Database Users

Support Cyanogen and the cause, read further

(Note posting in this topic as to dev category for obvious reasons)
This whole incident has taken me by surprise with the actions of Google against Cyanogen. Now the actions from my understanding so far are likely the result of the early release of the Market app with his new Donut based releases. There is a valid argument for Google in which it is their own proprietary code in which they want to release on their terms I would assume, however I prefer to take the side of the community. The community around XDA has supported and nurtured the development of the Android OS and the devices based upon it, with the developers pushing the limits on what they can do and implementing smarter and better solutions. We the community in a sense become beta testers for the latest and greatest Android has to offer, how many applications do you think have already added support for 1.6 due to Cyanogen's mods and our feedback?
In summary, I believe while Google does have a valid argument against, but it would better serve them to not continue with this course of action. I invite you all to write and use all social networks available to you to spread the world, submit to every news site, raise awareness of the problem. Don't waste your time with petitions, just spread the word, go viral with it.
Digg search for cyanogen:
http://digg.com/search?s=cyanogen
Original article:
http://androidandme.com/2009/09/hacks/cyanogenmod-in-trouble/
Facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=144634407186&ref=nf
Send tweets to @google also, flood the information stream.
Email the people at Engadget, Slashdot, Gizmodo, all the major blogs just to keep focus upon it.

Someone should put it up on reddit too, get some visibility on wired.com!

Listen, this situation is really cut and dry. Cyanogen had NO LICENSE to distribute the CLOSED SOURCE APPS. The rest of it is perfectly fine.
The solution:
Develop the roms, DELETE the closed source apps, sign, publish. When someone installs the roms, let them install the closed source apps themselves -- i.e., *somebody* (who won't be linked back to cyanogen) will likely post a simple "closed-source-google-apps-for-cyanogenmod-4.xx.xx.xx.zip" which can be installed from recovery mode.
Problem solved.

wont that person then be "under-fire"?

gospeed.racer said:
wont that person then be "under-fire"?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only if the person gets caught.

tool to extract non free files and create a update image
If the binary files in a existing ROM can be used by cyanogenMod, what we need is a tool to reuse them in cyanogenMod. Am I wrong?
Or is it rebuild from source code ?

lbcoder said:
Listen, this situation is really cut and dry. Cyanogen had NO LICENSE to distribute the CLOSED SOURCE APPS. The rest of it is perfectly fine.
The solution:
Develop the roms, DELETE the closed source apps, sign, publish. When someone installs the roms, let them install the closed source apps themselves -- i.e., *somebody* (who won't be linked back to cyanogen) will likely post a simple "closed-source-google-apps-for-cyanogenmod-4.xx.xx.xx.zip" which can be installed from recovery mode.
Problem solved.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you a lawyer? no. So don't give your interpretation of what Cyanogen's license was and wasn't. You already started a thread about it and you're spamming the hell out of another. Don't mess with legal guesses, it's a bad bad idea. As I am someone who is studying law (and also a programmer/generally tech-smart), I am doing and suggesting to stay the hell away from that part when possible. Law -> politics -> flamewars -> ad hominem/bad posts. This is not tvtropes.
Meanwhile, can you even get past the start/initialization page without having the closed source apps, as they are market/gmail? This question is to actual modders.
Google has made a mess of thus, if they stop him from distributing with the apps it's only going to get *waaaay* messier.

You, are an IDIOT.
What happens when you *assume*? I'm sure that if you are, in fact, a law student (as you imply yourself to be, though you really only call yourself a "student" of the law, which could mean that you simply watch CNN from time to time), that this would have been answered on the first day of your first class.
Cyanogen's license *IS EXACTLY* the same as the license granted to *ALL OTHER USERS*. You want to read it? Its in your phone under About Phone --> Legal Information --> Google legal. Until you have read and understand *it all*, you should immediately cease offering your suggestions.
Edit: I just noticed your post count... 3.
Amazing, the audacity of some people. Whenever things start to get beyond the understanding of the average, all the chicken-littles come out from the woodwork and start crying about how evil the big company is. It is a direct function of a lack of understanding of the issues.
My advise: FORGET ABOUT IT. This has nothing to do with you and most likely won't have any (significant) impact on your life. At worst, you will have to add ONE SMALL STEP to the process of flashing the latest modrom.
Let me repeat: THIS IS NOT A BIG DEAL! IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER! Your phone is NOT about to catch on fire or start spying on you.
Oh, and for you information: regarding how I know what Cyanogen's license was....
1) the fact that it is included with the phone.
2) the fact that he received a c&d order (which they wouldn't send if he was licensed, or if they had, it would be the simplest matter to resolve).
3) the fact that he said so himself.
designerfx said:
Are you a lawyer? no. So don't give your interpretation of what Cyanogen's license was and wasn't. You already started a thread about it and you're spamming the hell out of another. Don't mess with legal guesses, it's a bad bad idea. As I am someone who is studying law (and also a programmer/generally tech-smart), I am doing and suggesting to stay the hell away from that part when possible. Law -> politics -> flamewars -> ad hominem/bad posts. This is not tvtropes.
Meanwhile, can you even get past the start/initialization page without having the closed source apps, as they are market/gmail? This question is to actual modders.
Google has made a mess of thus, if they stop him from distributing with the apps it's only going to get *waaaay* messier.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

