Database Users

My Letter to Dan Morrill

so after posting an excerpt of my letter to Dan Morrill, the author of the absolutely idiotic statement regarding what they're doing, i received several PMs asking me to post the whole thing. It's so long it wont fit in a single post, so read it all. if you dont want to read a wall of text, stop here and go to a new thread.
Mr. Morrill,
First, I would like to bid you a good day, as I'm sure this letter is going to effect it. Yes, that is a bold statement to make at the onset, but writings such as these have a way of eating their way into your psyche and leaving a lasting impression that could very well sour your appetite at lunch time.
Perhaps I should introduce myself. My name is XXXXXXXXXXXXX, and I am an amateur developer on the Android platform. I am also a user of many of the custom Android builds that have come out since the release of the source development kit, including the build made by Steve "Cyanogen" Kondik. Ah, yes, now you see what this letter is going to be about.
So lets start with the basics. Google is a multi-billion dollar corporation that released a supposedly open-source platform onto the mobile device market. Now, I say mobile device as opposed to mobile phone, simply because there are products being released, such as the Zii EGG, which do not support telecommuniations, yet are still running on the Android platform. Now, in any reasonable programmers mind, the reason for making a platform open source, regardless of what the Public Relations people spin it as, is to alleviate some of the burden on the actual in-house development teams. The source code created by thousands of bright minds is doubtless going to yield a much stonger end result than that of a small development squad. Its simple mathematics. Well, that point alongside the fact that the original linux developers made no secret of their intentions by open-sourcing their operating system, which paved the way for Android many many years later.
In addition to that, all of the applications included in the "stock", or unmodified and officially released Android, builds are free. Any user with internet access can use any of these functions through the internet, with the blessings of your employer, free of charge. Yet, somehow, this has caused a sort of hiccup between your supposed idea of free development and that of the general public. Now, before you warp your mind into "this guy doesnt know what he's talking about" mode, think about the principles that your company was founded upon. You wanted to beat out the corporate giants and look out for the little guy. Oh yes, I've done my homework on Google over the years. The benevolent company trying to provide free services for the masses that the "evil-empire" corporations would deny free access to. Ironically enough, this letter is being written to you on Google Docs, another of your free services. Quite troublesome, it would seem.
And now, lest I digress further, I'll shift to the meat of the topic. In your statement regarding the cease and desist letter to Mr. Kondik, you claim that the sales of your free software to be used on mobile platforms being provided to the end user by custom developers for free would hurt the bottom line. Perhaps you should re-examine your own words. Free software being given to the masses by developers whom you claim to encourage is huring your profit share because you cannot sell the use of it to large corporations. Pardon me if I fail to understand the rationale behind such a contradictory and obviously ridiculous statement. But just so that you can understand my position on the matter, lets look at a related position. Google produces an internet browser, Chrome. Mozilla, a competing franchise, produces Firefox, their own browser. Developers for firefox have created applications which borrow on Google's proprietary code to access the functionality of the various features and programs. Are these developers charged for being able to include such features? No. Are these developers caused to halt their activities through threats of legal action for providing end users access to the capabilities that Google readily offers for free? No. So where is the disparity between allowing a competitor to do such things and tying the hands of developers of YOUR open source platform from doing the same?
Before I go further, let me give you a little background on myself to illuminate things. I used to work for XXXXXXXXXXXXXX. I worked in one of their call centers with well over a thousand people, almost a quarter of whom purchased the G1. More than 50% of those users had custom builds running on their phones. How would I know this? I personally installed it on over 300 and gave instructions to many more who wanted to do it themselves. This was one call center. But your apparent attitude on the situation makes it apparent that providing these people with custom software that includes the Google-based programs that were ORIGINALLY ON THE DEVICE AT PURCHASE, is illegal. I'm sorry sir, but that notion is preposterous. All of the Android-based mobile platforms on the market today include the software that caused you to send Mr. Kondik a cease and desist letter. This means that every single end user who purchased one of the devices paid that bottom line you spoke of. Any other rationale is impossible. Non-supporting devices will not run Android, and as such, the only way to use the device is to have purchased one. This brings us to the logical conclusion that those applications, such as GMail and Google Talk are PAID FOR. The situation is equitable to this situation: Joe purchases a computer from a major distributor, say Dell. Dell gives Joe a complimentary piece of free software (available on the Dell website) which updates his drivers on the Dell website, included with his purchase. Joe decides he doesnt particularly like the operating system on the computer, and installs an operating system more to his liking, that also happens to include the Dell software. But lo-and-behold, that free software shouldnt be free to Joe, even though he paid Dell's bottom line through his original computer purchase.
Your flaw is that you are obviously trying to "spin" the situation. Unfortunately, its a thin disguise and everyone can see through it, clear as crystal. These people that I speak of? Developers. The developers whom you claim to encourage. This brings me to my next point. Developers are essentially software hackers. They take the code from a program, rip it apart, improve on it, and then put it back out on the market for other developers to toy with. Perhaps, in your travels as a computer programmer, you have come across a copy of the much fabled "hacker's manifesto". Free access to data. That is what it was about at its core philosophy. You claimed to provide developers with that free access through Android, and then punish the people whom you claim to support.
Have you ever seen "The Devil's Advocate", Mr. Morrill? Al Pacino has an excellent line in which he is describing the way God imbued man with instinct, saying "Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow." Is this not what you've done here? You've given us, the developers, what you claim to be an open-source platform, written for mobile platforms that contain previously installed versions of the software, and also containing applications that each and every possible user would have purchased through buying the device on which they run. Then you tell us that it is illegal for us to modify any portion of that software which you see fit at any given point in time. Perhaps you should have just kept it closed-source, so that anything innovative wouldnt stir controvversy, as it would have truly been illegal. You give us a gift and then set the rules in opposition as it suits you.
Now, if I havent struck a nerve yet, perhaps I will in my own belief on the subject. You FEAR us. The android development team put out an initial platform. The developers, using the source code given to us, have turned out platforms on several different versions that utilize more functionality with greater performance, more flexibility and a wider range of features than ANYTHING that the official releases have even come close to. Mr. Kondik's releases are a prime example of this. He has created a version of the platform which utilizes every aspect of the platform infinitely better than the official releases. He has also included functionality from FUTURE releases, constantly and consistently improving on such, in a timeframe that should have your development team in absolute hysterics. That, sir, is what I believe this is about. Fear and shame. Never did you imagine that the Android development community would be able to surpass the Godly heights of the original development team, but we have and continually do so. It's his popularity that earned him the letter. He posed the biggest threat to your team by sharing a creative vision with anyone willing to install it that your team couldn't possibly compete with. But what about all of the other major developers? As of right now, I can count over a hundred different custom builds that include much of the same functionality and applications that Mr. Kondik's software includes. Are you going to attempt to stop them too?
(continued in post #2)

I assume you have been on the internet before. I assume you know that it spans the globe and has absolutely no limits or boundaries. It is freedom at its peak. Anyone, anywhere can express anything they want. The beautiful thing is that it enables people to communicate, and thereby collaborate in real-time. An internet community with thirty thousand people doesnt have to find a meeting room with enough chairs. This is the problem you're facing. You have attempted to cut the head off of a snake that you created. Unfortunately, on the internet, when you cut off the head of a snake, the body doesnt die. A thousand more heads spawn in its place, angrier, defiant and more intent on their purpose. Perhaps that should be a wake up call.
Mr. Morrill, I hope that in reading this letter, you have come to realize the gravity of your position. You have not only hurt yourselves, but angered an entire community, consisting of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people. These are the people who write the applications that are sold on the Android Market. These are the people who have the time to spare to ensure that you still have a job by creating works of digital art, using the code that you claim to be "open source". Are you so obtuse as to believe that these people are going to slip silently into the night when their creativity is stifled by the whims of a multibillion dollar corporation? I think not, sir.
You simply cannot give freedom to the masses and then attempt to bind their hands, as you are attempting to do in this case. This has ended in cataclysmic failure for every culture and every authority that has attempted to do so in history. We live in a global society of ingenuity. People WILL find a way. The creative power of the developers of the android community will inevitably break you. History has shown ample evidence that a creative mind cannot be beaten down. No army of lawyers, no amount of cease and desist letters will stop the tide of creativity.
It's like a bear. The choice you had was to embrace this creativity and nurture it or to poke at it with a stick. Mr. Morrill, are you aware of the consequences of poking a bear with a stick? Some thought on that will bring you to an obvious, and quite unpleasant, conclusion.
Had you simply left well enough alone, the damage might have been minimal, but at this point you could be looking at a 2009 reenactment of the Boston Tea Party, with the Android platform playing the part of the British tea. The damage to your "bottom line" was so infinitesimally small as to equate to a mouse burping on a rush hour subway car in New York City. As stated previously, it is simply my belief that your development team was offended by the fact that amateur developers would put them to shame. Does Android come with a complimentary set of swim trunks? Perhaps you might invest. I hear Boston Harbor gets cold in the winter.
In closing, perhaps you should let the immortal words of Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto echo through your mind as you contemplate the statements made in this letter:
"I fear that all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve".
Mr. Morrill, the giant is awake now, and his resolve is beyond your wildest dreams. I truly hope you are prepared to reap the consequences of what you have put in motion.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

