Related
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
http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2010/06...kers-with-legal-action-for-distributing-roms/
Leaks happen — especially in the mobile world. There are just too many people involved in the process of creating a mobile device to keep things under wraps. Take any given new phone’s OS installation package (known as its “ROM”), for example; when something is as easily copied and distributed as any other piece of software, it’s bound to find its way out eventually.
When these ROMs pop up on developer/hacker forums, it’s generally no big deal — in most cases, the manufacturer doesn’t notice or, if they do, don’t bother to do anything about it. Once someone makes an effort to gather up all these ROMs and distribute them from one unified outlet, however, things get hairy. Such is the case for the popular HTC ROM distribution site Shipped-ROMs, who allegedly just received a Cease & Desist order straight from the desk of HTC’s Legal Counsel.
According to HTC, Shipped-ROMs is stepping out of line by “illegal copying … HTC¡¦s original art work.” Do they use “art work” literally (as in the visuals)? Or are they ambiguously using the term to classify all of their code and other work as art? Who knows. One way or another, HTC is pissed.
If nothing else, you’ve got to praise HTC for their speed: the site, operated by the increasingly well-known hardware hacker Conflipper, is only about a month old. More impressive than HTC’s speed, however, is the site’s: in that month, they’ve managed to accumulate ROMs for just about every HTC handset imaginable, from antiques like the MDA Compact to the just-friggin’-lanched HTC Aria.
So, who does one root for? On one hand, these ROMs allow the hacking community to “cook” up their own custom installs for the hardcore crowd, often unlocking or adding in features that the manufacturer didn’t — and rarely, if ever, do these leaks result in anything malicious trickling down to the end user. On the other, these ROMs are jam-packed with HTC’s intellectual property, which they’ve got some duty to protect.
In the end, I’ll always be rooting for the little guy. My time with a number of HTC devices has been vastly improved by the efforts of the faceless geniuses in the hacking community. If HTC decides to make a misguided effort to stop the hacking community that satiates their poweruser’s thirsts, so be it — but this is the wrong way to go about it. C&D’ing one site won’t do a damn thing; these ROMs will be up on another site (or a torrent tracker, or any one of a bajillion other distribution methods) in the blink of an eye. It’s the classic Napster problem; in making a fuss about these ROMs, you’ve just alerted a bunch of people to their existence. Oh well.
The full text of the C&D can be read at Shipped-Roms. Conflipper says he’ll “do what he can” to keep the site online, but things aren’t looking too good.
so its illegal to fix HTC's blunders. that is great news!
It makes sense. Those miscrient hackers are doing something illegal and harming HTC by re-distributing copyrighted material (htc sense). The hackers should be caught and brought to justice for what they have done.
Obv I am joking =P
Look at the bright side though maybe will see more AOSP only ROM's
Sent from my EVO via Tapatalk
HTC we have bigger issues on our hands right now! Once again you're late to the party. Maybe you should focus on getting out that firmware update to fix this 30fps cap! Or... at least go buy some more glue...
If they used their efforts in trying to sue people towards fixing their phone, we wouldn't have the 30fps problem.
MrX8503 said:
If they used their efforts in trying to sue people towards fixing their phone, we wouldn't have the 30fps problem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Soo true ... instead of fixing their Issues they are busy sueing ppls who are making good things
HTCs not after those making modifications to rom - hackers , sites etc
They want to do away with those hosting official ROMs on unofficial servers.
You know what would be a good idea? Just issue licenses to various developers so that ROMs can be worked on and distributed legally. I mean, it's obvious that devs aren't charging for their work, no one is making money off of doing this, and I don't believe they ever have. The only reason ROMs exist is because the ones we're given stock are absolute garbage 98% of the time. So HTC doesn't have any ground to stand on in that sense. A minimal fee simply to acknowledge that, yes, this person has permission to work on this software, would be an easy fix.
Though I do want to point out that I'm extremely tired at the moment, so I might not be thinking clearly XD
Well, that's what happens when you try to fix other people's work :?
jigglywiggly said:
Well, that's what happens when you try to fix other people's work :?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hack away HTC doesn't care about that.
What they do care about is those hosting official ROMs on unofficial servers <--- Its a no go they will shut them down fast
If more sites are hosting their official roms wouldnt that make them happy? I mean, wouldnt it put less strain on HTC's servers? Im just say'in.
