Database Users

People stealing free software and trying to profit

I usually look the other way when I see posts on craigslist wanting to root/jailbreak your phone for a fee, but the below post just kills me.
He is selling a 8gb mSD card with Honeycomb for the nook color for $80!! That's pretty much a 400% profit all thanks to the fine people here.
http://miami.craigslist.org/brw/ele/2258357972.html

That's very bad... :/

Dade county hustlaaaa
Ima jump on the train
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA Premium App

BreakTheLaw said:
Dade county hustlaaaa
Ima jump on the train
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What you said? I can't understand a word from this

nathanpc said:
What you said? I can't understand a word from this
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol
Dade county = Miami, florida
Hustla = hustler
For real?
The guy is smart, im thinking of doing the same. Why the **** not.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA Premium App

I want to say before jumping on the trash the man band wagon, this is exactly the kind of thing that has kept opensource alive. I suggest reading the cathedral and the bazaar. This is no different then redhat repackaging linux, or cononical repackaging debian. There are many people almost incapable of using dd to create a sdcard, have the time to read and research for hours how to make it work etc. A working bootable sdcard that doesn't void your warranty for 80/OBO? Seems like a decent deal for those who just want the latest without the work. Do you bad mouth the plumber who puts in a new toilet because he didn't create the toilet? How much do you pay for win7? do you assassinate bestbuy because they are selling it?

Umm to the above post it's still B.S you don't understand the law I think... He is charging people for software he didnt write nor does he own! That my friend is © infringement...Even if it is opensource it's not his to sell! Charging to root others phone is fine there is work involved in rooting some of these phones not all are one click root but charging for the software is a completely different story! Well I did a google search and it depends on whether the opensource as been copyrighted if it has then it's illegal if it hasnt then you can sell it all you want... Apparently opensource gives you the permission to change run and charge if repackaged... So he is right as much as it's ethically wrong!

again, you are free to charge for opensource, read the licence as well as the book i mentioned.

This is no different than best buy installing windows for you, and then charging for the service of doing so. he's not selling the software, he's selling the service of getting it working and the hardware (SDcard) involved.
Some people either cannot do it themselves for numerous reasons, or just don't want to mess with it.

If you were to actually to take the time and read eric raymonds book, you would know that money is not made on the software, its not free beer its free to do with it as you want, money is made in the opensource world by providing services.
http://catb.org/~esr/writings/homesteading/cathedral-bazaar/
you will notice this was first presented in 1997 as is a fundamental foundation in opensource as a basis for economic viability. by your very primiss that money cant be made off opensource software, then no business can run linux servers as they are making money off of the work of others.
There is nothing you can show me in GPL that says you cant sell the software, infact what it says is, you must provide the sourcecode if requested, which you can even charge for but you cannot dictate what one does with the code once they take possession of it as long as credit is given for the work.
I really suggest knowing more then 20 mins of web browsing wiki's before condemning ones method of taking advantage of the opensource community
If it wasn't for the ability to use opensource in an effort to make money, redhat, ubuntu, google, htc would not exist. Turn in your android phone as the manufacturer is stealing the code and selling it to you.

To make things easy, here are the first few lines from GPL3
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 3, 29 June 2007
Copyright © 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/>
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Preamble
The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.
The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

BreakTheLaw said:
Lol
Dade county = Miami, florida
Hustla = hustler
For real?
The guy is smart, im thinking of doing the same. Why the **** not.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
SO should I say I want it then beat him with a bat when I meet him?

I wouldn't say that in the state of florida!
I don't see a problem. I see a potential of all future mods becoming viable sources of income for a select few hard working, talented individuals who deserve kick back for the fruits of their labor.
Jealousy and envy paint an ugly picture of the person on the other side.
- Posted via mobile

If SDCard man made you mad, this should make your head expload
saw this ad on facebook
http://unlockedereaders.com/
Rooted Nook Color w/ 8GB MicroSD
Rooted Nook Color w/ 8GB MicroSD
This is a BRAND new Nook Color. It has only been removed from the packaging long enough to root the device and replace it back in the packaging. This Nook comes rooted with the ability to choose between Android 2.2 Froyo and 2.3 Honeycomb operating systems. When you receive the item, it will be rooted running the stock Nook operating system. From here you may access the App Market and download whatever you wish, while still maintaining your existing Nook functionality, look, and feel. Should you want to run another operating system, all you have to do is open the preinstalled RomManager app and restore to one of the operating system images included with the device.
This comes with an 8 GB Class 6 A-Data microSD card. This card comes with backup images of Froyo, Honeycomb, and stock image for you to switch between with RomManager at your choosing. Also provides extra storage for your device. Nook will be shipped in factory packaging with FREE Priority Mail 2-3 day shipping!
Price: $ 450.00