amazing. your right they do fear us and they have woken a sleeping giant. what i dont get is the fact that these roms are making this phone better. as you said you gave over 300 people instructions how to do this at the call center. if anything these devs are helping google make sales, and google doesnt even have to make a better product. they make they same thing tht has been out since 0ct.22.2008 and the devs make it better. you sir are a god among men.

Wow, great letter, really looking forward to hearing the response to this - If you'd post it that is ;-)
You misspelt "purchased" in the eighth paragraph btw

yeah, this was the pre-spell-checked rough draft. the copy that i sent him was clean as a whistle.

Interesting letter. Not to mock you or anything, but it reminds me a lot of Keith Olbermann.

I am a RSA for TMO, and one of the major selling points was that Android was (is?) Open Source. That was a big deal to many customers.
I don't think the folks over a Google realize how tech savvy even the dumbest tech user is.
Had probably a 60 year old man come in the other day and he had put Hero on his G1 by himself.
(No offense to any oldsters.)
The world is changing, and Google just jumped in front of that subway train you mentioned.

this was truly a great letter. i would love to see the response (if you even get one) to this. i feel inspired to go do something now...
Android users, this is your call to arms.

Before you go and write long winded threatening letters to someone, maybe you should look into what you are writing about first. The person you are writing the letter to is an employee of a company that tells him what to do. I doubt after all of the help he has given developers and "hackers" in the Android irc channel, that he was just planning on striking everything down. My guess, and that of many others who know of him (havent chatted a lot, but he is social with us) would be that he was told to write that post. I dont want cyanogen roms to go away either, but I think you are going at it the wrong way. Hate the company, not the developers.

And after re-reading the post, you mention installing this on devices that already have it. The exact same arguement I used but you must also realize that an HTC hero does not get these Google Apps. It is an HTC branded phone and instead gets HTC branded apps. The "With Google" phones are the only ones that come with these apps pre-installed. Even then, apparently (I just found this out today) that your license to these apps does not allow you to copy them OFF of the device they came on. So that cut down another idea we had: copy the apps from the rom to SD, flash image, copy apps back.
Once again, I do not disagree with you or your anger, I just disagree with who you are directing it at.

irrelevant. "i was just doing what i was told" is never an excuse. it doesnt work in the justice system, and it doesnt work here. i could elaborate more, but i really dont want to invoke Godwin's Law this early in the conversation. he opened his mouth. he made himself the target. everyone is a nice and helpful person until they show their true colors.
perhaps its just me, but i'm one of those people that actually hold to my ideals. if i'm fighting for something and my boss tells me to do otherwise, i'm going to tell him to pack sand. if I get fired, i can always find a new job, but I can do so with my integrity intact. he had a choice. everyone always has a choice.
also, to your second post, the HTC branded phones arent the subject of controversy. the apps are "free". i quote free because it isnt true in this case. how is distributing the official Gmail app for free any different than accessing the same capabilities through another means? if I were to delete the official GMail app off of my phone entirely and instead access my gmail account through a browser, wouldnt that have the same effect on Google's "bottom line"? I'm still using the same service and not paying for it. Similarly, with the hero, if you have access to GMail through any email application or browser, are you not violating the same concept? You're still using the core of google's intellectual property for free. Their only real solution is to make the Google apps paid applications that everyone has access to if they want to shell out the cash, or simply drop the whole thing.
Are they going to stop people from creating custom GMail apps too? Cause if so, they've got a big fish to fry, cause they'd have to go after everyone who wrote a gmail plugin for firefox as well. any way you look at it, they're not going to stop the development community from going on, its simply too big.

If Dell gives you a "free" copy of vista on your laptop, and then you buy a compaq with linux installed on it. Does that mean you have the right to install your "free" vista on the compaq also? It was free! How about you write a new windows shell and you bundle your free windows vista with it. And you also throw in your free copy of Office that came with it.
I understand their point and I realize these examples are not EXACT enough to matter, but the point does. They give you the apps for A SPECIFIC device and they give them to you with rules. Rules that we do not like.
I feel that they instead of C&D'ing him, should have had a little sit down with him. Said "hey, we realize you are doing a lot of good for us by promoting our product and giving those who want more what they ask for when we cannot, but we have some rules for you. A, you must make every attempt you can to make sure the roms you distribute go on authorized "With Google" devices. B, not release stuff you do not have permission to release." This would allow google to control what he releases enough to fit within the rules (keeps carriers from saying "hey, he can release your apps without paying, why cant we?"). They would also benefit from the many thousands of users who flock to these custom roms but realize they are unusable in their bare forms.
And so you do not have to, I will be the first to pull the term nazi out of my hat in this one

I agree completely. As i said in the letter, they could have nurtured creativity (i.e. having a sit down with him and saying "hey look, we know that this is going to non-google devices and we cant have that, so make an attempt to not let it happen") or poke it with a stick. They chose the stick, and now they get to reap the backlash.
I also understand your initial examples, and while they do hold true for the circumstance, windows isnt lauded as being an open-source platform. In addition, i havent heard of microsoft going after people who create custom shells that utilize windows information, so long as they put a disclaimer on it saying that you're only allowed to use them if you're running an authorized copy of the OS. The same should have been done here, as you suggested.
Also, microsoft has specific anti-piracy safeguards in place to keep you from installing that software on your compaq that didnt come with it. Can you get around it? sure. Piracy happens, but its also illegal. But google has no such safeguards on the apps. Is it because they lacked the foresight to see this coming? Absolutely. If they didnt want the apps installed on non-branded/non-approved devices, then perhaps they should have made it impossible to do so. Sure, people would eventually find a way around it, but then they'd have a legitimate piracy gripe. As it is now, they dont. You dont hand a kid a cookie, let him eat half and then snatch it away because he shared the chocolate chips. You keep him away from the cookies from the get-go.
It really is a sad state of affiars. If something is going to be free, such as GMail, then Google shouldnt care how the users access it. How big of a chunk of their profits do you think its really going to hurt if people with the hero get a free copy of the gmail app? I bet their legal team made for handling this "issue" than it would cost them in ten years. If the apps in question were paid apps, then I would completely understand. People shouldnt get something free that they should have to pay for, which is one of the reasons that XDA has such a strict "warez" policy. But thats not the case.
The simplest solution would have been to realize that "oops, we did tell them it was open source, maybe we should clarify a bit and see if we can come to a reasonable understanding". But alas...
Also, to your point that the apps came with a specific device, what about those that purchased a device with those apps? We have a right to be using them as we see fit. When I bought my phone, I never signed anything that said that I couldnt theme the application if I wanted to. Google never made me sign a contract. And they couldnt, it would be ridiculous. What about people that purchased them on ebay or craigslist without a contract? They still bought the device and are the owner, and they certainly didnt have to agree not to modify any content. Is google going to go after every developer and every themer now too? Are they going to go after every end user who modified their content? It's just as illegal as making a rom that allows it to happen in the eyes of the law. Apple is attempting to do the same sort of crap with people jailbreaking the iphone. They're saying that even though you bought it, apple technically still owns it, so anything you do to it is illegal. Theres a huge legal debate going on over it right now and apple looks like theyre probably going to lose.

