# Technicolor GPL Source Code Request **URL:** \ **Category:** For Developers\ **Created:** [June 28, 2018, 1:59am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233 "2018-06-28T01:59:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![sebastian\_de](https://forum.openwrt.org/letter_avatar/sebastian_de/32/5_5575768a8748004e209b776fc1b2916d.png) [@sebastian\_de](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/sebastian_de)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 10:43am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/21 "2018-07-04T10:43:56Z")
> [@bluewavenet](#): > > No one will release the sources of their proprietary code that their business is based on. Yes they will, see [http://www.gpl-violations.org/](http://www.gpl-violations.org/) Edit: especially [http://gpl-violations.org/faq/vendor-faq/](http://gpl-violations.org/faq/vendor-faq/) should answer many questions ---
**Author:** ![Ansuel](https://forum.openwrt.org/user_avatar/forum.openwrt.org/ansuel/32/4339_2.png) [@Ansuel](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/Ansuel)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 10:53am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/22 "2018-07-04T10:53:00Z")
KERNEL NEEDS TO BE ALWAYS RELESED NO MATTER WHAT You can remove proprietary package like transformer or the webui BUT YOU MUST PROVIDE THE CODE OF THE BASE PLATFORM ---
**Author:** ![Zen96](https://forum.openwrt.org/letter_avatar/zen96/32/5_5575768a8748004e209b776fc1b2916d.png) [@Zen96](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/Zen96)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 10:56am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/23 "2018-07-04T10:56:50Z")
@bluewavenet Technicolor indeed uses a modified version of OpenWrt. They declare that explicitly in the Open Source section in their website, where they list every open source/free software that is used in their modem/routers, where they also declare that such code is available for free upon request, so that is out of the question. Also, they must have modified it, as it currently doesn't run "unmodified" on their above mentioned device. The use of proprietary code along with OpenWRT (or any GPL code) is permitted only as long as such proprietary code is separate from OpenWRT code. For example, a web interface that is not based on Luci could be proprietary and used on top of OpenWrt (although, in this specific case, Technicolor's web GUI is open source, according to themselves). Such proprietary code does not need to be published, although it sometimes gets included in the source package as a binary file. Linux kernel modules can be proprietary too (see for example xDSL driver's by Broadcom), at least according to Linus Torvalds'interpretation of the GPL. The code of the Linux Kernel and of all other free software used must be provided anyway, whether it was modified or not. ---
**Author:** ![bluewavenet](https://forum.openwrt.org/user_avatar/forum.openwrt.org/bluewavenet/32/4330_2.png) [@bluewavenet](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/bluewavenet)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 10:58am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/24 "2018-07-04T10:58:09Z")
If their proprietary code is a modification of GPL licenced sources then yes the licence states clearly that they must release those sources. The GPL does not prohibit private code from being run in a system that also includes GPL code. If it did then not only is OpenWrt just a toy but also Linux. ---
**Author:** ![Ansuel](https://forum.openwrt.org/user_avatar/forum.openwrt.org/ansuel/32/4339_2.png) [@Ansuel](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/Ansuel)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 10:59am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/25 "2018-07-04T10:59:52Z")
also in every module there is a license part and sometimes they don't even provide the source of the module with the GPL license... ---
**Author:** ![sebastian\_de](https://forum.openwrt.org/letter_avatar/sebastian_de/32/5_5575768a8748004e209b776fc1b2916d.png) [@sebastian\_de](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/sebastian_de)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 11:01am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/26 "2018-07-04T11:01:08Z")
> [@bluewavenet](#): > > If it did then not only is OpenWrt just a toy but also Linux. Boy, calm down a bit. Linux and other GPL licensed code is used in many many corporations worldwide with great success and without trouble. Even Microsoft is contributing patches to the Linux kernel these days. Just do some googling (and as I said calm down). ---
**Author:** ![Zen96](https://forum.openwrt.org/letter_avatar/zen96/32/5_5575768a8748004e209b776fc1b2916d.png) [@Zen96](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/Zen96)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 11:02am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/27 "2018-07-04T11:02:52Z")
@bluewavenet Also, the fact that Technicolor is, or was, an OpenWRT sponsor does not increase their responsibilities in any way, although it would be pretty hypocritical if they did not release the sources. Why publicly announce that you are supporting open source when in fact you don't even make a significant effort to comply with the relevant open source license? ---
**Author:** ![bluewavenet](https://forum.openwrt.org/user_avatar/forum.openwrt.org/bluewavenet/32/4330_2.png) [@bluewavenet](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/bluewavenet)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 11:05am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/28 "2018-07-04T11:05:13Z")
I have done my research (and I am quite calm 😄 ) It is the rant thread that I have issue with as it implies that no manufacturer can use OpenWrt without releasing all their proprietary sources. This is clearly not true. ---
**Author:** ![Zen96](https://forum.openwrt.org/letter_avatar/zen96/32/5_5575768a8748004e209b776fc1b2916d.png) [@Zen96](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/Zen96)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 11:11am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/29 "2018-07-04T11:11:58Z")
No, I did not imply that in any way. I said that they have a list that details which open source software is used in each firmware version on their website. I wanted that, and that only (if they want to release more, that's up to them, but I cannot blame them if they do not so). Also, they never said that they could not release the sources because some files contained proprietary code, so that is not a problem. The issue is that they kept beating around the bush instead of actually delivering anything. Please read my recent posts. ---