gospeed.racer said:
wont that person then be "under-fire"?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
At this point we're talking warez, and though I won't advocate warez, when was the last time you saw Ahmed Ahmed Ahmed from Iran get persecuted for distributing warez?
Remember that the US government can't even find Bin Laden....
Or the apps can be pulled by the users from *legitimate* images, like ADP1. This, at least, is legal for owners of ADP1's for use on ADP1's.
Frankly, adding a step to complicate the process would probably go at least a little way in getting the super-noobs out of the game. They get *really* annoying.
Oh FYI: I got that board you sent me more-or-less cleaned up now, going to start mapping it out soon.

setupr said:
If the binary files in a existing ROM can be used by cyanogenMod, what we need is a tool to reuse them in cyanogenMod. Am I wrong?
Or is it rebuild from source code ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly. It is incredibly simple.
unzip (official-update.zip) /path/to/file1toextract /path/to/file2toextract ... /path/to/filentoextract
zip -g (mod-rom-update.zip) /path/to/file1extract /path/to/file2extract ... /path/to/filenextract
java -jar testsign.jar (mod-rom-update.zip)
Then just copy file to /sdcard/, recovery, flash, done.

Yeah, I know that us modders will continue to be doing the same thing and continue on, I know they aren't going after the entire community. It was for distributing the new Market app before its release as I understand currently. Hell, all I would do I an adb pull from a rom and push it into a new release. Just like I will be doing with the Market app if he can't put it in another release haha.
However the point of this thread was not to see if Google had the right to do that, they did. It is that simple. It is their proprietary code that was released early, by cyanogen, but I think it is unnecessary. The point of it was to support cyanogen for more ideological reasons, this community pushes the development at a rapid pace. My Dream would have been a nightmare without the likes of JF, haykuro, cyanogen, Dude, etc. With cyanogen releasing Donut in his builds, our community has been pushing developers to up their support to it and fix bugs relating to 1.6 before it is pushed as an update. The same thing with the Market app applies, how many of those apps have screenshots already? Why alienate the true heart of the device, we are basically beta testers for those of us running experimental roms. I understand the Google position, I just wish they would see that no harm, no foul.
And don't equate the amount someone posts to the boards to their understanding of a situation. There are quite a few people that just get the ROMs, run them and can use a search button if they have problems.

holy cow batman, flame much? Some people lurk for a long time before registering such as I.
I agree it's a small issue, and cyanogen is probably already working on it at least based off of his twitter. However, it doesn't matter what you or I feels about the licensing, nor even what the courts would interpret were it to get to that point.
It however, is very inappropriate to be ad hominem and/or bar threatening to people over this issue, basically getting worked up yourself. Honestly, playing seniority and insulting my schooling? I was not trying to be threatning to you, simply pointing out that you are not a spokesperson for interpreting a software license. Really, it's like you went into an emotional rage the minute cyanogen got the C&D.

Cyanogen in trouble
I can't believe Google is pulling this crap. I can only hope that Google is smart enough to work something out with Cyanogen so he may continue to share his awesome developments. I would expect some restrictions, but they need to work with him and let him do his thing. Otherwise, where's the incentive for anyone else following in his footsteps to make programs better for Google?

setupr said:
If the binary files in a existing ROM can be used by cyanogenMod, what we need is a tool to reuse them in cyanogenMod. Am I wrong?
Or is it rebuild from source code ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe this is the answer?
cyanogen : And regarding the keep-proprietary-apps-on-device-for-custom-rom install, with all the odexing and resource id mismatches... Ugh.​http://twitter.com/cyanogen/status/4384352484