The safeguard they have in place is lack of root access. If you have root access yo have exploited a bug and are acting out of the designed use of the phone. You would not be able to backup or otherwise access these app files. Also, you would not be able to flash the new rom without root, which you gained by exploiting a bug.

Absolutely. But at the same time, the whole "exploiting a bug" argument is similarly null. If the bug never existed, two things would be true:
1. There would be no custom roms for end users, which Mr. Morrill says he supports and looks forward to seeing more of. This would be true since the idea of creating custom software would be idiotic as nobody would be able to install it. The only people utilizing the open-source framework would be major development houses, such as what creative is doing with the plazma stem-cell android that they're putting on the EGG. Application development has nothing to do with open source. The iPhone is not open source, but you can still develop apps for it.
2. The claim that they have about the free distribution of their intellectual property would hold merit, as it would be legitimate software piracy, instead of an unintended side effect of faulty design.
The first point is what makes this a farce. We, as developers, found a way to get custom software onto our devices, something which we were never intended to do. One of two things should have happened at that point: they should have let us continue to do it, which they did (closing the loophole could have been done, they could have found a way to prevent downgrading, seeing as there are no other OS options for the device) or they could have stopped it there and said that exploiting the bug is illegal. Its been a year since the device came out. This has been going on for a YEAR. You mean to tell me that this is an issue NOW and wasnt a year ago when it first started? Its only an issue because they're not the only game in town anymore. Ridiculous. Someone got their feathers ruffled and wanted to take out the little guy.

Ok, I am not going to keep replying to your endless wandering rebuttals. I feel you are wrong in who you are aiming your hate mail at and that is the end of the story.

Thats fine, and I do apologize for being excessively adamant about it. But I still feel I'm right. You only paint a target on yourself if you're prepared for people to shoot at you. Thats all I can say about it.

Darkrift said:
If Dell gives you a "free" copy of vista on your laptop, and then you buy a compaq with linux installed on it. Does that mean you have the right to install your "free" vista on the compaq also? It was free! How about you write a new windows shell and you bundle your free windows vista with it. And you also throw in your free copy of Office that came with it.
I understand their point and I realize these examples are not EXACT enough to matter, but the point does. They give you the apps for A SPECIFIC device and they give them to you with rules. Rules that we do not like.
I feel that they instead of C&D'ing him, should have had a little sit down with him. Said "hey, we realize you are doing a lot of good for us by promoting our product and giving those who want more what they ask for when we cannot, but we have some rules for you. A, you must make every attempt you can to make sure the roms you distribute go on authorized "With Google" devices. B, not release stuff you do not have permission to release." This would allow google to control what he releases enough to fit within the rules (keeps carriers from saying "hey, he can release your apps without paying, why cant we?"). They would also benefit from the many thousands of users who flock to these custom roms but realize they are unusable in their bare forms.
And so you do not have to, I will be the first to pull the term nazi out of my hat in this one
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
About your dell giving you a "free" copy of vista. As long as that CD key is only used on one computer, you can use that CD key on ANY computer. Read their TOS. Your are wrong about a lot, but right about some. Changing the integrity of the windows shell is illegal, because that is microsoft property and NOT open source, but anytime you purchase an OS, or computer, you OWN that cd key of the software, all apps that come included as well. Could you try another example?

nice letter.
not so sure about the whole HTC (not "with google") phone thing- my magic is a HTC magic (32A) and it came will every single google app preinstalled on it.... not sure about hero though...

MontAlbert said:
nice letter.
not so sure about the whole HTC (not "with google") phone thing- my magic is a HTC magic (32A) and it came will every single google app preinstalled on it.... not sure about hero though...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hero did too.
Regards,
Dave

How XDA might be able to distribute ROM's legally without starting from scratch.

Just a thought... is it possible that we (XDA) could get a member of the OHA such as HTC (knowing they have a wiki already and are majorly banking on Android) or another vendor to "open a space" on their official wiki for us to host our ROM's? Something that has a clause in the membership stating that we agree that they have the right to incorporate anything that they want out of the developed ROM's into their own build and we get access to legally redistribute the Google apps as we are "members" of the vendor's development/testing team. Knowing the spirit of this community and the truly open attitude it supports I am sure this would be something that you all would be happy to agree with. This would protect the developers that have spent so much time making Android amazing and give the vendor an amazing "think tank" in action. This would basically give them hundreds or thousands of developers at no cost all innovating for themselves but contributing to the success.
**If you are a vendor reading...Just think of the great publicity your company would get for this small investment in the Android community**
This should allow us to continue to use XDA for most of our needs but give us a "safe place" to continue innovation.

i have a feeling, htc would do the opposite and send out C&D letters to all the hero devs since they are distributing htc's close source apps such as all of its htc widgets and apps and sense ui itself.

NguyenHuu said:
i have a feeling, htc would do the opposite and send out C&D letters to all the hero devs since they are distributing htc's close source apps such as all of its htc widgets and apps and sense ui itself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Probably so but if we sell the idea of them having so many developers working on the project for free they might just jump.

As stated by some one else (i forgot who) just because we are in the oha doesent mean we have access to the closed source we would have to license it out **if** they allow us

jjcd51590 said:
As stated by some one else (i forgot who) just because we are in the oha doesent mean we have access to the closed source we would have to license it out **if** they allow us
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I recall that statement but if we where "honorary members/developers" of/for the vendor then we could fall under the shadow of their ability to develop with/distribute Google's apps for "the vendor's" development testers (us).

lock or merge please~~~~

jaaronmoody said:
lock or merge please~~~~
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With what???
This is a new idea that if gotten into the right inspired hands is another possibility that shouldn't get lost in the context of the other ideas.

XDA does not host any of the roms anyway. Whether normal activities can be conducted here is not really an issue. WinMo users have been doing the same thing here for a long time, and it is far from OS. The developers who choose to post links to their roms that contain questionable content do so at their own risk.
Also if you didn't notice, they already have us as a testing/development team. They can read this forum just like the rest of us. This is probably the reason most of what is done here is overlooked by folks like HTC. Even if we are a rather large user base, compared to the total # of Android users we are still only a few. They probably see it like "oh they got ahold of the Hero image huh? Too late to complain now. Just leave 'em be and let 'em hack at it a bit. Maybe they'll see or fix something we didn't" It's the better way to handle it PR wise.
Regardless of whether they mind what the end user is doing, I doubt HTC would be very willing to jump on board & slap google like that. We should probably leave that subject alone, and be glad they aren't complaining too.
Not that this isn't a good idea. I even suggested forming a group to join the OHA so we could attempt to license the apps, and be more in the loop. Just don't think HTC will go for it.

jaaronmoody said:
lock or merge please~~~~
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you make any other kind of posts?
At the OP this would be good idea if we could pull it off

gurnted said:
XDA does not host any of the roms anyway. Whether normal activities can be conducted here is not really an issue. WinMo users have been doing the same thing here for a long time, and it is far from OS. The developers who choose to post links to their roms that contain questionable content do so at their own risk.
Also if you didn't notice, they already have us as a testing/development team. They can read this forum just like the rest of us. This is probably the reason most of what is done here is overlooked by folks like HTC. Even if we are a rather large user base, compared to the total # of Android users we are still only a few. They probably see it like "oh they got ahold of the Hero image huh? Too late to complain now. Just leave 'em be and let 'em hack at it a bit. Maybe they'll see or fix something we didn't" It's the better way to handle it PR wise.
Regardless of whether they mind what the end user is doing, I doubt HTC would be very willing to jump on board & slap google like that. We should probably leave that subject alone, and be glad they aren't complaining too.
Not that this isn't a good idea. I even suggested forming a group to join the OHA so we could attempt to license the apps, and be more in the loop. Just don't think HTC will go for it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have considered all of the facts you have listed which are valid points but if HTC wouldn't do it which I only used as an example some other vendor might do it. I just think that HTC is the preferred vendor as most of us use their equipment. This wouldn't be a slap to Google, it would be a way to endorse us as part of their development team.
By the way the OHA membership is a great idea. I think both options should be explored.

david1171 said:
Do you make any other kind of posts?
At the OP this would be good idea if we could pull it off
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Any idea which Senior Members had connections inside HTC?
I work for a carrier and the HTC rep I deal with isn't the best to go to with something like this.

