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.
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.
sozoridge,
Hughesnet is not required to submit anything that could reveal their own copywrited or protected intellectual properties. Not even courts could force a company to reveal confidential information. Courts in the past have only been able to force companies (like twice, tops) to change the base operating system.
We have been around in this rodeo before with another user much like you, it's not going to happen.
There may be two boards inside the unit, but that doesn't mean the main board is seperate in functionality from the daughter board, and that the Router firmware is actually seperate in nature from the modem firmware. The daughterboard is litterally just a wifi module with wifi radios/amps and other wireless components on board.
The only bit of information I can throw out there to support what I stated about the two boards in the unit that is public is this:
That is the only interconnect between the two.