[A THOUGHT] Copying in an Open Community

Android is open. That's why I have my Samsung Galaxy S, my Nexus One and my Sapphire.
I have these phones because the open community can do better than the professionals, and I am proud to be a member of a community that has recently hacked Froyo onto the G1, Android2HD2 (and other Winmo devices), created great skins and themes, rooted almost every droid to date, hacked google navigation to work in other countries etc etc etc.
There is amazing work being done is this community.
Kingklick was able to put out a lot of ROMs which satisfied a lot of people. Contributors to Cyanogenmod (disclaimer. notably not Cyanogen himself) and others (fans and friends - disclaimer. note lack of word fanboys - of cyanogenmod, disclaimer. plus some others too) have flamed and flamed away about Kangklick (notably via twitter - I have stopped following any of those jerks that clogged up my feeds with what could've - screw that - should've been settled MUCH more privately..I followed you guys for dev news or the occasional interesting insight into your real life, not your petty bickering, but you have every right to post what you like...hence why I stopped following you all, I didn't flame you...note 'bigger man').
Rule 12 of XDArules clearly states that using the work of others must be done with permission, independent of whether it is open source or not. If this is not upheld then the post will be bought down, it does not say the user will be banned. I would understand the formality of taking the post down and requesting Kingklick reposts the ROM with due credit, but I believe - note believe...implies opinion - that moderators may have been influenced by pressure from other (high ranking, public eye) members and thus did not adhere to normal or just (I do not know if not giving creds is normally treated in this way, but you will discover I believe it shouldn't be) protacol. Kingklick broke the rules of XDA, but then again I see his banning as the least contentious issue here.
I believe that members of the XDA community in the public eye (ie with large Twitter follower base) due to their work via XDA (no matter what you say, cyanogenmod may be based at its own domain, but it still posts at XDA to maintain its public profile and feed of the massive XDA userbase, and is hence in part bound by this) have a responsibility to follow the rules of XDA on XDA rules and disputes. I do not think this is something which can be policed ('I'm banning you Wes for Trolling Kingklick...on Twitter'... not gonna work) but I think it is a moral obligation (anyone that thinks the internet is not bound by morality should take a reality check...the reason why we have open source is essentially ethics).
Do we give credit to Linus Torvalds every time we distribute linux kernels or work to do with linux? Do we give credit to those that helped him create this base? Do we give credit to Google for creating Android? HTC? Our carriers? Martin Cooper for inventing the mobile phone and cell networks? Time Berners-Lee for inventing the internet, giving rise to this forum, Google and thus the Phones/Devices we love and use? The fact is we don't give credit where due (although you may say its obscure to thank these people, they DO deserve our thanks). None of the ROM chefs/coders give all credit where due, but a lot do in part, with those directly involved. But who still thanks the original rooters?
Kingklick has been declared a copier by the jury...I haven't delved through the evidence to confirm this...but shouldn't we be much more relaxed about copying in general? All users should be open about their work with Android, but they are not. If kingklick based a build off Cyanongenmod, and gave due credit for that, he would be called unoriginal, despite his attempts to make improvements. I also believe that there should be transparency, a log of all complaints of interest and the community told in a statement from the mods why someone was banned...at least in part (keeping gory details to themselves thank you very much).
Donations are generally given by 'end-users'...noobs who can flash and maybe do some work on the builds but their contributions are limited. End users generally want user experience, and reward devs with commendation and donations. If kingklick does work on a build which satisfies more users and he hence gets donations, is that stealing donations? No. The original dev works on an open source project knowing that their work is open, but the end user can reward as he/she likes. Perhaps kingklick developed his following due to his branding...he did always use words like FAST and STABLE and SMOOTH, but Apple do the same and they're not banned from trading despite the hyperbole.
I do not doubt that a lot of devs thanks fellow devs with donations. Cyanogen is well known for donating, as is kingklick, however a lot of donations come from end users, and if kingklick replaces a few files using winrar (something which I generally contest, I believe kingklick does a lot of great work) and that satisfies more end users by being fast and stable and smooth (or perceived as being so thanks to branding) then he can get donations for that, they are a gesture of satisfaction and goodwill.
Kingklick was immoral by not giving true credit, however I believe that he could have been warned and asked to give credit once he got back from his night out (whether that excuse, or what ever his actual excuse was, was true).
I also laugh at the accusation that kingklick does not fill a niche within the 'open'/'free' community. This should not result in grudges and flame wars, whether it is true or not. Kingklick did fill a niche in my opinion: reviewers (and consumers) see vanilla android as being sterile. Hell it is sterile, and it's never going to be as successful as others if it doesn't sort this out. Cyanogenmod and other big names are based off this sterile form of Android, but they don't delve into Sense UI and other alternative skins, mainly due to preferences or copyright problems etc, not that that stops them with other things. Kingklick did work with these and he filled his niche by delivering great, fast, usable roms of these whilst others sneered at them for being inefficient coding or whatever...geeky snobbery.
Kingklick also delivered various fixes and things which other groups did not. I won't list all of these and I am sure representatives of Cyanogenmob et al will say 'we were gonna fix these issues anyways' or 'that's redundant' or 'that was patchy code', but kingklick has contributed. Obviously we have to hold ethics above output, we can not say that 'his holiness' (inteneded to mock those who believe cyanogen alone is a god, not cyanogen himself) Cyanogen's contributions to android exempt him from following conduct, but we do a great job of driving away good developers with flaming and telling tales. Perhaps you'll say kingklick was not a good developer, Drizzy, even Haykuro etc etc, but I only flashed Cyanogenmod on my Nexus once and I didn't like it for various reasons (personal preference yada yada) but I kept going back for more kingklick...whether that's perceived speed and branding etc or just satisfaction.
King's desire roms are great, but we never mobbed, trolled and banned the poor guy for not giving creds to HTC. Surely the morality of our community using software like Rosie on the Nexus is more ethically questionable than a fellow member of XDA's work, since HTC is a firm which employs people. I bought a Nexus over the Desire because I knew I could still have Sense and a bigger dev community, however the cost included in the Desire which goes to the developers of Sense is hence forgone (perhaps indeirectly, I don;t know HTC internal funding); therefore I have - and anyone who has ever flashed a Sense ROM or devved with Sense - indirectly caused loss of welfare for people who rely of developing as their source of income, tehir families, communities and economies. Surely that is less ethical than not saying thank you, but XDA has no problem with that. Perhaps it is too small to notice, but it will have an indirect impact nonetheless.
Yes kingklick should've said his please and thank you, but I think it's community hyped double standards, pretensical courtesy (not that I wouldn't give creds, it's just that pleases and thank yous are nice, but not actually useful). A wise man once said 'there is no threshold for immorality', just because kingklick did a larger 'crime' than the rest of the community in not giving his thanks out, that does not exempt the other rule breakers (ie everyone), it just means their punishment should be less severe...we choose to ignore it because it's less direct or forgotten about.
In conclusion, I think we should start a 'contributors to Android' part of XDA, added to by mods or specifically appointed members of the community (like the portal). This could be informative and could mean that forgotten about contributors could not be forgotten, but their contributions immortalised in the open community of Android. Even if the contributions become redundant, they are the foundations for the next chapter in the Android story.
Finally. www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html is a very good read..and think about what AOSP stands for (I'll give you a clue...Android Open Source Project!). Can you steal what is open? What right have others to dictate what can and cannot be distributed in the open aspects of Android code (ie the underlying OS and vanilla UI...I'm not confused with Apps). Perhaps kingklick was guilty of plagiarism? But so is anyone that claims they worked really hard in that kernel without crediting Linus and leaving a donation link to his family or favourite charitable causes. Anyone that says I've reworked the UI without giving credits to The Astonishing Tribe for the original Android concepts which all UIs are based off...
Android is closed, that's why I question this 'community'.
I am not proud to be a member of this 'community'...right now.
Ps. Cyanogenmob was originally a typo (using words like mobbed in my piece...Freudian slip on the keyboard rather than fat finger syndrome)...but I kept it in as I thought it was funny...the Cyogenmob should replace team douche IMHO!
Pps. Originally posted in Android Dev general but moved here as its Nexus dev themed!