Wrong forum, just because Dream Development is the most popular doesn't mean you post unrelated topics in it.

Gary13579 said:
Wrong forum, just because Dream Development is the most popular doesn't mean you post unrelated topics in it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So where should something like this be posted???
The idea I am trying to get out there doesn't fit into anything else as it is geared to creating an Android development resource.
Something that if it somehow works saves us all from doing what we all do already illegally.

Gary13579 said:
Wrong forum, just because Dream Development is the most popular doesn't mean you post unrelated topics in it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Never mind I guess. Looks like I got moved to the forum you saw fit.

Honestly, it shouldn't even be posted .
Not to be rude, but something like this would probably never work. Who all are licensing the software from Google? HTC, Samsung, maybe one or two more? These are all gigantic corporations who would laugh at it, imho.
We would have a better chance of contacting Google and asking how much they want for a license, then starting a donation drive.

Yeah I guess I could see someone stepping up to support this. All they would have to do is give permission to mod their roms. They could then look like the good guys who give their users a choice. I could see it now "Don't like our stock build of Android? Try one of these, or make your own." Now that would be the move to make for one of these companies who claim their phones are all about being "user customizable"
We would have a better chance of contacting Google and asking how much they want for a license, then starting a donation drive.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This stands a way better chance than the other option though.

Gary13579 said:
Honestly, it shouldn't even be posted .
Not to be rude, but something like this would probably never work. Who all are licensing the software from Google? HTC, Samsung, maybe one or two more? These are all gigantic corporations who would laugh at it, imho.
We would have a better chance of contacting Google and asking how much they want for a license, then starting a donation drive.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't disagree that we should gun for a license but like I said previously I work for a carrier and I believe they would go for something like this but I figure that a vendor would be a more likely target.

gurnted said:
Yeah I guess I could see someone stepping up to support this. All they would have to do is give permission to mod their roms. They could then look like the good guys who give their users a choice. I could see it now "Don't like our stock build of Android? Try one of these, or make your own." Now that would be the move to make for one of these companies who claim their phones are all about being "user customizable"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You nailed it on the head!!! Thank you for "getting it". Now the question is how to get this idea beyond XDA

gurnted said:
Yeah I guess I could see someone stepping up to support this. All they would have to do is give permission to mod their roms. They could then look like the good guys who give their users a choice. I could see it now "Don't like our stock build of Android? Try one of these, or make your own." Now that would be the move to make for one of these companies who claim their phones are all about being "user customizable"
This stands a way better chance than the other option though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It'd require more effort from the vendor. They would have to be the ones distributing the ROMs to users, not us.
shagge68 said:
I don't disagree that we should gun for a license but like I said previously I work for a carrier and I believe they would go for something like this but I figure that a vendor would be a more likely target.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I doubt the carriers would have the license to distribute the software. Since it's essentially the vendor who installs the proprietary apps on them, I don't see the point to carriers having it.
And all of this is ignoring the fact that we don't even know the terms of the contract/license. It could very well be against the terms of either to do something like this.

A lot of carriers, and manufacturers have someone doing PR on most of the major social networks. Maybe you should try shooting some of them a line and see where it leads. Might at least get the message to someone who can get something like this worked out.

An open letter to Google re: their C&D

I had originally posted this in Development which was the wrong place and understandably it has been removed.
Considering Cyanogen's recent tweets that he has started working on a new rom that won't violate Google's licenses, I wasn't sure I would post the letter but I have received a request. So here it is:
Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
U.S.A
26 September 2009
Attn: Android Development
To Whom it May Concern:
Re: Cease & Desist Letter against Steve Kondik aka Cyanogen
I've recently read with considerable chagrin about recent events concerning your actions against Steve Kondik, otherwise known as Cyanogen.
First off, I understand that legally Google has every right to take the actions it has thus far. However, as I am sure you are beginning to see, your actions are bound to have a very negative effect even for yourselves. No one denies that Mr. Kondik overstepped the line when he included applications in his customised ROM that he was not licensed to distribute. Could not your response though have been a little more constructive?
Perhaps a dialog with Mr. Kondik, explaining your concerns and perhaps coming to a settlement that saves face for both privately might have been better? Instead, this ham-handed move by your legal team has effectively stopped the Android mod community dead in its tracks and turned a fan base that was quickly beginning to grow like a yeast culture against you.
I hold some small hope that some compromise can be reached but in all truth I believe Pandora's box is now open and a trust has been broken on both sides.
Will I ride out my contract with my cell phone carrier? Yes, I hold Rogers Canada blameless in all this. Will I "protest" by buying a different phone? Unlikely since it proves nothing other than I have money to throw away. Will I ever buy another Android device? I really don't know at this stage. I feel hurt by this turn of events and can't honestly say I trust Google not to pull some other legal manoeuvre out of their bag of tricks that further cripples my "Google Experience".
You have likely lost someone who evangelised your product, perhaps a great many evangelists.
Sincerely,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Guys Cyanogen just said in IRC that he is backing down and wont be any part of a fight with Google. This cant stop us. even if @Cyanogen is backing down we the community can still pressure Google to change the policy's that stopped cyanogen. We cant give up this soon. please work with me to pressure Google.

i think these threads need to stop being posted. it create a lot of clutter. who care if cyanogen or whoever may not include google exp apps...
cyanogen is developing an app to help reinstall these apps as long as the user has them backed up. this is technically legal.

ahronzombi said:
Guys Cyanogen just said in IRC that he is backing down and wont be any part of a fight with Google. This cant stop us. even if @Cyanogen is backing down we the community can still pressure Google to change the policy's that stopped cyanogen. We cant give up this soon. please work with me to pressure Google.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
then give google your home address and a copy of a rom you made that contains their closed apps, especially the new market (that ticked them off so much), and see if they do not doing anything to you.
I wish i could quote exactly what steve told you, but here we go to paraphrase
"what movement? start writing code or shut the [email protected]#$ up."
some where in there is a word that means copulation

its fkd up wat google did n all....but come on...its not the end of the fkn world
id hate to be at google though gettin loads n loads of emails from geeks n nerds....and normal ppl too....hahaha..... ppl saying how their feelings are hurt n they feel betrayed hahahaha
leeeeeeeeaaaavvvvvveeeee gooooooggggglllllleeeeee alllllooooonnnneeee hahahaha

Kinds sucks google did that, but yeah, just another bump in the road. Give it time.
Letter looks like fun tho. Maybe I'll change a few things and send them a copy lol, if you dont mind me stealing your words lol.

david1171 said:
then give google your home address and a copy of a rom you made that contains their closed apps, especially the new market (that ticked them off so much), and see if they do not doing anything to you.
I have only had my phone rooted for the last 5 weeks i think,in fact david1171 helped me i think and its the best thing i did with it and have only had
Cyanogen's Roms on it and am delighted because of him and others i know alot more about what my G1 can do and i have also learnt alot more in general
so i am thankful to Cyanogen for his hard work,but as the quote above puts it best. For him it might have to be over for now
so instead of all the posts saying fight google how about a few just saying "Thanks" for what he did do eh
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

[Q] close xda

*LOL*
You can close every single 1.5 and 2.1 SENSE release here on xda, when you ban Feeyo for that point 6 and point 9.
Or has ANY dev the permission of htc using THEIR sense or office-suite?
Come on, close xda-android except the real aosps:
6. Do not post warez.
If a piece of software requires you to pay to use it, either pay or find your cracks and serials somewhere else. We do not accept warez nor do we permit any member to promote or describe ways in which Warez, cracks, serial codes or other means of avoiding payment, can be obtained.
9. Don't get us in trouble.
Don't post copyrighted materials or do other things that will obviously lead to legal trouble. If you wouldn't do it on your own homepage, you probably don't want to do it here either. This does not mean we agree with everything the software piracy lobby try to impose on us, it simply means you cannot break any laws here, since we'll end up dealing with legal hassle caused by you. Please use common sense: respect the forum, its users, and those that write great code.