Response I got from my message. Seems to end nicely anyway:
=========================
I understand your enthusiasm for customizing your HTC phone. Any HTC phone branded to a carrier is shipped with such software and features as the carrier requests - this is our mandate as the manufacturer. It's always been my belief that, having purchased a consumer product, it is your prerogative to do with it what you wish. But in technical support, we're in the position of only being able to certify, support, and warranty the functionality of the hardware and software on the network which uses the provided, up-to-date ROM. We cannot even broach the subject of custom ROMs, flashing, rooting, registry edits, etc. for liability reasons. An HTC phone user who, unlike yourself, may be less comfortable in this area or is perhaps less cautious, may render their phone entirely inoperable, and we would be entirely powerless to assist. Without being familiar with the particulars of the cease & desist letter you're speaking of, I can tell you a C&D letter is most commonly an obligatory procedural step in pursuit of copyright protection, as a request to stop distribution of possibly copyright-protected material (for example the device firmware or licensed operating system code embedded in a custom ROM image) before any further actions are taken. This need not be interpreted as a threat to any well-meaning online community forum of HTC phone enthusiasts.
To send a reply to this message or let me know I have successfully answered your question log in to our ContactUs site using your email address and your ticket number XXXXXXXXXXXX.
Sincerely,
sablesurfer said:
Response I got from my message. Seems to end nicely anyway:
=========================
This need not be interpreted as a threat to any well-meaning online community forum of HTC phone enthusiasts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
translation: "we wouldn't dare go after XDA-developers.org"
lol
I haven't been able to root yet but all I know is thank you DEVS, not HTC. Because of the devs people are able to use the phone to its full potential. Maybe HTC can actually learn something from the devs here. Thank you.
Sent from my PC36100 usingnr XDA Apps
Keep in mind that HTC likely receives pressure from carriers when things like "WiFi Tethering" become unbillable and available to rooted devices. The carrier-branded devices we receive are built-to-spec and neutered by the carriers.
EVOmaniac07 said:
Maybe HTC can actually learn something from the devs here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It has been pretty obvious over the years that HTC does learn a lot from XDA.
I like that response. It confirms what we have all been thinking.
Why are people always so hard on Sprint and HTC? I mean, they are companies doing their jobs! They can't possibly cater everyone. They have to go by a standard. How else is Sprint going to become the best network if they don't charge people for their services...and they are still cheaper than others! HTC has to comply with Sprint standards so they can keep making Sprint phones. Now if HTC was a "custom" phone maker (there's an idea), then that's a different story. I truly love this community and understand some of the hate comments on here...but come on. We are all grown ups here and is common sense. Sorry for sounding harsh, I just get tired of all the childish hate comments.
sent from HTC Evo through Tapatalk
MrX8503 said:
If they used their efforts in trying to sue people towards fixing their phone, we wouldn't have the 30fps problem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, they'll get their legal department right on those coding fixes for ya
Read this link. Read it carefully. It's not just about Google being able to run whatever code they like on your devices, it's about Google DOING it, remotely, without any user intervention/confirmation.
What's next ? Let me throw some wild and far fetched guesses...
* Applanet like apps being killed off on the devices to fight piracy...
* Anything not from the market being wiped out from time to time, for the same reason...
* Users are hunted down and being prosecuted for piracy based on their devices content...
* The system is rigged/updated to block inappropriate content, such as pedophile sites...
* Users are being prosecuted for possessing and/or visiting inappropriate content/providers...
* The "inappropriate" extends to warez sites and regular porn sites, "bad" users are still prosecuted...
* The "inappropriate" extend to the "wrong" political sites, "bad" users are still prosecuted...
* .......
I bet you get the idea. And yea, i know i am taking it too far, but still
PS: Let me add something... the builds we are running on our HD2 are often partially illegal (gaps) etc... hint hint
maybe a little paranoid, ok, well maybe a lot
InfX said:
* The system is rigged/updated to block inappropriate content, such as pedophile sites...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not sure why you mentioned this, anyone in their right mind would welcome this particular point.
kam333 said:
maybe a little paranoid, ok, well maybe a lot
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A lot, exaggerated to the max, of course. But that doesn't turn what Google does right.
kam333 said:
not sure why you mentioned this, anyone in their right mind would welcome this particular point.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats EXACTLY why i mentioned it.
InfX said:
A lot, exaggerated to the max, of course. But that doesn't turn what Google does right.