im proud of myself for actually completing this reading haha. interesting read though.

cheddie said:
im proud of myself for actually completing this reading haha. interesting read though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Im more proud of you for successfully quoting the entire thing...I might submit it for my dissertation next year

HazzBazz said:
Im more proud of you for successfully quoting the entire thing...I might submit it for my dissertation next year
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hahah thanks for bringing that to my attention. had to edit it lol

To be fair I posted the god darn epic rant/essay/post...my bad !

HazzBazz said:
To be fair I posted the god darn epic rant/essay/post...my bad !
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, I posted it! I worked long and hard last week to write it out. I am accepting donations to cover my time spent though.

All this happens because altruism is evil in the sense that it is a lie. Altruists demand payment too, in the form of recognition, appreciation, respect, reputation, and all these similar thirst for prestige.
In NOT giving recognition to comrades In arms who share a common need for prestige, it is theft among kin, robbing prestige.
Prestige is indeed a rotten currency.
Sent from my Nexus One using XDA App

Touche...topical. Doesn't really do anything against my points, I am saying kingklick is guilty among many but they are appeased because they haven't got flames burning them. I do believe that kingklick should always give credit where due.

caysman said:
All this happens because altruism is evil in the sense that it is a lie. Altruists demand payment too, in the form of recognition, appreciation, respect, reputation, and all these similar thirst for prestige.
In NOT giving recognition to comrades In arms who share a common need for prestige, it is theft among kin, robbing prestige.
Prestige is indeed a rotten currency.
Sent from my Nexus One using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good point...the fact is cyanogenmod wouldn't be as big with as many great ethusiastic devs without the praise it got...but is that a fair compromise for contributions...

I really think that the issue is the same as black droid. The Problem isn't that king copied the rom and redistributed it. The problem is that he did so claiming that it was his work based off of CM. When in reality he downloaded a a finished copy of CM, compiled by the CM team, and then changed a few lines the build.prop, renamed it and asked for donations. I personally can't see how that is helping the community at all. I really don't care about King one way or the other but I do think that the people who do the work should get credit for it. They spend countless hours writing code for us to have for FREE. Code you yourself says is better than what google puts out. They do this in their spare time and ask for nothing but recognition. You think that is wrong? I am amazed by this. Really I am.