I can't believe someone would post a thread like this after what has happened... Facepalm...

dont know said:
*LOL*
You can close every single 1.5 and 2.1 SENSE release here on xda, when you ban Feeyo for that point 6 and point 9.
Or has ANY dev the permission of htc using THEIR sense or office-suite?
Come on, close xda-android except the real aosps:
6. Do not post warez.
If a piece of software requires you to pay to use it, either pay or find your cracks and serials somewhere else. We do not accept warez nor do we permit any member to promote or describe ways in which Warez, cracks, serial codes or other means of avoiding payment, can be obtained.
9. Don't get us in trouble.
Don't post copyrighted materials or do other things that will obviously lead to legal trouble. If you wouldn't do it on your own homepage, you probably don't want to do it here either. This does not mean we agree with everything the software piracy lobby try to impose on us, it simply means you cannot break any laws here, since we'll end up dealing with legal hassle caused by you. Please use common sense: respect the forum, its users, and those that write great code.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice try except Sense isn't warez. Anyone using a phone made by HTC has a license to use Sense. The -only- dubious ROMs are ROMs for phones that contain sense when the phones never had sense released on them by HTC, such as the Nexus One. In which case you raise a good point and instead of attempting to incite -another- flame war in regards to Feeyo, you should report those rom posts to the moderators.
I'm personally surprised and pleased XDA have started to take a harder stance on adherence to licenses. You have to look at it from their perspective too, XDA is a popular site and they don't need various license owners breathing down their necks from a legal standpoint, with XDA being a large distribution node for software.
Feeyo could have easily avoided all this. I actually thought the staff had closed the issue with a slapped wrist. All he had to do, was uphold agreements he made in regards to licensing when he chose to use software under the GPL. He didn't and thus only has himself to blame. I understand you being somewhat blinded by your fanboy spectacles, but try and see it in a bigger picture. If ever developer took Feeyo's attitude to redistributing GPL source code back into the community, we'd all still be sat on some crappy HTC ROM with an ancient and buggy kernel. Cyanogenmod project certainly wouldn't exist and projects like Feeyo's would never have gotten off the ground in the first place.
He was happy to take the benefits of the GPL. He should have been happy to give back as a result of taking those benefits. He wasn't, he didn't now he's banned.
He has been a walking GPL violation since day one. Not -once- has he offered or posted sources to GPL code that he uses. Not -once- has he even bothered to mention the GPL license to any of his users, which he is also required to do, so that they're aware that they're protected by the GPL. Look at the page/wiki for his Linux distribution. Not a single mention of the GPL and not a single link to the source code despite practically every package being protected under the GPL.
If you cannot understand why it is imperative for the GPL to be adhered to in order for it to work and for EVERYONE to benefit from it, if your vision stops at "me have awesome ROM on phone" and goes no further, well then you shouldn't really be posting on the subject in the first place.
Feeyo was so abusive of the community aspect to Android development, he even used a shadow account to ask questions of other developers, before releasing his "wonderful and all his own work" as Feeyo and not once did he credit anyone who helped him out.
Regardless of his development talent, he was still a bad seed and ultimately bad for the community.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=716916

Hi, don't know thank you for posting in the wrong section.
If we get complaints from HTC about those, you better believe that we will. I guess you must have missed the meaning of General Public License there, you must have spotted the word public in there, which means we have to take complaints serious. We did, this will ultimately create a healthier development environment, but I guess you'd rather have a new build then one thats fair. Feeyo is welcome to post his ROMs once more 30 days from now, if he would share the sources as required by GPL.

XDA operates a non-invasive policy with regard to such matters. To quote from HTC
"While HTC tries to take a hands off [approach] about the modder / ROM chef community, this site's sole purpose [is] to make HTC's content available for download from a source other than HTC. That content is not just the open source parts and kernels of Android but all of the software that HTC itself has developed. This is a clear violation of our copyrights and HTC needs to defend itself in these cases."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This was in response to ShippedROMs being asked to stop hosting RUUs of unreleased ROMs.
It is XDA policy to act swiftly in response to any take-down or C&D request directed to the site from a company such as HTC. As HTC make good money out of selling their phones, they are not bothered about a few people making ROMs for each other to use, as it drives up sales of phones.
Moved out of development as irrelevant. No more random threads like this please guys, this is a warning as I'm not going to spend the day moving posts about.

Damn! Don't even know what to believe now... I wish I had been following this from the start...
Maybe someone can send a PM to me with a short resume even I can understand? xD

C0mpu13rFr34k said:
Damn! Don't even know what to believe now... I wish I had been following this from the start...
Maybe someone can send a PM to me with a short resume even I can understand? xD
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think any PM is needed here. Read the info posted by stericson, as that is a full explanation of what's happened.

pulser_g2 said:
I don't think any PM is needed here. Read the info posted by stericson, as that is a full explanation of what's happened.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's just that that post is very hard for me to understand I get really confused reading it...

Guys, why even bother?
A decision made is a decision made.. and only the involved people should take steps to work it out.
Peace,
Bryanarby

C0mpu13rFr34k said:
It's just that that post is very hard for me to understand I get really confused reading it...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then don't worry about it. Feeyo did a bad thing and continued to do a bad thing. Bad thing thoroughly investigated and now rectified, Feeyo given vacation for his trouble.

Hacre said:
Then don't worry about it. Feeyo did a bad thing and continued to do a bad thing. Bad thing thoroughly investigated and now rectified, Feeyo given vacation for his trouble.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not saying I'm agreeing with you but I guess I'm going to start using both your ROMs Your both great developers

pulser_g2 said:
It is XDA policy to act swiftly in response to any take-down or C&D request directed to the site from a company such as HTC. As HTC make good money out of selling their phones, they are not bothered about a few people making ROMs for each other to use, as it drives up sales of phones.
Moved out of development as irrelevant. No more random threads like this please guys, this is a warning as I'm not going to spend the day moving posts about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry for choosing dev and not general
hmm - Froyd119 does have an office-view integrated...
passionqickoffice.apk was never delivered with htc hero.
OK, EVERYONE at xda does cook ROMS out of others...
But it's ridiculous to ban feeyo out from these two points.
GPL - OK (discussion when someone has to publish the code - immediatly, or after 2 weeks) , but not quote THIS points when banning a dev, cause ALL devs has to be banned - which is death to xda

dont know said:
Sorry for choosing dev and not general
hmm - Froyd119 does have an office-view integrated...
passionqickoffice.apk was never delivered with htc hero.
OK, EVERYONE at xda does cook ROMS out of others...
But it's ridiculous to ban feeyo out from these two points.
GPL - OK (discussion when someone has to publish the code - immediatly, or after 2 weeks) , but not quote THIS points when banning a dev, cause ALL devs has to be banned - which is death to xda
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know what Hero you're using but I had Quick Office on my phone when it came from Orange.
EDIT: In fact, from the official HTC 1.5 RUU:
Code:
[email protected] ~/downloads/apps/phone/roms/official/RUU/app $ ls | grep -i quickoffice
Quickoffice_HTC_1.0.1.apk
This would be Quickoffice, themed to match HTC Sense. In Android 1.5. This file was never deleted in the subsequent OTAs:
Code:
[email protected] ~/downloads/apps/phone/roms/official $ find . -iname *office*
./evo/system/app/Quickoffice.apk
./RUU/system/app/Quickoffice_HTC_1.0.1.apk
./RUU/app/Quickoffice_HTC_1.0.1.apk
./postpatch/system/app/Quickoffice.apk
QuickOffice is a licensed Google application. HTC have a google app license. Therefore people using HTC phones have a Google app license to use Google apps on their phones. QED.
Google's Cease and Desist against Cyanogenmod fell down on these very grounds.
You're becoming more ridiculous by the post.

