Related
[Mods: I felt that this thread is most appropriate in this section as it pertains specifically to Android development. If you feel this is not the case and should be moved, please do so.]
As many of us know, Eugene and TeamWhiskey both released completely working Froyo ROMs today, and they were able to do so with leaked code that both were asked not to divulge. There's been some infighting between developers, and the use of the leaked code is the major point of contention.
What interests me is how developers have been respecting the GPL. As a major free/open source supporter, the fact that how this license permits developers and users alike to use any source code has not been respected scares me. I certainly don't want to see development of our phones fall by the wayside because some developers have access to code that others don't, when that code [or at least, the source code of developed ROMs that use leaked code] is legally required to be released to the public. (source, and examples of the GPL's standing in an American court of law)
Based on the current events and major milestones in Android development, I'm interested to see if anyone else agrees with me. (Or perhaps I'm wrong entirely - but there's a sticky on the top of this forum reminding developers about abiding by the GPL, so I assume that any ROM or kernel we've seen is GPL-derived.) I realize that some aspects of the Samsung version of Android in particular is under a proprietary license (TouchWiz, RFS), and this little point gets touchy. But Android itself and kernels for Android are GPL - so shouldn't any source code used by any Android project be released?
honestly? I'm concerned about the GPL implications too but I'm 100% sure that I don't have enough information to try to form an opinion about what's right or wrong in this scenario. I'm sure there is a lot going on in the background the average user such as myself doesn't know of what's going on here. edit: trying to speculate here is just too hard to guess, and would invoke both drama and the answers are not backed by anyone.
If you're not sure, ask the FSF.
Eugene and Sombionix need to take up their issues privately (and have since), and that was their only mistake. The rest of the scenario is simply not appropriate to come up publicly.
Although, I agree with the fact that the GPL has to be followed, the GPL only applies to source code. From what I gather, neither of these parties have any source code. They are both in the possession of a leak ROM. The word source here is used to mean the ROM from which the files came from.
When it comes to leaks, files in leaks CAN be traced back to the leak in some cases which is why many times, leaks cannot and will not be shared.
On the other hand, if they have the source code and it has been modified, then they must abide by the GPL.
One thing to consider here is that to the best of my knowledge, nobody other than Samsung at this point has the source to the SGS FroYo builds. What I mean by that is; everything that went on regarding the leak, is based off of binary files taken from a working phone. No source code involved. Google has released the code to 2.2, which satisfies the GPL licensing; with which Samsung has added proprietary software on top of for use with their phones, but because what they have added is NOT GPL'd, are not obligated to provide the source for.
I might be mistaken here, but assuming Samsung didn't change any of the existing AOSP code, and only added their proprietary software on top, then the 'must provide source code' clause is in fact being satisfied by Google. All Samsung needs to do to cover their behinds is provide a link to Google's Android development pages.
if it was GPLv3 we wouldn't have this problem, but a lot of companies are unwilling to jump to GPLv3 instead of GPLv2.
To clarify the position XDA takes on GPL code (having worked on the GPL policy you see at the top of every forum), it is required to release kernel sources if you have access to them.
It seems likely that no source code was available here, and the use of leaks in ROMs has been standard practice for a long time on XDA, and on other sites. There's no issue with this, and it is a signal of trust from the leaker to the developer that the source file will not be made available. Thus you are unlikely to get access to such leaks as a user, though you can enjoy the fruits of them after established developers with contacts have got access to them.
If it were insisted that sources be provided for EVERYTHING, then releases like this would be in breach of the XDA GPL code, and thus would stifle development. Samsung has not provided them with the sources (as I understand), so they have no obligations as far as I can identify, beyond passing on any standard notices placed in the ROM by Samsung, offering source code.
If a custom kernel was compiled to use the ROM, then its sources would be required under the GPL. The actual ROM itself is not GPL'd as such, and treating it as such would be detrimental to users on XDA.
If GPL sources have been used, then they must be posted per the GPL. Otherwise, there are no further obligations per the XDA rules. This does not appear to be the case here.
Just to back up this point, I worked on and released some ROMs, and never touched a line of source code personally. It's possible to do a surprising amount to ROMs without actually editing sources (often they're not available either when working on HTC devices...). It's only within the last month or two that I've actually looked at source code properly with intent on making changes.
Finally, I'll move this into general with a redirect for just now, as it's not directly related to a ROM, though is "on topic".
Ah - so the leaked code used to finish both Eugene's and Team Whiskey's was not code, but binaries (i.e., a leaked ROM?) This makes a lot more sense to me. Thanks for clarification.
I suppose this point becomes moot when froyo finally drops officially, but it's still important.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Well said Pulser_g2
Pulser.......Well said. The important thing people need to remember is not to "create" drama where it is not. The Dev's do work in concert and do produce amazing results contrary to the public chatter.
It is a blessing that there are so many good developers working on the Vibrant vs, say ...(you insert phone of choice). ......now off to flash............