HazzBazz said:
Good point...the fact is cyanogenmod wouldn't be as big with as many great ethusiastic devs without the praise it got...but is that a fair compromise for contributions...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't misunderstand me. Payment is due, for sure, and payment makes our world go round, but I do wish it were not in the form of mousy prestige, rotten evil currency that it is. Money is a much better choice, but prestige seekers pretend to loathe $ probably because $ is less ambiguous.
Sent from my Nexus One using XDA App

They do this in their spare time and ask for nothing but recognition. You think that is wrong? I am amazed by this. Really I am.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But they do not explicitly ask for recognition do they? Even the great cyanogen does not do that, because once they impose recognition expressly as a mode of payment you would recognize that their asking for your adulation and love would seen a more demanding payment than asking for cash.
And also the inconvenience of the prestige seekers being more easily mistaken for all the money grabbing corporations which they demonize.
I'd make it clear that I have not wanted anything other than cyanogen's roms during my g1 days, and adulation I'd gladly pay, plus I have donated in money.
These guys made android exciting and formed PART of the inspiration for the paid android developers. It is unfortunate that the society's misconception of altruism as ' good' destroyed a lot of the language required to denounce it as the evil it actually is.
Sent from my Nexus One using XDA App

Gr8gorilla said:
I really think that the issue is the same as black droid. The Problem isn't that king copied the rom and redistributed it. The problem is that he did so claiming that it was his work based off of CM. When in reality he downloaded a a finished copy of CM, compiled by the CM team, and then changed a few lines the build.prop, renamed it and asked for donations. I personally can't see how that is helping the community at all. I really don't care about King one way or the other but I do think that the people who do the work should get credit for it. They spend countless hours writing code for us to have for FREE. Code you yourself says is better than what google puts out. They do this in their spare time and ask for nothing but recognition. You think that is wrong? I am amazed by this. Really I am.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it was actually jubehs rom he did that with.....
@OP, Omitting credit and stealing are completely different things. kk downloaded jubehs rom and changed 5-10 files and claimed it as his own. when confronted with this, kk said he compiled it himself even though the evidence overwhelmingly pointed at the other direction. He claimed to have built it from asop, when all he did was take someones rom and change a few files. if he said he "cooked" the rom from another (even without saying who) he would have been ok. But he continued to lie after he was caught which is probably why the ban hammer was dropped.
Most of this plus the damning evidence is located in the g1 section.
Also, android does not follow the GNU licensing, it follows apache, and by default, the devs who release their material here are also released under apache. Apache allows people to see the source so they can better understand it to develop, but people who use the source to develop something from it are not required to open source their works. they are also allow to put their own terms which would include giving proper credit.
AFAIK xda mods actually work together to decide on what to do with offenders. i know thats what they did for the wrecking crew (though some mods were less fair than others -_- )
PS: i havent used cyanogen mod since like 3.6.8 before the C&D lol

The sad fact is, it takes money to live in the world today. A lot of these programmers make good money 9-5 at their day jobs. The average computer engineer spends about 100,000 dollars going to college then makes about 60-70k per year after. This is working on a salary basis probably putting 40-60 hours per week. After that they spend another 20+ writing code for us because they like to. I can completely understand the devs wanting someone who copied and renamed their work to be banned.
That would be like you taking Johnny Cash's Ring of Fire, Calling it Circle of Fire and trying to sell it as your own. You would get sued, etc. Come on people how can you defend this guy, come on really?

Tl,dr the OP.
flybyme said:
Omitting credit and stealing are completely different things. kk downloaded jubehs rom and changed 5-10 files and claimed it as his own. when confronted with this, kk said he compiled it himself even though the evidence overwhelmingly pointed at the other direction. He claimed to have built it from asop, when all he did was take someones rom and change a few files. if he said he "cooked" the rom from another (even without saying who) he would have been ok. But he continued to lie after he was caught which is probably why the ban hammer was dropped.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If this is true, he got what he deserved. I had a similar thing happen when I wrote a script for the iphone which gets about 75-100 downloads a day. Someone from a forum put their name on it, posted it saying they were up all night writing it and put a donation link at the bottom of their post.
When confronted, they lied and said it didn't work so they rewrote it, but a simple comparison showed the only changes made was to echo commands which displayed the author's name and some text about how to run it. They also had no clue how it worked and gave bad advice about how to use it, and there were a lot of people on that forum using it, having problems and asking questions.
I didn't really care, and I never got a penny for my work, but it forced me to think about it, and what I came up with was: what use is there in having that kind of thing around? They aren't contributing or advancing ideas, they're confusing them and possibly screwing things up.
The douche that stole my script went from "moderator" to "supermoderator" at that site. If that was your site, why would you even want to keep him around? I'm not a banhammer kinda guy, but there's no upside to allowing things like that to continue.