It IS interesting how we only get to see the "bad" side of Feeyo.
It's just.. I know Feeyo's side aswell, so it looks really weird to have (all) people saying he didn't release it.
I'm not familiar with the GPL so correct me if I am wrong.
I would say that the coder has the freedom to atleast clean his code pre-releasing?
Don't get me wrong.. the code should be released and was in a way.
Declining that the code was released..
The essential parts are there?
btw, Warez?
6. Do not post warez.
If a piece of software requires you to pay to use it,-> nope
either pay or find your cracks-> nope
and serials somewhere else.-> nope
We do not accept warez nor do we permit any member to promote or describe ways in which Warez, -> nope
cracks, -> nope
serial codes -> nope
or other means of avoiding payment, -> nope
can be obtained.
So, unless this rule is bigger then that.. I do not agree with the Warez branding.

Bryanarby said:
It IS interesting how we only get to see the "bad" side of Feeyo.
It's just.. I know Feeyo's side aswell, so it looks really weird to have (all) people saying he didn't release it.
I'm not familiar with the GPL so correct me if I am wrong.
I would say that the coder has the freedom to atleast clean his code pre-releasing?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Incorrect. If you provide me with software licensed by the GPL I am entitled to the EXACT SOURCE CODE USED to compile that piece of software. It's why the GPL has made so many in roads in the security community because the code can be vetted upon request. Once the code is "cleaned up" then it isn't the same code as used to provide the binary release and therefore, a breach in GPL.
Bryanarby said:
Don't get me wrong.. the code should be released and was in a way.
Declining that the code was released..
The essential parts are there?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No it wasn't and no they aren't. Every "source code" release Feeyo ever provided either didn't work or wasn't the source code that was asked for. You don't do partial releases of source code, or "here's most of it, work the rest out for yourself". That only works if you provide a complete diff patch of the original source to the source used which in essence will provide the original source code used. Feeyo didn't do this either.
Bryanarby said:
btw, Warez?
6. Do not post warez.
If a piece of software requires you to pay to use it,-> nope
either pay or find your cracks-> nope
and serials somewhere else.-> nope
We do not accept warez nor do we permit any member to promote or describe ways in which Warez, -> nope
cracks, -> nope
serial codes -> nope
or other means of avoiding payment, -> nope
can be obtained.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes warez. In the broader sense, Warez is the distribution/use of software for which you do not have a valid license. In most cases, yes, this is because it's paid software being distributed for free, however it boils down to the same legal issue, no valid license.
So warez applies to Feeyo's kernels. He does not have a valid license to distribute them because he does not have a valid GPL license, because he refuses to provide:
A copy of the GPL with his releases or an easily accessible copy of the GPL at distribution point. There's a reason I keep a link to my kernel source in my signature, you're only a click away from your copy of the GPL as well as a click away from your copy of the source code, including easy to read, detailed, changelogs.
AND
A written offer to provide the source code upon request
OR an archive of the source code used to build the binary release at the point of distribution
OR an archive of the source provided upon request.
Failure to match this criteria breaches GPL and once you have breached GPL you no longer have a license to distribute the GPL software in question.
No license + distribution = illegal distribution = Warez.
Bryanarby said:
So, unless this rule is bigger then that.. I do not agree with the Warez branding.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well then I hope I've cleared that up for you.
Furthermore, looking at the Cronos Linux distribution, which Feeyo advertises in his forum signature, that's an even bigger GPL breach than his ROMs are. It's a walking, talking, urination all over the GPL. Not a single mention of the GPL on the site or in the wiki, not a single link to the source code anywhere that I can find.

Ok, I agree, Feeyo should abide by the GPL..
Although the aggressive level of demanding was rediculously high, leading to the defensive stance against releasing.
It is/was still not finished and the issues that it brought could not be fixed, as such the rollback.

Bryanarby said:
Ok, I agree, Feeyo should abide by the GPL..
Although the aggressive level of demanding was rediculously high, leading to the defensive stance against releasing.
It is/was still not finished and the issues that it brought could not be fixed, as such the rollback.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My initial request was very polite. The aggressiveness came when he refused.
It was finished enough to include in a ROM release. You don't seem to understand how the GPL and open source development works. Once he released that "2.6.32" kernel to the wild, he was obligated to provide the source code he used to build it. Not when he felt like it, not after he'd changed it again, but as it was when that kernel was built.
Myself and others are working on a 2.6.34 port for the Hero. The source code we are working on doesn't work properly as yet, however the source code is STILL PUBLICLY AVAILABLE so that other developers can contribute to it and improve upon it and who knows, even help us get it finished faster.
I wasn't going to do this, however given that Feeyo has outright lied again here to his OWN COMMUNITY, I'm going to.
Feeyo didn't port 2.6.32 to the Hero. Feeyo changed the version string in the Makefile. Do I have proof of this? Not a jot but I'd bet my house on it. There's some incredibly talented devs working on the 2.6.3x port for the Hero and there's more than one of them. Feeyo got it working in under a week or so he claims. He refused to release the source and pulled the distribution because he was rumbled and he knows it.
Either you're in on it with him, or he's got you completely fooled as well. Or you and he are the same person. After all the deceit from the Cronos group, stemming from way back when he claimed to have goldfish sources for the hero and ended up posting a git snapshot that had nothing at all to do with the Hero up until recently, who the hell knows what's going on.
But I draw the line at GPL breach and lying to a community which Feeyo has done on numerous occasions. Thankfully, XDA seem to agree with me, which at the end of the day, is the opinion that counts.
His actions were contemptuous and the attempted defense/excusing of his actions by the likes of you and your ilk are equally contemptuous.

Hacre said:
QuickOffice is a licensed Google application. HTC have a google app license. Therefore people using HTC phones have a Google app license to use Google apps on their phones. QED.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's an interpretation of a "law" - OK (we all use the passion.apk)
but accuse feeyo of warez because not IMMIDIATLY public the code is also an interpration of a "law"
http://www.cronosproject.org/kernelSources.tar.bz2
Hacre said:
You're becoming more ridiculous by the post.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
perhaps
But for me the whole war is so ridiculous that my posts are peanuts

Hacre said:
I wasn't going to do this, however given that Feeyo has outright lied again here to his OWN COMMUNITY, I'm going to.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, as you started there aswell.. let's keep it at one place or it would get too chaotic to follow for anyone. As Feeyo can atleast speak on the other forum, I will halt following this topic.
Hacre said:
Either you're in on it with him, or he's got you completely fooled as well. Or you and he are the same person.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I only hear bits and pieces of both sides, that's why I changed standing point after gathering more info.
I, myself(not Feeyo), have no access to any sources.
Really, really, really not imposing on anyone:
Is this how issues should be solved? Handing one side free speech and silencing the other side?
God, how I hated that about my ex (good thing she doesn't know my internet identity/doesn't look for it.)

I get the impression that a lot of people are really looking at the GPL the wrong way, not really able to shake off a capitalist mindset from it. The fact of the matter is, if someone develops something and releases it under GPL it means it's free to distribute and edit all you like ON THE CONDITION THAT THE GPL REMAINS. You *CANNOT* take some code, edit it and then claim "welllllll, it's really my code so I'll release it when I'm good and ready". No, that's not the GPL - go and write something from scratch if you want to do that.
The ethos behind the GPL is to promote development, holding sources back until you're happy with them is fine, but then you can't release the ROM. That's far too much like wanting some limelight for yourself before you allow others to carry on. Again - Feeyo did not own the code that he was withholding, he did not author it from scratch and as such he was OBLIGED to make the source available the nanosecond he made a compiled ROM available. I think it's absolutely fair and just that he gets banned for this breach as it's such a fundamental "f**k you" to the GPL, hopefully he'll see what he was doing wrong and remedy it. After all, the more developers working on an open source project the better.
Bryanarby said:
I only hear bits and pieces of both sides, that's why I changed standing point after gathering more info.
I, myself(not Feeyo), have no access to any sources.
Really, really, really not imposing on anyone:
Is this how issues should be solved? Handing one side free speech and silencing the other side?
God, how I hated that about my ex (good thing she doesn't know my internet identity/doesn't look for it.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As far as I'm concerned, there are no *sides* on this. I'm not a huge follower of XDA, so I'm not involved in all the politics but I have a reasonable understanding of the GPL after living with a total Linux nerd/open source zealot at Uni. The facts are that Feeyo did not make the proper sources available as soon as he released a compiled ROM - that's not how the GPL works. It seems he persistently resisted and as such, was banned. Totally fair enough.

