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.
sozoridge wrote:As should be obvious, requesting access to the source code does not construe an intent to modify the unit.
Then what is the point in asking for it?
I can see three reasons. 1. To modify the unit. 2. To attempt to modify a 3rd party unit, or your own, to work with the service. 3. A right fight due to being dismayed with the service, as in, "I'm angry, so I'm going to get them in some way."
With that said, maybe I'm just not seeing something.
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.
It piques the curiosity to why the responders of this thread have such a vested interest.
Why I want the Linux source is irrelevant, it is my legal right, along with every other person that has received one of these modems, and requires no explanation. Whether it is running on one PCB or another is irrelevant. The 3 year old quoted thread regarding a different modem is irrelevant. That you all have any opinion on this is irrelevant. The fact that these forums had one other user that asked similar questions is irrelevant.
Unless you are in Hughesnet employ and have the authority to decline and fullfill my request, you have no need to respond to this thread, except seemingly to promote a disinformation agenda, which is telling in itself to what Hughesnet encourages/desires from you.
Hughesnet encourages nothing from any of us other than not violating the community guidelins or TOS.
What piques peoples' curiosity is when someone asks a strange question, like requesting the source code for a proprietary product.
With that said, I believe your response has answered my question.
GabeU, changing the subject: is your download speed still awesome? I'm having inconsistent speeds, and have gone back to how it was when the Gen 5 system was first installed, hovering around 17-20 Mbps, but dipping a lot, so things buffer a bit and sometimes websites don't load (a few minutes ago, Testmy was refusing to load).
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.
sozoridge, I believe they are only required to provide the source code if they have made modifications (i'm assuming they have not). However I belive you are correct in they fact they should be acknowledging thier use of GPL software. Hughes should have something similar to this link. Here's another link to apples GPL page.
And a link to the initial "Erik Andersen and Rob Landley v. Monsoon Multimedia Inc" suit which is commonly used to enforce GPL compliance.
