Forum Discussion
access to router source code
I find that the HT2000w router I received today is running Linux.
Linux version 3.3.8 (bruce_ma@debian-wheezy-i386) (gcc version 4.6.3 20120201 (prerelease) (Linaro GCC 4.6-2012.02) ) #1 Fri May 5 05:26:51 UTC 2017
Jan 1 00:00:08 (none) kern.notice kernel: klogd started: BusyBox v1.18.5 (2017-05-05 05:04:25 UTC)
But do not see any offer to provide, or link providing access to, the source code, nor any statement that GPL license software is in use.
For your reference: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html -> "if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights"
I'd like to be provided access to the source code. Thank you.
Last response...
I could care less if there is a difference between the "modem" and "router", you will get the same response that Jezra did.Hi Liz
I think your response may have been colored by the oddly aggressive posts by the other forum members.
As you can see in that old quoted thread, it was asking a wholly different question unrelated to this one.
The router of this modem *is* running Linux with Busybox. Both of which are under the GPL v2 license. It is not a question of what OS the modem's router is running. That is already clearly available from the modem's syslog as I quoted in the original post.
For your reference:
https://busybox.net/license.html#enforce
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/kernel-enforcement-statement.html
Please do pass this on up your support channels.
Thank you.
Good luck with that. There's no way they're going to give you access to the source code of the software used in the modem, nor should they. The last thing they need is people messing around with it.
Yup, that's all we need. Someone mucking up the modem firmware
Gwalk900 wrote:Yup, that's all we need. Someone mucking up the modem firmware
I can just imagine what would happen.
And, though I'm not at all versed in Linux's licensing terms and whatnot, I have no doubt that there is some reason that the aforementioned rule doesn't fit or apply, and that they aren't required to divugle such source code.
Again...I can just imagine. It'd be an absolute nightmare.
LOL, that is NOT going to happen, that aside, I would be careful, they may consider you to be in breech of your contract.
All of that aside, even if you somehow got the actual copywrite holder of the OS to take Hughesnet to court, and the copywrite holder won, the courts can not force Hughesnet, nor Echostar to release the source code as that would be in violation of their own IP.Not all Linux applications are required to be under GPL, nor in this case does it say anywhere that it is open source under it.
