access to router source code

[sozoridge]

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.

[C0RR0SIVE · Accepted solution]

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.

[GabeU]

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.  

[Gwalk900]

Yup, that's all we need. Someone mucking up the modem firmware

[GabeU]

---

@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.

[C0RR0SIVE]

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.

[MarkJFine]

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.

[sozoridge]

@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.

[MarkJFine]

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?

[sozoridge]

@MarkJFine, no confusion, except on your part.  I'm asking for the LInux source code and any other GPL software that is running on the router.  I'm not asking for any application or non GPL software that is running ontop of it.

[MarkJFine]

I just read your post three times. You were non-specific and implied you wanted all of the source. Nice reclama, keep peddling backwards.

[sozoridge]

---

@MarkJFine wrote:

I just read your post three times. You were non-specific and implied you wanted all of the source. Nice reclama, keep peddling backwards.

---

Thank you for being so invested in this thread, that you read my post three times.  Language is an art; one specifically meant to convey an intended meaning to the viewer.  I'll conceed that I failed to provide you with an understanding of what was written.  But, then you were not my target audience.

[MarkJFine]

---

@sozoridge wrote:

---

Language is an art; one specifically meant to convey an intended meaning to the viewer.

---

No, you conveyed enough of what you intended - to troll this site with enough non-relevant requests and inaccurate technical demands as to make a nusance out of yourself on multiple threads. You've succeeded in that, I assure you.

In another thread you said this was a support area and that others weren't giving you the appropriate support and should butt out. Here's a clue: If you don't have a valid technical request, don't expect a valid response, much less one that is satisfactory.

My advice is if you keep trolling and spamming this board you may ultimately find yourself with a response that you didn't expect, nor find satisfactory at all.

We're done here.

[C0RR0SIVE]

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.

[GabeU]

---

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.  

[C0RR0SIVE · Accepted solution]

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.

[sozoridge]

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.

[GabeU]

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.  

[maratsade]

@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).

[GabeU]

@maratsade

Answered in other thread.  

[C0RR0SIVE]

You will get the same response from @Amanda that Jezra recieved three years ago.

I have been here long enough to know how things work, and what will happen.  You WILL be told, "Sorry, but we can't give that information out".

[Liz]

---

@C0RR0SIVE wrote:

---

Good morning sozoridge,

Amanda's response from back then still applies now.