one is entirely sure what is on the firmware be it fair or foul. It is recommended by the Elders of SNB that this firmware should only be approached with caution until HGGomes releases the source and conforms to GPL. Well this one blows you away but you kinda feel a bit dirty after using it at the moment Brilliant piece of work though.

Then there is:
Tomato by Shibby http://tomato.groov.pl/?page_id=69 a whole different firmware, I have never ventured into, completely changes your router from the official line firmware, multi featured.

As does DDWRT http://www.dd-wrt.com/site/index

With both DDWRT and Tomato you MUST follow clear instructions to install or you can brick your router, this is down to the CFE (Common Firmware Environment) Changing from 32K to 64K on these firmwares.

Hope that helps

 

[GGavan]

"Closed-source software = malicious?" => it can be but not equal. It can happen also with open source to be malicious. It is happening also a lot on android applications.
There are a lot of closed-source applications which are not malicious. Can be doesn't mean equal.

 

[kvic]

Closed-source software = malicious?

Yes, it is non-GPL, but implying that means obviously malicious is illogical.

PS - An intelligent adversary can hide in plain sight. There's always someone smarter.

Malicious code in HGG fork? That's a valid concern from people. Never my emphasis. I do prefer openness in a firmware operation if it's used by a non-trivial number of people.

I can summarise three issues in HGG fork:

1. GPL violation. Plain simple.
2. Tx power related. Not clear cut and debatable
3. Copy features from other forks. I can't complain much. A work ethic thing at most.

I briefly touched upon #3 a few pages ago. I just want to elaborate a bit how important GPL plays on #3.

Peter worked hard to develop a few nice features. Due to his abiding by the rule of GPL - open sourced his fork, users of other forks can benefit. His open source fork is promoting choices for users. HGG fork actually happens to incorporate a few features from Peter's fork. Users of HGG fork benefits here.

Now let's do a thought experiment. There are one or two features in HGG fork that users of other forks like. Since HGG fork does not disclose source code, hggomes is limiting other users' choices here. Other forks cannot at their free will (and as permitted by GPL) to incorporate good features of HGG fork into their forks.

It's simply unfair. Justice as per GPL shall prevail. People in the game of open source shall play by its rules. Not to create exceptions nor only certain people have to abide by the rules.

 

[Nullity]

"Closed-source software = malicious?" => it can be but not equal. It can happen also with open source to be malicious. It is happening also a lot on android applications.
There are a lot of closed-source applications which are not malicious. Can be doesn't mean equal.

Android is actually as popular as it is primarily because of the genius licensing. By using Java on top of the Linux kernel, you actually avoid GPL, which is why Android can implement proprietary blobs/drivers while also having an open-source foundation.


Friggen lawyers...


Or maybe I am just too simple-minded for this technological world.

 

[Nullity]

Malicious code in HGG fork? That's a valid concern from people. Never my emphasis. I do prefer openness in a firmware operation if it's used by a non-trivial number of people.

I can summarise three issues in HGG fork:

1. GPL violation. Plain simple.
2. Tx power related. Not clear cut and debatable
3. Copy features from other forks. I can't complain much. A work ethic thing at most.

I briefly touched upon #3 a few pages ago. I just want to elaborate a bit how important GPL plays on #3.

Peter worked hard to develop a few nice features. Due to his abiding by the rule of GPL - open sourced his fork, users of other forks can benefit. His open source fork is promoting choices for users. HGG fork actually happens to incorporate a few features from Peter's fork. Users of HGG fork benefits here.

Now let's do a thought experiment. There are one or two features in HGG fork that users of other forks like. Since HGG fork does not disclose source code, hggomes is limiting other users' choices here. Other forks cannot at their free will (and as permitted by GPL) to incorporate good features of HGG fork into their forks.

It's simply unfair. Justice as per GPL shall prevail. People in the game of open source shall play by its rules. Not to create exceptions nor only certain people have to abide by the rules.

"Unfair" is a subjective word. Some say the BSD licensing is better by not forcing people to share code like GPL.

Whether it is moral that HGG was inspired by John's work is ... complex. I cannot share an opinion on that.

 

[kvic]

"Unfair" is a subjective word. Some say the BSD licensing is better by not forcing people to share code like GPL.

Whether it is moral that HGG was inspired by John's work is ... complex. I cannot share an opinion on that.

So as some other licenses. But the essence is that once the rule is set, people have to game by the rule. Isn't that hard to take away...

 

[GGavan]

1. "GPL violation. Plain simple" => As I said, there is no violation. You didn't proved with anything. Just your words.
2. "Tx power related. Not clear cut and debatable" => This is the nice part of this FW and love it. Very debatable. My walky-talky with 0.5 W can be used until 500 within a range of 500m from my room. Wireless which respect the regulations I can't use it in bathroom at 10 meters.
3. "Copy features from other forks. I can't complain much. A work ethic thing at most." => Life is not fair get over. Legally you have to mention what you copied/reused from others. That is the way of progress, reuse what is good from others and don't reinvent the wheel. Don't forget to mention them and pay the copyrights if it apply. Simple!

 

[Nullity]

I assume HGG is benevolent, but disregarding GPL is uncool. Beyond that, I have more important things to get mad about.

At the worst, HGG is causing minuscule problems. There are tons more (potential) malware vectors to research and deal with. Just my opinion.

 

[kvic]

I assume HGG is benevolent, but disregarding GPL is uncool. Beyond that, I have more important things to get mad about.

At the worst, HGG is causing minuscule problems. There are tons more (potential) malware vectors to research and deal with. Just my opinion.

I think he opens up the source code of his fork*, and conduct the work openly on this forum, it'll be a good run of yet another fork to me.


*there are many ways to get it done btw..I'm not sure exactly what he wants to hide...actually little is unknown if people had looked at the old codes long enough.

 

[Nullity]

I think he opens up the source code of his fork*, and conduct the work openly on this forum, it'll be a good run of yet another fork to me.


*there are many ways to get it done btw..I'm not sure exactly what he wants to hide...actually little is unknown if people had looked at the old codes long enough.

But both of us are making assumptions there. He could be NSA or he could be Fabrice Bellard. I dunno, nor do you.

I must be direct when I say this is not a simple topic. Please do not pretend it is. This topic has been been discussed by people much smarter and more educated than us, and there is no clear answer.

Definitely a fun conversation though.

 

[kvic]

But both of us are making assumptions there. He could be NSA or he could be Fabrice Bellard. I dunno, nor do you.

Perhaps. Or create smoke and mirror to pretend he's more what he's..

GPL is indeed not simple. No disagreement there.

 

[BreakingDad]

It's not like the top bar on the UI falls down on HGG when you hover over it or anything, like on an old version of a certain firmware by a certain Merlin on a certain April Fools Day.