**Author:** ![bluewavenet](https://forum.openwrt.org/user_avatar/forum.openwrt.org/bluewavenet/32/4330_2.png) [@bluewavenet](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/bluewavenet)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 11:15am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/30 "2018-07-04T11:15:28Z")
Typically a manufacturer will use imagebuilder to add their own code to make a custom image without looking at the OpenWrt sources. Nothing in the GPL prevents this. If a particular manufacturer were to modify the OpenWrt sources and recompile then yes the GPL is clear on their responsibilities. ---
**Author:** ![Zen96](https://forum.openwrt.org/letter_avatar/zen96/32/5_5575768a8748004e209b776fc1b2916d.png) [@Zen96](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/Zen96)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 11:19am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/31 "2018-07-04T11:19:06Z")
Technicolor did not merely do as you said. They added several kernel modules, that by their own written admission are GPLv2 licensed and available for free upon request, yet the code for these modules has not been released yet. ---
**Author:** ![bluewavenet](https://forum.openwrt.org/user_avatar/forum.openwrt.org/bluewavenet/32/4330_2.png) [@bluewavenet](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/bluewavenet)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 11:19am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/32 "2018-07-04T11:19:43Z")
Thanks @Zen96 for an answer to my original comment. ---
**Author:** ![bluewavenet](https://forum.openwrt.org/user_avatar/forum.openwrt.org/bluewavenet/32/4330_2.png) [@bluewavenet](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/bluewavenet)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 11:21am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/33 "2018-07-04T11:21:54Z")
But kernel modules are just modules and anyone can write their own without modifying the base kernel. ---
**Author:** ![eduperez](https://forum.openwrt.org/user_avatar/forum.openwrt.org/eduperez/32/2066_2.png) [@eduperez](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/eduperez)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 11:23am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/34 "2018-07-04T11:23:33Z")
> [@bluewavenet](#): > > OpenWrt IS just a toy for home use. Not only OpenWrt, but all GPL-licensed software... because the issue is basically the same all around: (oversimplifying) if you distribute a binary, you must also distribute the sources, including your modifications. That's why GPL software is used just by amateurs at home (and some small and unaware companies like IBM, Oracle, FaceBook, Amazon, ...). ---
**Author:** ![Zen96](https://forum.openwrt.org/letter_avatar/zen96/32/5_5575768a8748004e209b776fc1b2916d.png) [@Zen96](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/Zen96)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 11:23am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/35 "2018-07-04T11:23:44Z")
Yes, but they were shipped with the software in the device and each and every one of them is clearly labeled as GPLv2 licensed. That means that they have to release the sources for them too. ---
**Author:** ![Zen96](https://forum.openwrt.org/letter_avatar/zen96/32/5_5575768a8748004e209b776fc1b2916d.png) [@Zen96](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/Zen96)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 11:26am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/36 "2018-07-04T11:26:17Z")
Also, to update on the GPL request progress, Technicolor answered yesterday, they cc'd their legal team and told me that they plan to release the code by next week. I hope they mean it, this time. ---
**Author:** ![bluewavenet](https://forum.openwrt.org/user_avatar/forum.openwrt.org/bluewavenet/32/4330_2.png) [@bluewavenet](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/bluewavenet)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 11:29am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/37 "2018-07-04T11:29:14Z")
I suspect someone in the marketing team has made a blunder and is desperately digging downwards at the bottom of their hole in an attempt to get out. ---
**Author:** ![Ansuel](https://forum.openwrt.org/user_avatar/forum.openwrt.org/ansuel/32/4339_2.png) [@Ansuel](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/Ansuel)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 11:33am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/38 "2018-07-04T11:33:51Z")
problem is... what code? based on what version? ---
**Author:** ![Zen96](https://forum.openwrt.org/letter_avatar/zen96/32/5_5575768a8748004e209b776fc1b2916d.png) [@Zen96](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/Zen96)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 11:34am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/39 "2018-07-04T11:34:24Z")
What do you mean, are you suggesting that someone at Technicolor said that the modules were GPLv2 licensed, while in fact they were proprietary? In that case, I think they should have to honor what they have put in writing anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Zen96](https://forum.openwrt.org/letter_avatar/zen96/32/5_5575768a8748004e209b776fc1b2916d.png) [@Zen96](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/Zen96)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 11:38am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/40 "2018-07-04T11:38:52Z")
@Ansuel I asked for version R10.A.G.M, also known as TIM AGTOT 1.0.4, and version 17.2.278-0901008, also commonly known as the "UNO firmware" on the [ilpuntotecnico.com](http://ilpuntotecnico.com) forum of which we're both users. That was the newest version I could find back then. [Previous page](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233.md?page=1) [Next page](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233.md?page=3)