# 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:** 17\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Flole](https://forum.openwrt.org/letter_avatar/flole/32/5_5575768a8748004e209b776fc1b2916d.png) [@Flole](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/Flole)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2018, 6:56pm UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/83 "2018-07-21T18:56:36Z")
@LuKePicci I am actually using a DGA4132, and I installed the NFS Packages but they aren't containing the kernel modules. I wasn't sure if thats a mistake, or if it is not possible because of the missing sources. ---
**Author:** ![Zen96](https://forum.openwrt.org/letter_avatar/zen96/32/5_5575768a8748004e209b776fc1b2916d.png) [@Zen96](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/Zen96)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 11:13pm UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/84 "2018-07-28T23:13:45Z")
@LuKePicci It seems that the DGA4131 is actually one of the several models of gateways that Fastweb sells in Italy under the name "Fastgate" (the other two are from Askey and Huawei). Going back on topic, I asked Technicolor to provide all the modules that they themselves listed on their website, since some seem to be missing, plus some instructions on how to build the code they sent me, since it seems to be just a bunch of folders and there's no clear way to turn that into a .rbi (binary) file similar to the ones they use to distribute firmware updates. While there are some hints here and there that Buildroot can be used to build something, that isn't enough. If anything, since Buildroot would be a part of the "scripts used to control compilation and installation of the software" mentioned in the GPL, they must include its sources too. Heck, even Chinese companies (at least those that comply with the GPL) have the common sense to include a text file with build instructions in broken English. ---
**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 29, 2018, 2:50pm UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/85 "2018-07-29T14:50:50Z")
Think they will never tell you how to produce a flashablle rbi as every firmware have is own platform key and signed key... ---
**Author:** ![Zen96](https://forum.openwrt.org/letter_avatar/zen96/32/5_5575768a8748004e209b776fc1b2916d.png) [@Zen96](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/Zen96)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 3:51pm UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/86 "2018-07-29T15:51:23Z")
@Ansuel Well, they need to provide all the scripts needed to compile the code **and install** the resulting binaries and the kernel. See here: [https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html](https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html) at section 4.2.2 in particular, where software in embedded devices is explicitly mentioned. They might not provide the key itself, but they must nonetheless provide the scripts that allow to make an .rbi file signed with my own key (or any other key I input). If, later on, someone can find the key somehow, such as by inspecting the bootloader, this would turn out to be useful. Publishing a modified bootloader based on the one from Technicolor would be illegal, but if someone finds a way to bypass its security measures without modifying it, nothing can be done to stop him or her. ---
**Author:** ![0jay](https://forum.openwrt.org/user_avatar/forum.openwrt.org/0jay/32/6723_2.png) [@0jay](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/0jay)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2018, 2:53am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/87 "2018-09-12T02:53:49Z")
I agree with your position, it’s a principle (legal and moral) and although there’s some question about enforceability, there’s a clear breach of community standards. I don’t like the chances of the company being obliged to meet their obligations though. ---
**Author:** ![kevdagoat](https://forum.openwrt.org/user_avatar/forum.openwrt.org/kevdagoat/32/11487_2.png) [@kevdagoat](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/kevdagoat)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2018, 3:40am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/88 "2018-11-16T03:40:09Z")
I am about to contact them for source regarding: DJA0230 & DJA0231 Any recommendations? ---
**Author:** ![Zen96](https://forum.openwrt.org/letter_avatar/zen96/32/5_5575768a8748004e209b776fc1b2916d.png) [@Zen96](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/Zen96)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2018, 2:42pm UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/89 "2018-11-16T14:42:01Z")
@kevdagoat Some tips: - Ask for a specific software version in the format 17.2.278-0901008 (for example). They insist on using this format even though in most cases it can't be seen by an average user, as the UI just displays 17.2 or uses an ISP-chosen version number that doesn't match with Technicolor's and they pretend to not know about it, even though they do (as can be seen in their own source code). - If they don't respond within a week, email them again. - If they respond that they "are working on it" or some other vague statement, ask them for an ETA. Waiting more than a month is, in my opinion, unreasonable, since they use version control systems. - If the archive they give you is incomplete or doesn't have a text file that tells you how to compile the source code to get a working image, keep "pestering" them (politely but very firmly) until they provide the missing files. - If they keep delaying/not cooperating you can email the SFC as I did, they have more leverage than a random user. ---
**Author:** ![kevdagoat](https://forum.openwrt.org/user_avatar/forum.openwrt.org/kevdagoat/32/11487_2.png) [@kevdagoat](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/kevdagoat)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2018, 11:39am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/90 "2018-11-17T11:39:02Z")
Thanks for that. ![](https://forum.openwrt.org/uploads/default/original/2X/6/677f06bdf711468707faf594c72c7993f90d2513.png) ---