As I mentioned in one of the Froyo threads, I feel like the GPL doesn't really apply in the case of leaked ROMs, since 1) nobody has the source anyway and 2) they're chock full of closed source Samsung bits. The leaked ROMS, and any ROM derived from it in some way, is already questionable to redistribute since Samsung hasn't granted permission to do so.
On the other hand, I do wish people would release source to any modifications of the Linux kernel and any other GPL software that's acquired through legitimate channels. I can understand that the source might be released slightly later than the binary, but most kernels at this point haven't had any source accompany them, ever. This really isn't in the spirit of the GPL, and as a long time Linux user it came as a surprise to me that this is the way things seem to work here.
The bottom line is that, like it or not, people actually don't have the *right* to not release source eventually. I hope they start doing so sooner rather than later.
Looks like a lot of people don't understand the GPL, even senior moderators.
We ARE talking about the GPL, not LGPL, right?
Samsung hasn't made any of the stuff they have posted official... Why would samsung release anything for something that is not yet official...
How would the devs of xda be able to give you the source they don't have?
If you want to fight a losing battle email htc about the mytouch slide..
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
First, I'm not trying to start a web battle here, just stating the facts.
1. The files that I received from our source gave me consent via email to build a rom and release it. Unfortunately, after the fact the rom was built and released, the source has been claiming that he did not want the files released, which was not at all what was discussed originally. Had he clearly stated that he did not want them released, I would not have done so. He specifically asked me to build a rom, but that he did not want his identity released, which I did not do.
2. You information regarding GPL is very wrong. We were not working from souce because source for the Vibrant 2.2 has not yet been released. The only Galaxy S device that has had source officially released has been the I9000. Had we been working from source, we would have gladly posted our edited source code with accordance with GPL law.
sombionix said:
2. You information regarding GPL is very wrong. We were not working from souce because source for the Vibrant 2.2 has not yet been released. The only Galaxy S device that has had source officially released has been the I9000. Had we been working from source, we would have gladly posted our edited source code with accordance with GPL law.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, this was my mistake. I was under the impression that you were working from source, not just a ROM, as was previously pointed out. So I guess it's a moot point.
Hi all,
I wanted to know where I can find source code of HTC android apps. I can also code for android devices but not like a professional look and feel. I want to study the source code of HTC apps to learn and improve my coding.
Helpful information will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks & Regards
You could ask HTC nicely, but I still doubt they'd give it to you. HTC releases source code for GPL stuff (like the kernel) but their sense UI stuff is closed-source proprietary.
Moto mde a stament http://sourceforge.net/motorola/atrix/discussion/general_comments/thread/9f80b745/
gb source by 7/29
So with the official 4.5.91 finally being populated to everyone through regular channels (not our awesome quicker than the maker methods ). We gain the right to demand from motorola to release the source, as according to GPL, if someone ask for the source they must release it.
Thanks joe for finding all the info on the specific lincese
Android Open Source Project license
http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html
GPL http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
GPL V2 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
LGPL http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html
Apache License V2 http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
ubuntu licensing http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/licensing
Q: Why should I care if moto releases the source or not?
A: Do you want AOSP rom, and CM7, maybe MIUI. all of this are dependent on the source. otherwise is super mega complicated to create them. And available source guarantees more devs.
So what is the plan?
Simple, the plan is to demand the source, a lot, A LOT! So they dont pull the same stunt they did with 4.1.83 update. The source for that became available last week!
So we are going to do this 2 ways! The official way, and the troll way.
The official method to request source is by writing a letter to motorola mobile to the following address.
Motorola Mobility, INC.
OSS Management
600 North US hwy 45
Libertyville, IL
60048, USA
The letter of course:
I ___________ write to request the release of the source code for the following software:
The 4.5.91 firmware update for motorola Atric 4g, the webtop included in the update, and any particular software included in this update that follows GPL licensing.
The second method, the troll way. Is simply to flood the motorola forums and requested there!
Tell everyone about this effort, we need source code right away!
on twitter use this hashtag #tsib #gpl
I love these ****ing topic names lmao
Sent from my MB860 using XDA App
neer2005 said:
I love these ****ing topic names lmao
Sent from my MB860 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Me to haha i dont even have the atrix but saw this as soon as i opened the xda app haha but HTC is pulling the same **** with the evo. We got this damn ota like a month and a half ago and we still dont have the ****ing source
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
samcripp said:
So with the official 4.5.91 finally being populated to everyone through regular channels (not our awesome quicker than the maker methods ). We gain the right to demand from motorola to release the source, as according to GPL, if someone ask for the source they must release it.
Q: Why should I care if moto releases the source or not?
A: Do you want AOSP rom, and CM7, maybe MIUI. all of this are dependent on the source. otherwise is super mega complicated to create them. And available source guarantees more devs.
So what is the plan?
Simple, the plan is to demand the source, a lot, A LOT! So they dont pull the same stunt they did with 4.1.83 update. The source for that became available last week!
So we are going to do this 2 ways! The official way, and the troll way.
The official method to request source is by writing a letter to motorola mobile to the following address.
Motorola Mobility, INC.