Im no developer, but i do see both sides of the story. But I mean this is no way to act.
[email protected] please tell your teamdouche to grow up. We all know it was someone in it that just made that name
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
kingklick92
whoever made that account with MY name haha ur f****g retarded, Ill see you in court. You distribuuted MY name
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
kingklick92
whether you were in the right or not.
I think credit should just be given when you use someones work just like you would want the same for your work.
Delete if not acceptable.

Oh for ****'s sake.
OP, you're being a white-knighting ninny. KK got what he deserved: "open-source" doesn't mean an eradication of common courtesy--and crediting is common courtesy. You're trying to weasel around "blah blah why don't we credit HTC and Google" which is sheer, utter, retarded straw man. We know who developed Android by implication unless you live under a rock. Not so with specific individual community contributions.
Besides, what did KK even do? All I saw in the N1 development section from him was ROMs based off other people's work slightly modified, or rubbish that never worked like his attempt to port Blur. I say good riddance. The fact that he managed to scam donations off people hardly helps his case. I'd sooner donate to the source/original contributors, not such a juvenile, plagiarizing, useless waste of oxygen.

[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.

thor2002ro's Kernel Sources

Am I the only on who is starting to get seriously p*ssed off at thor2002ro's lack of GPL compliance.
@thor2002ro Will you honour the GPL and release the source code to your kernel?

birkoffsjunk said:
Am I the only on who is starting to get seriously p*ssed off at thor2002ro's lack of GPL compliance.
@thor2002ro Will you honour the GPL and release the source code to your kernel?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1.
My biggest gripe about lack of compliance, is that it severely inhibits collaboration.
While thor2002ro may be a good Kernel developer, he/she may not necessarily have a perfect kernel.

ShadowXVII said:
+1.
My biggest gripe about lack of compliance, is that it severely inhibits collaboration.
While thor2002ro may be a good Kernel developer, he/she may not necessarily have a perfect kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's all starting to look a bit juvenile tbh... it would take all of 2 mins to upload, even just as tar/zip.
I've also seen that the Iconia CWM source hasn't been released either, granted I don't believe it's required under the Apache license but add it to the kernel and it starts to paint a picture someone who wants to be in 'control' rather than 'collaborate'.
I'd love to be proven wrong, but with each passing day it gets less and less likely.

birkoffsjunk said:
It's all starting to look a bit juvenile tbh
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
birkoffsjunk said:
I've also seen that the Iconia CWM source hasn't been released either, granted I don't believe it's required under the Apache license but add it to the kernel and it starts to paint a picture someone who wants to be in 'control' rather than 'collaborate'.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
TBH, the branding over CWM is also annoying. My HTC Desire doesn't have any branding, nor does any other CWM Recovery that I've seen previously. I was excited above this device getting attention by Kernel developers, but it seems most will possibly be discouraged with the lack of source.
A kernel that abides by the right licence gets my vote.

I personally could care less either way. Nobody is forcing you to use his work.
But if you are itching for controversy maybe you should check this out http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html

n1nj4dude said:
I personally could care less either way. Nobody is forcing you to use his work.
But if you are itching for controversy maybe you should check this out http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's just inconvenient for collaboration. I want what's best for the device and it's community, really.
Everyone else releases their source, so what makes thor2002ro so special that he isn't able to? As the OP said, it wouldn't take long.
Is thor2002ro embarrassed to show his source code or something?

"It will come when it's done"

now he is developing off site for his own satisfaction, so cant say anything about xda/android gpl violation
those who want to use just use, and we cant force him to release..

first of all, concerning compliance, GPL does not require to publish any source as long as it is not released, and even then it only obliges you to make it available to whom ever requets it and in whatever form including on paper.
second CWM could be published even under apache licence, since it is not part of the kernel.
third since ACER has not published the source of the 3.1 Kernel, how can you ask thor to publish his Kernel for 3.1. If he completely rewrote the Kernel, then he can use any licence he want, if not it's only libraries.
however if you go to his site, and you ask, you will probably get the source of what he is doing, as per GPL.
The only thing I don't like is that he excludes functions from the original ACER kernel, "like encryption", but that is due to the fact he does not have the ACER sources.

zoubidou said:
first of all, concerning compliance, GPL does not require to publish any source as long as it is not released, and even then it only obliges you to make it available to whom ever requets it and in whatever form including on paper.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's released on his site?
zoubidou said:
second CWM could be published even under apache licence, since it is not part of the kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It'd still be appreciated by the community if it was published. I'm aware it's not part of the kernel.
zoubidou said:
third since ACER has not published the source of the 3.1 Kernel, how can you ask thor to publish his Kernel for 3.1. If he completely rewrote the Kernel, then he can use any licence he want, if not it's only libraries. however if you go to his site, and you ask, you will probably get the source of what he is doing, as per GPL.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Acer has a better track record at this point; http://support.acer.com/us/en/product/default.aspx?tab=4&modelId=3851
zoubidou said:
The only thing I don't like is that he excludes functions from the original ACER kernel, "like encryption", but that is due to the fact he does not have the ACER sources.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
An example of where multiple-developer minds could help bring features to the community faster?

