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.

[sozoridge · Accepted solution]

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.

[tracerrx]

@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.

[sozoridge]

---

@tracerrx wrote:

@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.

---

No, it does not matter if it is modified or not.  But compliance is quite trivial in that case, such as the two examples that you provided.  Section 3 of the license covers this issue, here is public Q/A on the subject for clarification:

https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5106/can-i-distribute-unmodified-gplv2-binaries-witho...

[C0RR0SIVE]

While the question was slightly different, the same answer applies, you won't be getting the information from Hughesnet.

[tracerrx]

@C0RR0SIVE, 

It's industry practice to publish the included GPL source/binaries.  Everyone does it, including linksys, cisco et al.... There are no secrets here and nothing can be reverse engineered from it's disclosure other then the OS it's running.  If @Liz forwards this up the chain to the system engineers i'm sure they will quickly address.

Just to be clear, he's not asking for the source code of the modem's firmware, or any proprietary code at all, simply the source for the GPL used for the OS underneath it all, which is apparently a linux kernel running busybox

[C0RR0SIVE]

Fine and dandy, but, as I said, they wont release any information in regards to it.  Hughesnet has always been super secretive about that stuff.

[tracerrx]

It's a fair question.... They appear to be running an un-patched and ancient version of BusyBox (circa 2011).... Which would/could be susceptible to multiple CVE's including most of these.  By requesting the source, he will be able to quickly discern if appropriate patches have been refactored or not.