Thats EXACTLY why i mentioned it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
personally, i think google already knows tooooo much about its users, but in the case of malware, google is definitely the lesser of the 2 evils
let me ask you this, would you rather the big G have some remote access to your device or hackers collecting your personal info. Its the connected world, there's no turning back!!!
only real solution for anyone worried about companies interfering with their device... remove the sim card... for ever.
gnight & dont have nightmares
kam333 said:
would you rather the big G have some remote access to your device or hackers collecting your personal info.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Guess what... neither of those
Also, there are terrorists under the bed,chemtrails in the sky, bromine in the water,drug dealers at the school gates, drunks on fones in cars, bondage freaks at work,human traffickers, religious zealots bent coppers paedo nursery workers racists fanatics and plain clothes Google operatives spreading FUD in forums cos its cheaper and gets more results than million pound lawsuits. Oh and bloody clowns.
Just a random outpouring,please continue.
Infx may sound paranoid, and no person of any kind of moral decency would condone anbody using pedophelia porn or any other form of content that causes any kind of harm to anyone. But those are matters for the authorities to deal with, not google. If the internet's morality policies were enforced by a huge internet based company, wouldn't that be considered some kind of a conflict of interests somehow? I mean imagine if Disney were the biggest internet company, we'd never see so much as a single cuss-word or titty. Big companies shouldn't be able to impose their own commercialized morals upon users, the internet will inevitably grow more and more watered down. I don't consider myself a paranoid person, but this type of issue stinks of denial of 1st amendment rights, one step closer to completely government/corporate filtered news-tainment, and corporate control of the masses.
Huggs, i totally agree, thata why i posted this, not because i am actualluly that paranoid (would i still use Internet if i was ?). What i tried to do in my post is to demonstrate a worst case scenario, how would google start with somethimg that should be totally accepted by everyone (fighting pedophily) yet slowly move to fighting things we no longer want it to fight (political opinions).
PS: This little remote control thing is the first step for a corporate giant to become a corporate government, a corporate dictator. And the onlu things corporations care for is money, not their users.
PPS: Just my personal opinion, feel free to disagree.
I like that idea: http://code.google.com/p/open-android-alliance/
InfX said:
Guess what... neither of those
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you really dont have a great deal of options
android, rim, ios & wp7 all have the ability to "spy" on their users to some degree,
mostly its just basic info such as: gps location, installed apps & how often they're used, crash logs, etc
some apps on ios have been caught out sending even more personal data. The point is, whilst i dont disagree fully with your concerns, i do see your post as somewhat hysterical.
There was no suggestion in the article you linked (or any other that ive read) that google is planning any of things you mentioned, so why mention them, as doing so only makes you a part of the current media trend of FUD as samsamuel put it.
this isnt about deny that all companies are in it 1st for the £$€, then customer welfare further down the list, im talking about being realistic. at this moment in time i cannot see google taking the path that you suggested, i also have far more immediate and real life things to focus on.
im all for a good conspiracy theory, fema detention camps springing up all over the usa (REX 84), the western so called "powers" planting the seeds of unrest in africa & the middle east so they can insert more puppets to secure natural resources (be it oil, gold, diamonds...), i could go on, but this isnt the place.
so let bring it back to google, you are in denial if you think cyber crime isnt going on, and with the rise of the smartphones we will see a rise of cyber crims trying to gain access. so i ask again who would you rather have access to your device?
if you still think or say neither, il know for sure you have lost the plot or you have taken my advice & binned your sim card cause thats the only other option you have.
@huggs, normally your post are quite informative & rational, that last post wasnt imho
no one was talking about censorship, the 1 point about google blocking access to child porn is something i would vote for, this has nothing to do with internet policing, you say thats down to the authorities, but they are not all seeing (no yet anyway) hence the use of informants by law enforcement the world wide, n thats all i would support. yes its possible that you give them a small mandate they will take it further but il worry about that IF the signs arise.
ppl who get there kick this way should have no rights, & should be actively hunted by whatever methods are available & taken out of the general population.
P.S.
Man i would love to have such a care free life that i need to start imagining then stressing about what may or may not happen, but i dont, my concerns are here & now, What you are talking about ISNT.
sorry for the lengthy post but your suggestions/posts are a subtle form of propaganda and a 1 line response really wouldn't cut it.
all the best
Kam
I say if we are doing something wrong and get caught that's our own fault.
How is it illegal? Isn't android open license ie freeware?
Sent from my HTC HD2 using XDA App
@kam333, i may be way less paranoid than you may think, mind the fact i've posted this as a VERY far-fetched and unrealistic speculation that only got slim to nil chance of actually happening, but it does demonstrate a possibility of undoubtedly good things becoming a base to slowly advance into nasty control-it-all direction. And, yea, your suggestion about binning the SIM card won't work. I still got WiFi
@dung8604, search the net about why Cyanogen mod no longer includes Google apps.