sure i agree, but don't hide behind GPL licensing, it has nothing to do with that. I would just suggest that you make it a common rule to be respected maybe with some exceptions if they are reasonably submitted to the admin's.
Maybe thor has some reasons not to follow this rule, if he says so and it's reasonable, let it be, may be not, in which case he should get knocked off, and I mean completely, not just saying you are not allowed to and in fact he is still here and publishing his work without any sources just on a different site, but he has links to it. In fact this would possibly wether make him go away, or come back and comply, because of the audience.
That's what I think but I agree that other ideas are also possible.

As far as CWM is concerned apache license doesn't require the release for the source, but would help the community maintain CWM rather than 1 person.
The kernel is another matter, the GPL is quite clear if you publish, and it has been, your required to make available the source.
Any attempt to change the license is a breach of the GPL.
I have asked repeatedly for said sources.
A user may not completely understand the importance of this, but developers do, and as a developer can thor please release his source code.

zoubidou said:
but don't hide behind GPL licensing, it has nothing to do with that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not hiding behind anything It's a GPL violation. It's a binary release without source.
zoubidou said:
Maybe thor has some reasons not to follow this rule, if he says so and it's reasonable, let it be, may be not, in which case he should get knocked off, and I mean completely, not just saying you are not allowed to and in fact he is still here and publishing his work without any sources just on a different site, but he has links to it. In fact this would possibly wether make him go away, or come back and comply, because of the audience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not wanting to argue, especially not over reasons as to "why" or "why not" it might be released. In the end, it's not released.
I'd really appreciate it if it was. I'm sure others would too.

i agree with you, especially it could possibly help to make things work which don't work. It could also help tu share the work between experts, each is taking care of a different subject.
What I want to point out is, don't hide behind any licences, just make it the rules.

zoubidou said:
i agree with you, especially it could possibly help to make things work which don't work. It could also help tu share the work between experts, each is taking care of a different subject.
What I want to point out is, don't hide behind any licences, just make it the rules.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The only person hiding is thor :|
Please also remember the Kernel has been developing for decades by thousands of indviduals and companies worldwide, and they all comply with the GPL, why can't thor?
Sorry if I sound like a broken record, it's just the frustration in dealing with this.

Again... i bring up this link http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
If you truely believe he is violating then this ^^ is all you can do...

I sense jealousy here... Oh no! The romanian wizard that helped so many people must be crucified!

Johnny0906 said:
I sense jealousy here... Oh no! The romanian wizard that helped so many people must be crucified!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol this ^^

@n1nj4dude yes brilliant if you know his/her real name etc, but we don't...
@Johnny0906 lol grow up
I wonder how long it will take for most to complain once their favourite ROM is removed from xda due to the Kernel violating the GPL

Whatever birkajerkoff

Petition for Samsung to be more open :)

Hi, a developer called pulser_g2 developer called codeworx made this petition for Samsung to be more open and be a lot more developer friendly, this petition is for all Samsung android devices, not just the s2. So I thought I would post it here in the hope a few of you may consider singing it please
http://www.change.org/petitions/sam...t-achieve-full-potential-of-purchased-devices
Thank you
Edit: Sorry I made a mistake, the developer Codeworx just heavily promoted the petition, pulser_g2 is the developer who made it, and thanks entropy512 for pointing the mistake out

danielsf said:
Hi, on the galaxy s2 forum, the cm9 developer called codeworx made this petition for Samsung to be more open and be a lot more developer friendly, this petition is for all Samsung android devices, not just the s2. So I thought I would post it here in the hope a few of you may consider singing it please
http://www.change.org/petitions/sam...t-achieve-full-potential-of-purchased-devices
Thank you
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually pulser_g2 created it - codeworkx is just pushing it hard. (he deserves to as he's the one maintaining CM9...)

Also consider pestering them on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/#!/search/users/samsung

Signed
10char

Im hoping the lack of posts in this thread just means people arent commenting in this thread but have signed the petition
I submitted this as a tip for the portal page, hopefully it gets picked up, since being on the portal would generate more interest in this

DT3CH said:
Im hoping the lack of posts in this thread just means people arent commenting in this thread but have signed the petition
I submitted this as a tip for the portal page, hopefully it gets picked up, since being on the portal would generate more interest in this
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only reason it's not on the portal is because pulser forgot his portal password (He even said so elsewhere.)
(This petition was filed by one of our senior moderator team.)
I haven't signed yet, but that is because I plan on writing a fairly decent bit on why cooperating with developers will benefit Samsung in my "Reason" field and need a bit more time.

signed!
10char

signed
Signed.
10char

IMO, in this day when manufacturers are locking down devices and intentionally making it very difficult for any development, Samsung has really catered to this small community. Companies like Motorola go as far as sabotaging their products to prevent any type hacking, rooting etc.
Sure, Samsung's official software upgrades are slow but I give them a lot of credit for reaching out in ways such as offering some of our top developers free devices.