**Author:** ![petepete](https://forum.openwrt.org/letter_avatar/petepete/32/5_5575768a8748004e209b776fc1b2916d.png) [@petepete](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/petepete)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2018, 10:34pm UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/91 "2018-11-30T22:34:51Z")
@Zen96 THANKS A LOT for your fight for the right things! For all people: Here is a talk about OpenWrt+GPL violations: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4lCMx-EI1s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4lCMx-EI1s) This is just a example video. If you want more, you can search for further also on [https://media.ccc.de](https://media.ccc.de) ---
**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 11, 2019, 3:35pm UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/92 "2019-07-11T15:35:30Z")
@Zen96 Ehi can you help me? technicolor won't release 4.1 code of thei new base I have specific version and all but i really don't know how to contact them (the hard way as they don't answer to the open source email) pm me if you want ---
**Author:** ![Entropy512](https://forum.openwrt.org/letter_avatar/entropy512/32/5_5575768a8748004e209b776fc1b2916d.png) [@Entropy512](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/Entropy512)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 4:59pm UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/93 "2019-07-11T16:59:47Z")
> [@bluewavenet](#): > > 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. No claim of that sort was made in this thread. The issue is that the source code which IS covered by the GPL - such as the kernel itself - is not being released. Edit: Whoa... Didn't realize how far back this thread went... Also, @lleachii mentioned issues with Hamnet and AREDN near the beginning of this thread - that surprised me, hams are usually more about sharing, collaboration, and openness... ---
**Author:** ![lleachii](https://forum.openwrt.org/letter_avatar/lleachii/32/5_5575768a8748004e209b776fc1b2916d.png) [@lleachii](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/lleachii)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 7:55pm UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/94 "2019-07-11T19:55:24Z")
> [@Entropy512](#): > > @lleachii mentioned issues with Hamnet and AREDN near the beginning of this thread - that surprised me, hams are usually more about sharing, collaboration, and openness... To be honest, I never followed the HSMM-Broadband developer community much. I couldn't even get someone to tell me how to flash my router back to vanilla OpenWrt. I don't think it was well-established (i.e. decisions on what hardware would be supported in the future); **and they may have be using code that they wouldn't/couldn't easily share (e.g. the OLSR software - hence my need to flash standard OpenWrt).** This is a small excerpt of what I was told by a developer after many code inquires: > I’ve seen your post on BBHN about Development that has not been responded too. > Unfortunately BBHN has not been maintained since it separated from its developers team who now work on the AREDN project ( [http://www.aredn.org](http://www.aredn.org) ) > BBHN’s SVN Repo is way out of date and it was never updated to match the code as it follows under recent versions as access to the Repo was never granted to the me during the years I worked on it so we continued under a git REPO. So...information on the "old code" was eventually provided to me: [http://www.broadband-hamnet.org/developer-documentation/86-svnrepos.html](http://www.broadband-hamnet.org/developer-documentation/86-svnrepos.html) AREDEN has improved: [https://github.com/search?q=AREDN](https://github.com/search?q=AREDN) ---
**Author:** ![Flole](https://forum.openwrt.org/letter_avatar/flole/32/5_5575768a8748004e209b776fc1b2916d.png) [@Flole](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/Flole)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2020, 12:22am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/95 "2020-01-22T00:22:11Z")
@Ansuel Do you have access to the new Technicolor base? Could you please share a copy with me? I want to compile some kernel modules for the DGA4132. ---
**Author:** ![deece](https://forum.openwrt.org/user_avatar/forum.openwrt.org/deece/32/18388_2.png) [@deece](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/deece)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2020, 3:34am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/96 "2020-02-28T03:34:09Z")
> [@Zen96](#): > > If anyone wants to get this source code archive anyway (for example, I see that the TG799vac is sold in Australia as the "Telstra Gateway Max") please send me a private message. I wouldn't mind have a look (new user, I don't think I can send messages yet, but you can find me on Github (deece), Twitter (@EvilDeece), or just Google my name to get my email). ---
**Author:** ![FrancYescO](https://forum.openwrt.org/user_avatar/forum.openwrt.org/francyesco/32/3775_2.png) [@FrancYescO](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/FrancYescO)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2020, 12:17am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/97 "2020-03-03T00:17:48Z")
> **[Ansuel/GUI\_ipk](https://github.com/Ansuel/GUI_ipk)** > > Contribute to Ansuel/GUI\_ipk development by creating an account on GitHub. ---
**Author:** ![Suxsem](https://forum.openwrt.org/letter_avatar/suxsem/32/5_5575768a8748004e209b776fc1b2916d.png) [@Suxsem](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/Suxsem)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2020, 7:40am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/98 "2020-04-29T07:40:33Z")
Hi @Zen96! Please can you send me the source code you got? My mail is suxsem at [live.com](http://live.com) or you can find me on ilpuntotecnico @Suxsem Thank you!! ---
**Author:** ![tecufanujacu](https://forum.openwrt.org/user_avatar/forum.openwrt.org/tecufanujacu/32/21326_2.png) [@tecufanujacu](https://forum.openwrt.org/u/tecufanujacu)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2020, 7:09am UTC](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233/99 "2020-05-22T07:09:45Z")
I asked they the gnu gpl code for a device almost 60 days ago, they answered at my first email but then they disappeared. I'm sending a reminder email every week but they doesn't send to me the code that I have the right to receive. Is their behaviour normal? Can we report this situation somewhere? [Previous page](https://forum.openwrt.org/t/technicolor-gpl-source-code-request/16233.md?page=4)