Well, I'm running a cooked rom without a Google account set up. So I can cross that off of the paranoid list.
I can't say I'm surprised by anything written in the article.
Did a quick search and from what i can tell, only Google apps are proprietary. Nothing about the OS itself though
Sent from my HTC HD2 using XDA App
It has been brought to my attention that many android application developers have no idea how to properly class their applications by name. Here we will review a few common terms specific to this context.
Here is a list of terms in no specific order which we will review in this document.
Free
Lite / Basic
Standard
Advanced
Proffesional
Premium
Trial
Demonstration
Firstly let me start by saying that the word 'free' should never be in an application title. There are exceptions to this rule. For example a video game might have the word free in its title, such as 'free world defenders.' It should be clear to the developer that the word 'free' should not be used in an application title in reference to the cost of ownership. In practice this is at best unprofessional and untidy.
It may seem to the beginning developer that this would add clarity and destinction to a specific release of an application but this is an unnecessary clarification as most applications are already classified by price categories. At best all the developer has achieved is lengthening the title of the application and flagged it as possibly unworthy of usage. Most people don't expect to get much of anything for free. Keep this in mind when you develop your freeware applications.
I have also found that many developers have taken the word 'professional' entirely out of context. Instead of providing an example just yet, let us explore what the word professional actually means.
pro·fes·sion·al adj.
1.
a. Of, relating to, engaged in, or
suitable for a profession: lawyers,
doctors, and other professional
people.
b. Conforming to the standards of a
profession: professional behavior.
2. Engaging in a given activity as a
source of livelihood or as a career: a
professional writer.
Let's apply this definition in the context of software applications. Joe is a blogger. He blogs all day about his life. In fact there is almost nothing that Joe would not blog about. Joe decides that he could get more blogging done if he could quickly post his thoughts from his mobile. Joe goes to the market and he finds three things: Blogger Free, Captain's Blog, and Blogger Professional.
Joe thinks for a second... He decides right off the bat that he is no ordinary blogger and that he does not want deal with advertisements, so he overlooks Blogger Free without hesitation. Joe thinks that Captain's Blog sounds interesting. He decides to look it over because Blogger Professional sounds like it may have more features than he is really interested in. Joe is happy with Captain's Blog, and it is the first thing he blogs about saying: "I'mma live happily ever after!"
The term 'professional' implies that your application will employ features useful to the individual who requires industry standard adherence to specific guidelines laws, regulations, or operating procedures. Users in this market will have certain expectations. It is important that whenever you use the tagline 'Professional' that you have done your research and tested your product in the field with real professionals.
Usually products that employ groundbreaking features or features that can't be found anywhere else attempt to call themselves professional, but as stated before this term is at best reserved for industry professionals who require specific functionality. The proper tag for this kind of application is 'advanced.' Because it provides advanced functionality.
Some applications are so prolific that they require two tags such as 'professional advanced' or 'professional basic.' Yes, there is a 'professional standard' (no pun intended) as well as many other combinations. use whatever makes sense. I call these titles of prestige.
The term 'standard' implies, that an application meets or sets "the bar" by which applications that perform similar functions must reach to begin to consider themselves competition. It also implies that there is more to come or more to be had from this application and it's descendants or even its competition.
The term 'basic' or 'lite' is essentially the same as the term 'standard' but basic/lite implies the bare minimum required to achieve an acceptable effect. Usually this is an application with reduced functionality in order to meet a restriction on cost, time space, or otherwise.
The term 'premium' implies that your software is giving the best functionality there is, or the best functionality that it has to offer. this term should not be used lightly by any developer who wants to be taken seriously in the world of software engineering.
Trialware implies that an application has either full or limited features on the basis of time or functionality. Trialware is not freeware and should never display advertisements for anything other than itself. It is a platform for you to exhibit your product and the main idea is to sell YOUR full product. This is when you call your product a 'Trial.'
The difference between a trial and a demonstration may seem vague but it is not so. It should suffice to say that a 'trial' can be upgraded or unlocked, and a 'demonstration' can be replaced or succeeded with the final product. A demonstration may also have advertisements for other programs or services offered by the developer or its affiliates.
If you like this paper let me know! This is my first draft. Feel free to comment constructively and chat amongst yourselves with proper regard to the topic.