Entropy512 said:
Only reason it's not on the portal is because pulser forgot his portal password (He even said so elsewhere.)
(This petition was filed by one of our senior moderator team.)
I haven't signed yet, but that is because I plan on writing a fairly decent bit on why cooperating with developers will benefit Samsung in my "Reason" field and need a bit more time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL shows you what I know
Dont know any of the mods here

Joe T said:
IMO, in this day when manufacturers are locking down devices and intentionally making it very difficult for any development, Samsung has really catered to this small community. Companies like Motorola go as far as sabotaging their products to prevent any type hacking, rooting etc.
Sure, Samsung's official software upgrades are slow but I give them a lot of credit for reaching out in ways such as offering some of our top developers free devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The problem is they have, over time, become increasingly antagonistic to platform developers.
They are now failing to comply with the GPL with kernel source for many devices on a regular basis. The Infuse AT&T update took a month for source to show up, and Samsung ignored multiple requests for source in compliance with the GPL. The one time they answered, they claimed that they didn't have to provide source because they had stopped providing the update - that's bull****. If you provide a binary to someone, you MUST provide them the source - even if you are no longer providing binaries to other people.
They go out of their way to avoid releasing source whenever possible - see the AR6000 driver fiasco on the Tab 7 Plus.
The Galaxy S II hardware donation to the Cyanogenmod team was nothing but a PR stunt. If you follow the progress of CM9 on the I9100, you'll see that in addition to not providing any assistance to codeworkx and xplodwild, they are actively throwing barriers in the way. For example, secure containers (used by many apps) are disabled if a custom kernel is used in ICS.
Compare this to Sony, who provided technical assistance to the Cyanogenmod team leading to their entire 2011 lineup being well supported by CM, and also open-sourcing their sensor HALs when they didn't need to. They have also provided OFFICIAL ICS alphas and betas including source in compliance with the GPL, while everyone else just has leaks.
Unless Samsung changes their attitude - my next phone will be a Sony or a Nexus of some sort.

Entropy512 said:
The problem is they have, over time, become increasingly antagonistic to platform developers.....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, I didn't realize all of that. As a GNex owner, I suppose I'm looking at things through rose colored glasses. I thought they changed a lot since the Froyogate fiasco which they received a lot of bad press. Thanks for the info, petition signed!

Signed
Especially since I have 2 Samsung devices currently

Entropy512 said:
The problem is they have, over time, become increasingly antagonistic to platform developers.
They are now failing to comply with the GPL with kernel source for many devices on a regular basis. The Infuse AT&T update took a month for source to show up, and Samsung ignored multiple requests for source in compliance with the GPL. The one time they answered, they claimed that they didn't have to provide source because they had stopped providing the update - that's bull****. If you provide a binary to someone, you MUST provide them the source - even if you are no longer providing binaries to other people.
They go out of their way to avoid releasing source whenever possible - see the AR6000 driver fiasco on the Tab 7 Plus.
The Galaxy S II hardware donation to the Cyanogenmod team was nothing but a PR stunt. If you follow the progress of CM9 on the I9100, you'll see that in addition to not providing any assistance to codeworkx and xplodwild, they are actively throwing barriers in the way. For example, secure containers (used by many apps) are disabled if a custom kernel is used in ICS.
Compare this to Sony, who provided technical assistance to the Cyanogenmod team leading to their entire 2011 lineup being well supported by CM, and also open-sourcing their sensor HALs when they didn't need to. They have also provided OFFICIAL ICS alphas and betas including source in compliance with the GPL, while everyone else just has leaks.
Unless Samsung changes their attitude - my next phone will be a Sony or a Nexus of some sort.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
very well said

Done
Thanks for the info...
Everything to help the devs...
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium

signed.. hope this petition will do something

Joe T said:
IMO, in this day when manufacturers are locking down devices and intentionally making it very difficult for any development, Samsung has really catered to this small community. Companies like Motorola go as far as sabotaging their products to prevent any type hacking, rooting etc.
Sure, Samsung's official software upgrades are slow but I give them a lot of credit for reaching out in ways such as offering some of our top developers free devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I totally agree.I would like Sammy to be more open, like Sony, but I understand they are a company and they have certain policies which will increase their profits...Since my tab has unlocked bootloader and I can flash anything I want I'm ok.
sent from my nokia 3210

Signed.... suggest you do also...
Sent from my Inspire 4G using XDA

signed........let us know how it goes

Signed. Glad to see this.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk