Recognise this hardware?

Looking into this device :

Really like the interface and the features build on top of Openwrt. The firmware is available for download :

I don't like the price, so I am hoping someone recognises the hardware?

INAL but they are breaking the law by not fulfilling their gpl obligations.
A visit to their source download page and clicking on the "Download Source" button at the bottom of the page results in the following message:

Not Found - Ad Blocked by EzHotspot V4
The requested URL /GPL_ez311_release_v40820170715.tar.gz was not found or Ad blocked on the EzHotspot V4.

The gpl v2 specifies that you must provide the source code on request.
They either need to :

  1. Fix the link.
  2. Link to a copy of their source on github or gitlab, etc.
  3. Link to the official source on github or gitlab, etc.
  4. Respond to every email request for source code by either providing a link to it or sending the mailer a copy.

Without a copy of the fork of the source code they took which includes the changes they made, it's difficult to understand what is inside the box without either opening it up or establishing an ssh connection into it.

I can't see the price but unless the hardware is free (no cost to you,) you could probably do better than that if you are in the market to pickup an OpenWrt capable piece of hardware.

I doubt they sold many for 180 euros a piece. Other than the "durable metal case" and "easy to press buttons" the hardware looks like it would be comparable to a TP-Link TL-WR842.

1 Like


Exactly my idea, but the interface is really nice!

IANAL but this only applies to people they distribute the software to, meaning their customers.
As it seems they intend to actually provide the source code to everyone it would probably best not to try legal arguments, but ask nicely first.

Right if they include a DVD with the source in the box they don't need to reply to any emails or have any websites at all.

The gnu GPL V2.

You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

The language "all third parties" means basically anyone. Then if you read through the rest of the license, you will see that it states that anyone who licenses the code is entitled to the modified source. So you can request the unmodified source but you may be charged for the act of transference.
If you copy and redistribute GPL V2 license code, you MUST provide a copy of the original source code to ANYONE who requests it.

The gnu GPL V3 changed this so that you must provide not only the original source code but also the changes you have made. The gnu GPL V2 does not require that you provide the changes to the source code upon request.

The reason for this is that a company made a successful product called a "Tivo" which was a TV box.
The box used lots of GPL software and the company adhered to the gnu GPL V2 by providing the original source code but their ROM images which shipped with the unit had modifications to the source code which prevented the ROM being flashed and changed unless they were made by the company who made the box. Free software people wanted to modify the Tivo but obviously were denied access. The company were not breaking any licensing but breaking the spirit of free software.
Thus gnu GPL 3 prevents anyone from locking others out of GPL V3 licensed code via withholding modifications to the underlying source code.

DVD isn't a method customarily used to distribute software any more. So as a method of distributing the source code it is unacceptable. Computers stopped shipping with DVD drives over five years ago. The modern computer (tablet or smart phone) even longer.
So the license goes onto say:

Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code...

as the alternative.

For example, 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.

So if it is derived from GPL V2 licensed code, it must remain licensed GPL V2.
If you distribute GPL V2 code to anyone, you must provide an offer for at least 3 years of a copy of the source code (you can charge for this) to anyone ("any third party.")
Everyone who receives a copy of the source code receives a GPL V2 licensed copy and are immediately subject to the same obligations according to the license.

Of course. They likely just need a quick message telling them that the source is unavailable. The intention seems to be there to share the source code.

All those people buying TurboTax on DVD/CD would quickly cancel this argument to a court I believe. Printed on paper or etched into clay tablets or sent via smoke signals would qualify as not customarily used. Also probably a WORM drive from 1993 would qualify as not customarily used. But any medium commonly sold in stores today would qualify as "customarily used" and you can still get massive stacks of blank DVDs at OfficeDepot or whatever.

the part about the written offer valid for at least three years is what you have to do if you don't drop a DVD in the box. The three options have "or" between them, so you can choose one or more methods.

Means you can't change the license they get it under, it does not mean you have legal obligations to distribute the source to third parties who you did not distribute your product to.

1 Like

True and wouldn't adhere to the license.

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.

Dropping the DVD in the box is fine but you would have to prove that the person who wanted a copy, got one. You wouldn't go to court if that was your intention, you would just supply the code when requested. Especially if you did not record your customers.
The accepted modern way to distribute is online. And:

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

Hence; the website is the only place the company needs to offer the source code from.

And you can buy computers with Windows XP installed on them in China but it's not exactly considered customary to do so in the west.

I don't agree. The language is "any third party" and you may also charge a fee for the service.
For the most part, a link to the original source code repo from where the code was forked and a pointer to the last commit is enough.
The opportunity to fulfil the obligation is created by the fact that you can charge for the service. Adding that transference is optionally chargeable, means that it is possible to meet exceptional demand by for example; employing someone to take care of source code requests.
And let's face it, if you are in business, everyone is a potential customer and businesses which are sustainable take requests from their customers very seriously. Especially when the legalese is quite grey and untested in court.

They don't have any firmware binaries linked on their website either so it appears the only way to get any copy of the firmware at all is inside the device when you buy it.

They do have the intent to provide their firmware, but the link is dead :

I have send them an email, and expect to to fix this link soon.

Hoping to learn from their software, and maybe be able to use this somehow on an GL.iNet AR-150 with a 9 dBi external antenna:

I think we need to distinguish between third parties, and non-parties.

If person A writes software and distributes it under the GPL license to person B, and person B manufactures a product and distributes the product to person C, then the GPL contract between A and B provides that B must provide C with the software and under the GPL license, so that C can use it with all the rights the GPL affords... C is a third party to the contract between A and B...

But C's ex-wife's brothers college girlfriend who hears about this great thing C just bought has no standing here and is not a party to any contract with B.

I believe that one way B could satisfy their obligation under the GPL to C by providing the source code on a DVD in the box their product comes in, and so if they don't offer the source code on their website it is not a violation of the GPL if they used this "included in the box" method.

That's my point. You may disagree, and that's fine, I just wanted to clarify what I think, and I won't argue with you further.

On your more broad point, that companies should take their customers or potential customers seriously and make it easy for their customers or potential customers to get access to the GPL software, yes I agree with this, but it's a moral point, not a point of requirement under the law.

The download link is fixed. The software is available. Looks like a bunch of packages, not like a firmware to me.

The firmware is a compilation of the packages involved. Hope you were not expecting a "fully cooked lunch" for you.

Nevertheless, your AR-150 will have better chances with either these similar products (5V powered) which the manufacturers simply never bother to mention any GPL. and

Interestingly, I explored more about this product from a reseller which claims it is a 1000mW radio! (a hint where you can search what hardware is used).It is truly a plus in a wireless repeater. I studied all features (hmmm, they did packed alot of stuff... openvpn, tor, usb-rndis, usb-cdc, ad-block, relayd, wondershape, dogsplash... blah...blah..) in the GUI and reckoned it might take about 4 hours of my (intermediate knowledge) time on a standard openwrt flashed device, and I would gladly charge a humble 100 bucks fee to anyone to piece all them together, BUT excluding that GUI.

Lastly, my 2 cents worth... The perception of value is not in the product but in the eyes of the beholder. After concluding what hardware, GUIs and accessories they have pieced together in the product, the margins the manufacturers, distri & resellers have to make in between and the after sales & warranty support, it will be down to the right consumer to think that it is what he or she needs and accept it.

"You can always reach a destination, Point A to B with either a Golf or a Ferrari. The choice is yours depending which Pay bracket you are in"

I would add that if they charge you more but provide more support (updated firmware releases) it would be a plus. A lot of big manufacturers didn’t give a sheep about upgrading their more than 1 hundred bucks mid to top range routers after the Krack bug release and I am talking about 3 years old machines