- Posted via mobile
Here is something else that I had not thought of while drafting this document. The term 'full' is like the term 'free' it is completely redundant or otherwise pointless to state that an application incorporates all of its functionality.
I am not yet sure where I stand on the term 'donator' but I am sure I would like to know what the application is donating to. If it is feeding starving children I would like to pat it on the back and send my donation in as well.
The terms 'plus' and 'extended' were not covered either. These terms are highly acceptable and they imply that the application has extra functionality which is not available in other versions.
These terms work very well with titles of prestige or as new ones. For example: 'proffesional standard plus,' 'standard plus' or 'extended basic.' These can be shortened into abbreviations to create some interesting artifacts such as 'PSP,' 'SP,' or 'EB.'
If you are running a charity, consider using the terms '+,' 'plus,' 'extended,' or the abbreviated forms instead of 'donator.'
- Posted via mobile
Uh, what's the point? We're programmers not English Majors LOL
I'm thinking of calling my next app "Professional Lite Standard Trial Free FartMaker+ Version 0.0019a Beta"
No sarcasm...honest
Rootstonian said:
Uh, what's the point? We're programmers not English Majors LOL
I'm thinking of calling my next app "Professional Lite Standard Trial Free FartMaker+ Version 0.0019a Beta"
No sarcasm...honest
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You should do this, the reviews alone would be great
Rootstonian said:
Uh, what's the point? We're programmers not English Majors
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I failed 7th grade twice and dropped out of high school in the 9th grade. So what's YOUR point?
It's okay I understand you are neither professional nor do you aim to be. I taught myself everything I need to know in the field.
I have over 10 years programming experience and I can program in more than 7 different languages including assembler. My point is if you don't try to do anything better you never will. Good luck with fart maker.
- Posted via mobile
Scientia est potentia.
Knowledge is power. Is it for me to decide what you do with it?
- Posted via mobile
I understood your point was making jokes before you ever made your first post to this thread.
There are exceptions to this rule. For example a video game might have the word free in its title, such as 'free world defenders.'
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fart Maker PLSTF
Interesting artifact.
datajosh said:
You should do this, the reviews alone would be great
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree.
If you like this paper let me know! This is my first draft. Feel free to comment constructively and chat amongst yourselves with proper regard to the topic.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't believe the topic of this thread suggests that the readers are searching for jokes.
Since we are on the topic of making jokes...
Rootstonian said:
"Professional Lite Standard Trial Free FartMaker+ Version 0.0019a Beta"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Free trial demo (FTD) Would make a better artifact than 'trial free' for this application.
LOL. Try less jokes and more focus.
SERIOUSLY, I'm not kidding
- Posted via mobile
To All Developers, Themers, Kangers and members read this it will help us all......
From the News from the Portal of XDA.
http://www.xda-developers.com/announ...da-developers/
Posted August 22, 2012 at 6:00 pm by egzthunder1
We are going to deviate a bit from our regularly scheduled programming to let you know about an upcoming change in the rules in the XDA forums. As time has gone by, our site has grown by leaps and bounds from what it was a couple of years ago. With a membership base of over 4.5 million registered users and an average of 35-40 thousand people active at any given time, we need to ensure that this place can offer the best possible environment for all people, both experienced developers and people who come here looking to learn about mobile devices. Because of this reason, the rules of our site need to be amended from time to time to accommodate the needs and wants of such a large user base, but without losing our principles and forgetting what XDA was founded on in the first place.
Just a bit of background: XDA was a website founded by hackers and developers for hackers and developers. People coming here shared one common goal, which was to get more and more out of their expensive toys and they did so by reverse engineering, creating new code to expand the device’s capabilities, and doing things with hardware that most people cannot do (mainly due to lack of knowledge or technical ability). The site prospered to what it is today because these very same people knew that their collective ideas and efforts would yield more results if they collaborated by sharing what they knew with others. More often than not, this resulted in fantastic feats such as the original XDA online kitchen, the very first port of WM5 to the mythical HTC Blue Angel, and many more accomplishments that are stored in the depths of XDA’s forums.
XDA-Developers has always been a place for sharing knowledge. People spend countless hours on their projects and give back to the community in several different forms, either by releasing the complete work to the community, or by sharing its source and methods by which the work was conceived. The latter allows others to pick up the work and tweak it to improve it (think of the Linux kernel for this to make sense). XDA’s own foundation is much like that as well. However, often times, this concept of the sharing of knowledge gets confused with the concept of sharing everything. If you frequent our site, you will have undoubtedly come across a few threads were discussions about sharing are on going. Essentially, some people demand for work to be released or even think that they can take as they please without following rules already present on our site. Likewise, people sharing their work sometimes have rather bizarre ways of doing so, which has a bad tendency to develop in what we like to call “dev wars”.