OSS Management
600 North US hwy 45
Libertyville, IL
60048, USA
The letter of course:
I ___________ write to request the release of the source code for the following software:
The 4.5.91 firmware update for motorola Atric 4g, the webtop included in the update, and any particular software included in this update that follows GPL licensing.
The second method, the troll way. Is simply to flood the motorola forums and requested there!
Tell everyone about this effort, we need source code right away!
on twitter use this hashtag #tsib #gpl
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do we flood the Motorola support tread? Or their Dev tread? I'm on board.
Gr8Danes said:
Do we flood the Motorola support tread? Or their Dev tread? I'm on board.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the dev thread!
Link to the dev tread anyone?
Sam,
Are you taking initiative to write a letter to Motorola? If you do, I'm sure the XDA community would be obliged to take care of the flooding.
mpalatsi said:
Sam,
Are you taking initiative to write a letter to Motorola? If you do, I'm sure the XDA community would be obliged to take care of the flooding.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well considering i took the initiative to spread the word of finding the unlock, and then my handle got submited to a few international gadget sites as responsible for finding the unlock from the test servers. maybe writing to moto myself could be a bad idea. i def dont want to face any legal problems. but i will encourage anyone who wants to write them to do so, ill even write the letter and paste it for you guys, a stamp is only 45 cents!
Please some direction to help, @ or#
Swyped from 'mount' Olympus
Going on dev forum now, commence troll method.
Sent from my MB860 using XDA Premium App
https://supportforums.motorola.com/thread/54476 in the support tread too.
Lemme first be a little polite.
Dear Motorola,
You have already done your best to turn the Atrix into a dead bird. The GS2 and G2X have better fan following because you locked the bootloader, now we request you to release the source of the GB update ASAP so we can get to work with the code and bring some CM magic to the Atrix
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where in the Dev forums do you post? Can someone link?
Edit: here is the link for those that would like to add
https://sourceforge.net/motorola/atrix/discussion/
is it possible to build AOSP on a beta source? ... cuz befor 2 days they release 2.3 to beta testers
I've also started trolling their Developers facebook page. You guys should help me.
http://www.facebook.com/motodev?sk=wall
this does not apply to only folks on att, international users need to help to get source as well. we can compile cm for everyone globaly if we get this source. so please lets make an effort everybody!
T-t-t-t-trollin' everywhere I can
Joe did a bit of research and found every license moto has to comply with!
Android Open Source Project license
http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html
GPL http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
GPL V2 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
LGPL http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html
Apache License V2 http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
ubuntu licensing http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/licensing
Sounds uneducated and stupid.
Rikuumi said:
Sounds uneducated and stupid.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What does?
Have anyone found kernel source for this model?
i have seen discussion on roms without gpl, and is this model released with kernel source available?
I believe Google has not released source for Honeycomb yet. That is the answer I got when I asked the same question over at thriveforums.org.
mknewman said:
I believe Google has not released source for Honeycomb yet. That is the answer I got when I asked the same question over at thriveforums.org.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
indeed google have, and kernel source needs to be posted, or roms on this forum seems to be illegal.. xda don't allow roms with a gpl kernel without source code linked, if its posted..
so thats pretty sad for toshiba.
even android 3.2 source is available, so toshiba thrive has to release their source now.. but 3.1 will do fine to begin with.
This is how it works. Various parts of the software are licensed by different entities. So the Android source includes Google's code and anything Toshiba does is affected. Android is under and open source license, but it is built on top of GNU/Linux. The Linux kernel is under the Greater Public License which requires the source to be distributed or accessible by request online when the binary is distributed. Typically as companies go though their code making sure they only release source they are supposed to and don't accidentally release proprietary code it may take them a while to post it. Regardless it must be posted or things get a little hot when advocates press for it.
exactly, xda rules says no uploads on information roms including gpl kernels without source included..
so its kinda funny if toshiba continue not to post it. maybe i should request it from toshiba somewhere..
The Kernal has been requested multiple times over on the Toshiba run forum. Users have even started to pull out the legal aspect of it citing the 30 day requirement and expamples of HTC getting into hot water when they passed that deadline.
I think Toshiba is just now realizing they HAVE to post it.
I started a thread over on Toshiba's forum and indeed did explain that they have 30 days to release. "Jim" said he would look into it but then came back and made it sound like "contact our legal team".
Hi Boys!
Cotulla posted in twitter some comments speaking about he will abandone the HD2 developers soon because the hardware of this device is very poor actually. Also he said that WP8 and W8 ports mayble never will be released.
Cotulla twitter: https://twitter.com/CotullaCode
not a news
Sent from my HTC HD2 using xda premium
No.
If Cotulla has closed the HD2 on WP8 and more systems,i will sale my device
I say all
Please,do not abandon the HD2
Ur question "@CotullaCode, If you abandoned the HD2, you will release the source code of WP8, W8 and IOS unfinished port?".
Cotulla answer "@FranZeta93 Unfortunately, it's not possible".
AFAIK these systems are not open source and the source code can not be published because it infringes copyrights manufacturers. Cotulla correct answer to the question that he could not share the source code for these systems. In this case you should not ask about releasing source code...
sorry for google translate ;p