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 ...
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.
Liz, Amanda, please forward my request to the appropriate party.
To the other commentors, I don't know what Hughesnet provides you all to add such pointless noise in an attempt to spin the focus of a thread, but its mildly annoying, and in this case they are rather uninformed responses. Or if I give you the benefit of the doubt, and your statements indicate a deeper knowledge that you have, that the modem itself is running on Linux, then that is of great interest as well.
But in attempt to help you understand. Your quotes of "software used in the modem" and "modem firmware" is misleading - No, it is not the modem software/firmware in question, but rather the software used in the router, which is distinct and separate. The HT2000w has two pcb boards - one for the modem, one for the router. The router comes from Arcadyan, as can be found in the eff-cee-cee filing for the wireless router.
As should be obvious, requesting access to the source code does not construe an intent to modify the unit. And no, there are no special exceptions that allow a company to distribute Linux without providing access to the source code; Linux has no dual licensing. So as much as you all want to step up and somehow, in your perception, "protect" Hughesnet for whatever misguided reasons, in this case your statements add no value to this thread.
Lol... You're so confused between operating system software (Linux) and modules that use that software it's hilarious. Again, not all secondary software is required to be open source under GPL. Do you know how many secondary kernel modules I have that are not GPL?