Proprietary Viewsonic Gtablet Android Binaries & Drivers Pack

Viewsonic Gtablet Specific Binaries & Drivers​
For everyone who may have been waiting for this I present to you the proper Proprietary Viewsonic Gtablet Binaries & Drivers according to Cyanogen Mods Tutorial of Compiling Gingerbread Rom which also discusses how to pull the Proprietary Drivers and Binaries from a Malata smb_a1002 Device which is a Viewsonic Gtablet specifically.
To all who want to test with these Binaries and Drivers before testing with these please understand that these are the Binaries and Drivers the Viewsonic Gtablet Stock ROM uses. When using these specific Binaries and Drivers understand that these files may already exist and that replacing just one of these can disrupt the way a current ROM may be running. This can be caused for a number of reasons...
1. When replacing the libraries and binaries with these understand the alot of these specific files are tied together to make the Gtablet work the way it does, so in essence replacing one of these libraries or binaries with one on another ROM can cause the ROM itself to look for the other libraries and binary files that are specifically in this package.
2. You may get away with mixing and mingling these files but it's a hard and time consuming process to debug which ones can and can't work with other vendors binaries and libraries but this is how the work must be done
3. If there is a file missing do not blame me this is what I know according to Cyanogen MODs Wiki. If you wan to view there tutorial go to there website, and look through there WIKI.
Proprietary Android Binaries & Drivers: http://linuxboxsolution.com/linux-b...t-Proprietary-Android-Binaries--and--Drivers/

Issues have seemed to be resolved with submission to github.

That zip file would've been slightly more useful had it contained the original paths of those proprietary files.

Issues have seemed to be resolved with submission to github.

** deleted **
Thanks for the work LBS

mmenzie said:
can a MODERATOR please step in on this??? the above comments do NOTHING to further the development of this or any other thing!!! i'm not a developer or anything... i am just a tester testing all the wonderful things all the Devs let us test. are you a developer??? are you a programmer??? are you even using the products of this developer??? i am guessing the answer is NO to all questions. if thats the case please just sit back and read and do not interact with this thread or any other thread where your business is to knock the product. unless you are a developer, a programmer, or a tester willing to add CONSTRUCTIVE CRITISIM or "thank yous" there is no need for you to post anything at all in this or any other thread.
CONSTRUCTIVE CRITISIM and helpful hints and positive feedback are the only things that further development and we should all consider this before making a post.
i will now climb down from my soap box and let thgis get back on topic (hopefully)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Critisism and words of caution are equally as important as praise.
Be wary of of folks trumpetting the quality of their product to increase profit while doing nothing to provide evidence to support those claims.
That said, what TnT build do these files come from and are they different than what is used in CM7 or some of the AOSP based projects ?

nunjabusiness said:
What exactly does this group of files bring to the table?
If it is simply the extracted stuff from the original TapNCrap that it came with, the only thing I can think of that we are really missing now in the HC ROMs is camera support.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In my eyes the only major issues with HC are:
1 camera support (possibly fixed with these files)
2 hardware acceleration (probaly not fixed with these files)
So, one of the two major HC drawbacks might be fixed. IMO camera support isn't as importent as hardware acceleration, but it's still on my 'must have' list. Who cares if camera support came from TapNCrap, as long as it works?
All of the HC ROMS are on par with each other (pre-packaged apps and launchers aside) so if one HC ROM gets camera working then that would be the better ROM IMO.

ramerco said:
That said, what TnT build do these files come from and are they different than what is used in CM7 or some of the AOSP based projects ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Excellent question, I'd like to know the answer too. Does it come from a ROM with keyboard/mouse support, for example?

macbroom said:
Another attempt to drive your site traffic up for profit using open source material.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I went to his site and I saw no ads, no banners, no links for a donation or links to other products. MAybe those links were there but they were not prominent, so it hardly looks like an ad scheme, it's not like thousands of people will flock to his site to download files and be drawn into his tangled web of crafty salesmanship. How many people are developing ROMs for the gTab?
Why does it matter if it's his site vs another site?

edirector said:
His behavior is like cyber bullying because he is following this developer from forum to forum to post often-times character assassinating stuff. He might want to consider someone pulling his ip address and seeing who he really is and if he is affecting the developers income, be sued.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you have very little knowledge of the law in general and zero about civil law as it relates to defamation.
Regardless of provocation, please do not threaten legal action against someone (albeit groundless) as that is just as heinous a violation of forum rules.
Here they are for your edification (I particularly like #8 and #12):
Forum & Marketplace Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FORUM RULES
1. Search before posting.
Use one of our search functions before posting, whether you have a question or something new to share, it's very likely someone already asked that question or shared that news.
2. Member conduct.
2.1 Language: XDA is a worldwide community. As a result what is ‘ok’ to say in your part of the world may not be ok in someone else’s part of the world. Please think about who is reading what you write. Keep in mind that what you think of as acceptable use of language may not be acceptable to others. Conversely, while reading member posts, remember that word you find offensive may not be to the writer. Tolerance is a two way street.
2.2 Nudity: XDA is used by people of all ages, including minors. It's not acceptable to post nude/pornographic imagery, which includes exposure of the male or female genitalia or of female breasts.
2.3 Flaming: XDA was founded as a group of people sharing information about certain mobile phones. Sharing does not involve virtual yelling (flaming) it does involve working together to solve problems in an environment of mutual respect and understanding. Losing your temper and flaming another member, or group of members, is not acceptable behavior.
2.4 Personal attacks, racial, political and/or religious discussions: XDA is a discussion forum about certain mobile phones. Mobile phones are not racial, political, religious or personally offensive, therefore none of these types of discussions are permitted on XDA.
2.5 New Members: Treat new members the way you would have liked to have been treated when you were a new member. Provide the new members with guidance, advice and instruction always with respect and courtesy.
2.6 All members are expected to read and adhere to the XDA rules.
3. Post only using a clear subject and message.
You're most likely to receive a helpful answer to your question if you use a short subject title that describes your problem and a message that explains in detail what your problem is and what you've tried to solve it.
4. Use the English language.
We understand that with all the different nationalities not everyone speaks English well, but please try. If you're really unable to post in English use an online translator, You're free to include your original message in your own language below the English translation.
5. Post a message only once.
As a large forum we don't need unnecessary clutter, You're free to edit your message as you like, so if you do not receive an answer revisit your message and see if you can describe your problem better. Not everyone is online at the same time, it might take a while before you receive an answer.
6. Do not post warez.
If a piece of software requires you to pay to use it, either pay or find your cracks and serials somewhere else. We do not accept warez nor do we permit any member to promote or describe ways in which Warez, cracks, serial codes or other means of avoiding payment, can be obtained.
7. Do not spam.
If you wish to advertise a product, contact us we provide ads. But do not post it in the forums, it will be removed and you're likely to receive a ban.
You are however allowed to sell used goods like your own device, parts of your device or accessories for your device in the marketplace forum, please read the rules there before posting. (This rule includes signatures, if you use a signature it will appear in your post)
8. Donations.
We appreciate all donations to xda-developers.com, it keeps our forum online and well maintained. As a user you're allowed to ask for donations in your signature as a thank you for your hard work. However donations up front are not allowed, this forum is about sharing, not about getting paid to do something, that's what your job is for.
9. Don't get us in trouble.
Don't post copyrighted materials or do other things that will obviously lead to legal trouble. If you wouldn't do it on your own homepage, you probably don't want to do it here either. This does not mean we agree with everything the software piracy lobby try to impose on us, it simply means you cannot break any laws here, since we'll end up dealing with legal hassle caused by you. Please use common sense: respect the forum, its users, and those that write great code.
10. Help others if you can.
If you see posts from others where you can help out, please do. This place exists because people are helping each other, and even if you are relatively new to the matter, there's probably already quite a few people newer than you that would benefit from what you've learned. Don't be shy.
11. Don’t post with the intention of selling something.
•Don’t use XDA to advertise your product or service. Proprietors of for-pay products or services, may use XDA to get feedback, provide beta access, or a free version of their product for XDA users and offer support, but not to post with the intention of selling. This includes promoting sites similar/substantially similar to XDA-Developers.com.
•Do not post press releases, announcements, links to trial software, or commercial services. unless you’re posting an exclusive release for XDA-Developers.com.
•Encouraging members to participate in forum activities on other phone related sites is prohibited.
•Off-site downloads are permitted if the site is non-commercial and does not require registration.
•Off-site downloads from sites requiring registration are NOT encouraged but may be permitted if the following conditions are met:
A) the site belongs to a member of XDA-Developers with at least 1500 posts and 2 years membership who actively maintains XDA-Developers' support thread(s) / posts, related to the download,
B) the site is a relatively small personal website without commercial advertising/links (i.e. not a competitor forum-based site with purposes and aims similar to those of XDA-Developers.com.)
12. Using the work of others.
If you are developing something that is based on the work of another Member, you MUST first seek their permission, and you must give credit to the member whose work you used. If a dispute occurs about who developed / created a piece of work, first try to settle the matter by private message and NOT in open forum. If this fails then you may contact a moderator with clear evidence that the work was created by you.
Convincing evidence will result in copied work being removed. If there is no clear evidence you created the work then in the spirit of sharing all work will remain posted on the forums.
These rules apply to all software posted on XDA unless that software comes with a license that waives these rules.