We (administrators and moderators of this site) truly believe that intellectual property (IP) is a very important part of what is done on xda-developers. As such, we cannot and will not support any kind of action which forces a developer to share their work with others if the developer does not wish to do so. A developer of anything has rights over their work and as such he/she can choose to do with it as he/she pleases (give it away, share the source, burn it, give it to an orphanage, or eat it for breakfast). We support whatever decision is taken by its developer. Having said that, over the years people have found what can only be categorized as a loophole in our current sharing policy, and thus people are forced to do things in exchange for permissions to use certain pieces of work by others.
After a long deliberation with the entire moderator and administrator staff, we are implementing the following addition to our sharing rule (Rule 12) – revisions are in bold:
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.
As an addition, developers have the right to hold exclusivity over their work for as long as it is deemed necessary by the dev or freely share it. However, if the work is claimed as exclusive, it must remain as such. No selective sharing will be allowed (ie allowing certain people to use it and not others). Should the dev decide to start sharing the work with others, the work automatically becomes fair game for all to use.
In regards to permissions, same rules remain for this but if permission was already given, unless there is a very valid reason, it cannot be revoked (same applies to major updates on the work). Under that same premise, permissions cannot be denied unless the work is exclusive or under severe circumstances.
In plain English: If you want to keep your work exclusive, go for it. However, if you are going to share your work, do it fairly.
These rules apply to all software posted on XDA (including but not limited to ROMs, RUUs, apps, games, kernels, themes, icons, etc) unless that software comes with a license that waives these rules.
The problem with the aforementioned permissions is that the rule never really stated anything regarding continuity or longevity of said permission. On top of that, selective sharing creates a massive problem on our site as it tends to give place to kanging (unauthorized copying and/or redistribution of work), fights between devs (so called “dev wars”), and tons of time wasted on investigations, which normally involves a large number of people from our staff. This needed to stop as it was reaching critical mass and high levels of anxiety were generated for no apparent reason on something that should be a hobby.
So, if you are a developer on this site and would like to keep your work as something exclusive, we encourage you to do it. If you would like to freely give it out so that others can use it and make it better, we encourage you to do it as well. However, we will no longer accept claims from anyone who picks and chooses who gets what. As stated in the rule, you either share or keep, but if you do share, do it fairly. Favoritism has created a great divide in our site and our community and it is only hurting development as a whole. People focus more on pointing fingers than they do on trying to create original work.
Permissions should still be sought as a matter of common courtesy, much like the original rule stipulated. However, unless a valid reason is provided, a simple “no, you cannot have it” will not suffice, especially if the work is being shared with others and permissions are denied out of spite.
Lets all work towards a new, rejuvenated XDA that is based on the core principles placed by the site’s founding fathers. Sharing of knowledge is what brought many of us together on this site and we should strive as a community to keep it that way. Please share your thoughts on this.
Thank you for reading.
Sincerely,
XDA-Developers Administration Team
Completely agree with this... I've seen several cases where some people shares something with selected developers but not with others... It sounds stupid but it's true... Android its open source... And what ever derivates from it.. Should be the same..
Sent from my GT-P7500 using Tapatalk 2
msedek said:
Completely agree with this... I've seen several cases where some people shares something with selected developers but not with others... It sounds stupid but it's true... Android its open source... And what ever derivates from it.. Should be the same..
Sent from my GT-P7500 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree if your going to share then let everyone share. For example all my files for linuxonandroid are freely available to all via source forge.
That is apart from the apps source which is shared with no one.
However people have the right to keep there hard work closed to just them if they wish after all its their hard work and far to many people take work and give no credit
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda premium
What is this crap. Either create a Creative Commons License, or fully copyright and lock it down. Simple.
totally agree
bigstarrynight said:
What is this crap. Either create a Creative Commons License, or fully copyright and lock it down. Simple.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah let's become an apple like community!
BTW I was being sarcastic
Enviado desde mi LG-P990 usando Tapatalk 2
msedek said:
Yeah let's become an apple like community!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No thanks. Biggest bunch of egotistical know-nothings
msedek said:
BTW I was being sarcastic
Enviado desde mi LG-P990 usando Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It suits you!