What if macbroom and LBS are the same person. He created an alter ego just to stir interest and attention to himself because he loves it. Twist!
Directed by M. Night Shamwamthankyoumam

nunjabusiness said:
...
Here they are for your edification (I particularly like #8 and #12):
...
8. Donations.
We appreciate all donations to xda-developers.com, it keeps our forum online and well maintained. As a user you're allowed to ask for donations in your signature as a thank you for your hard work. However donations up front are not allowed, this forum is about sharing, not about getting paid to do something, that's what your job is for.
12. Using the work of others.
If you are developing something that is based on the work of another Member, you MUST first seek their permission, and you must give credit to the member whose work you used. If a dispute occurs about who developed / created a piece of work, first try to settle the matter by private message and NOT in open forum. If this fails then you may contact a moderator with clear evidence that the work was created by you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well said.

The vast majority of the responses in this thread are pretty shameful. And I think the most a moderator could do is edit some of these comments (which, imo, they should).
Some advise - on occasion I've lost my cool and written things I later regretted. I suggest that some of you use the edit button, clean up the hateful comments and maybe drop in a "I apologize" retraction while you're at it.
And @LBS, keep in mind that most people do appreciate what you do (myself included). I know how hard it is to make ROM's, and support them, but there will always be a few bad apples. I have pulled back from here (and Slatedroid and TR) this summer as I decompress a bit, so I'm not sure if there's some history outside of this thread which created this tension. But from my vantage point, all LBS is doing is using his own web site to better control how he disseminates information. How is that any different than what goodintentions is doing, for example? Isn't the end goal to help users make the most of their GTAB?

bebopblues said:
What if macbroom and LBS are the same person. He created an alter ego just to stir interest and attention to himself because he loves it. Twist!
Directed by M. Night Shamwamthankyoumam
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol! WHAT A TWIST! Well done on the robot chicken reference

roebeet said:
The vast majority of the responses in this thread are pretty shameful. And I think the most a moderator could do is edit some of these comments (which, imo, they should).
Some advise - on occasion I've lost my cool and written things I later regretted. I suggest that some of you use the edit button, clean up the hateful comments and maybe drop in a "I apologize" retraction while you're at it.
And @LBS, keep in mind that most people do appreciate what you do (myself included). I know how hard it is to make ROM's, and support them, but there will always be a few bad apples. I have pulled back from here (and Slatedroid and TR) this summer as I decompress a bit, so I'm not sure if there's some history outside of this thread which created this tension. But from my vantage point, all LBS is doing is using his own web site to better control how he disseminates information. How is that any different than what goodintentions is doing, for example? Isn't the end goal to help users make the most of their GTAB?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you, Roebeet I have been tirelessly supporting LBS's effort. It was starting to feel like a full time job. I am glad you jumped in. It is bad when conversation is not about the rom but gets more personal in nature. People were coming at me because I expressed my like of his work which is pretty darn good at that. But you know I am a fan of your work too. You pioneered the HC rom industry for G Tab, so you know we appreciate you. I trbardelljr I hope I got his name right of Flashback is doing an incredible job as well even though I haven't tried his rom yet. My problem is I got hooked on illuminate because it is that good.
I noticed some have gotten into the dual rom running and I might try that so I can check out different roms at the same time, too.
Enjoy your down time. We look forward to your return.

roebeet said:
The vast majority of the responses in this thread are pretty shameful. And I think the most a moderator could do is edit some of these comments (which, imo, they should).
Some advise - on occasion I've lost my cool and written things I later regretted. I suggest that some of you use the edit button, clean up the hateful comments and maybe drop in a "I apologize" retraction while you're at it.
And @LBS, keep in mind that most people do appreciate what you do (myself included). I know how hard it is to make ROM's, and support them, but there will always be a few bad apples. I have pulled back from here (and Slatedroid and TR) this summer as I decompress a bit, so I'm not sure if there's some history outside of this thread which created this tension. But from my vantage point, all LBS is doing is using his own web site to better control how he disseminates information. How is that any different than what goodintentions is doing, for example? Isn't the end goal to help users make the most of their GTAB?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have edited some of my posts in the interest of cleaning up some of the residual mess in this thread. I also suggest that some others do the same so we can get back on track.
I hope that you are enjoying your break and time with your family and we all hope that you will return in the near future. You were the main reason that I purchased my Gtab.
P.S. You may also want to edit your last post after catching up on the other threads.

macbroom said:
I have edited some of my posts in the interest of cleaning up some of the residual mess in this thread. I also suggest that some others do the same so we can get back on track.
I hope that you are enjoying your break and time with your family and we all hope that you will return in the near future. You were the main reason that I purchased my Gtab.
P.S. You may also want to edit your last post after catching up on the other threads.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just went back and re-read the posts I have made in the past couple of weeks here and stand behind every one 100%.
Now ... on the OTHER forum I (and others) may have gotten a little bit too zealous in some posts but ultimately, the mods agreed with us and locked the threads.
To be completely fair though, none of those posts got really combative until "autistic" started it.

Hey,
Folks, there is a new version of illuminate that was released yesterday that is outstanding... to spin off on from the fact we are on LBS's thread. While many of us may not know how to use these "binaries and drivers" but LBS and other devs do and they are more then likely included somewhere in his updated rom. It is a pretty incredible HC rom.
The speed on it is astounding with no hick-ups. I spent last night driving it hard just to see what it could do and matching the differences in his previous releases. It is pretty incredible. Loads multimedia files...pics, videos and music like they are text.

Update from the LBS kernel thread
jerdog said:
Kernel source needs provided as per GPL. All this looks like is a rebranding of someone else's kernel - to dispel that belief please provide source and changes or else this will be removed as it would be in violation of the rules.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmmm, deja vu anyone?

macbroom said:
I have edited some of my posts in the interest of cleaning up some of the residual mess in this thread. I also suggest that some others do the same so we can get back on track.
I hope that you are enjoying your break and time with your family and we all hope that you will return in the near future. You were the main reason that I purchased my Gtab.
P.S. You may also want to edit your last post after catching up on the other threads.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I had mentioned that I wasn't sure if there was a history, but I suspected that there might be as these things usually are a slow boil. Since I've been out-of-the-loop, if there were other threads I hadn't seen them, at least not yet.
Honestly, I haven't delved into these other HC ROMs recently, so I don't know what's in them. So I can't base an opinion unless I ripped them apart -- the last one I did open up was Flashback, so I know that tlbardelljr had some unique stuff in the framework.
The point was that people need to be careful as these things can be taken out of context if they don't know the history (if there is a history). I know this from personal experience, unfortunately.