A site actually in the open doing the same thing but charging such an exorbitant price all for a sdcard.
@NuroSlam Unofficial Android builds for the Nook are NOT under the GPL, they may contain GPL'd components, but the full software is not under the GPL. Canonical HAS permission to redistribute what Debian parts they do use in Ubuntu.
Best Buy is a retail store and they are in the direct distribution channel for Microsoft product. They provide a legal service for people unable to install the operating system they bought legally. I do not even run Windows so the price doesn't bother me, their OS monopolization does though which is a whole other discussion.

evilkorn said:
A site actually in the open doing the same thing but charging such an exorbitant price all for a sdcard.
@NuroSlam Unofficial Android builds for the Nook are NOT under the GPL, they may contain GPL'd components, but the full software is not under the GPL. Canonical HAS permission to redistribute what Debian parts they do use in Ubuntu.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True android itself falls under the apache software licence, again there is no mention of not selling a service using the product.
"4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions:"
"The result is a license that is supposed to be compatible with other open source licenses, while remaining true to the original goals of the Apache Group and supportive of collaborative development across both nonprofit and commercial organizations. The Apache Software Foundation is still trying to determine if this version of the Apache License is compatible with the GPL."
and from the FAQ
"Describing legal documents in non-legalese is fraught with potential for misinterpretation. Notwithstanding the text that follows, the actual text of the license itself is legally binding and authoritative.
That said, here's what the Apache license says in layman's terms:
It allows you to:
* freely download and use Apache software, in whole or in part, for personal, company internal, or commercial purposes;
* use Apache software in packages or distributions that you create.
It forbids you to:
* redistribute any piece of Apache-originated software without proper attribution;
* use any marks owned by The Apache Software Foundation in any way that might state or imply that the Foundation endorses your distribution;
* use any marks owned by The Apache Software Foundation in any way that might state or imply that you created the Apache software in question."
Best Buy is a retail store and they are in the direct distribution channel for Microsoft product. They provide a legal service for people unable to install the operating system they bought legally. I do not even run Windows so the price doesn't bother me, their OS monopolization does though which is a whole other discussion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Honeycomb breaks GPL Law

I just had to start a thread on this issue because I think it's surprising more people aren't angry at Google for taking an 'open', GPL licensed (at the very least the kernel) set of code (Honeycomb) and not releasing it to the public in the form of source code. Not only is it completely NOT in the spirit of open source, but in fact may even be illegal (although I have not done quite enough research to say exactly what is and isn't GPL, I know the kernel IS GPL, the OS itself I am GUESSING is GPL as they have claimed it to be open source). I understand that certain APPLICATIONS are not open source (market, youtube, gmail, etc) but if the operating system is supposed to be open source (and/or GPL) why are more people not outraged that they will not release it?
I understand they want to prevent every fly-by-night operation from building garbage tablets that "cheapen" the name of android tablets, but for better or worse that's what android is, and it's what makes android great. If you just want to get your feet wet, you should be able to take a cheap nook color and load up honeycomb. If you're not happy with the performance, you can go buy a nice xoom or transformer.
I know we all love android, and its open source nature, but just because we hate apple/M$ doesn't mean we have to love every action google takes.

compuw22c said:
If you just want to get your feet wet, you should be able to take a cheap nook color and load up honeycomb.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the nook has honeycomb.

austin420 said:
the nook has honeycomb.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Based on the sdk.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

lynyrd65 said:
Based on the sdk.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, prerelease sdk too. Personally, I think this may be what pushed Google to do what they did. That or Motorola freaking out saying "You PROMISED we'd be first, we invested time and energy here you better do something about this". Android was supposed to be "The People's OS". Unfortunately things seem to be changing hands and its becoming more about keeping carriers and manufacturers happy. Not necessary I say. Pandora's box has been opened, no matter what google does, carriers and manufacturers will still use Android. To stop carrying android phones would be suicide on their part. Give us all root access as part of stock android and be done with it!
Sent from my pocket rocket

compuw22c said:
I just had to start a thread on this issue because I think it's surprising more people aren't angry at Google for taking an 'open', GPL licensed (at the very least the kernel) set of code (Honeycomb) and not releasing it to the public in the form of source code.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are quite a few folks who are unhappy with Google for their decision not to release Honeycomb platform sources, and there's a good debate there. However, there's nothing unlawful about Google's actions.
First, the majority of Android source code isn't GPL licensed, but rather Apache License v2.0, which does not require publication of modified sources. This is why Samsung hasn't (fully) released sources for the Epic's Android platform code, which is much more problematic for us.
Second, AOSP is the sole copyright owner of much of the Android platform code. This enables them to release and relicense that source code however they wish, even if the code were nominally GPL licensed (although it's Apache).
Third, the portions of Honeycomb that are GPL licensed, to which AOSP is not the sole copyright owner, have been publically released. However, this code is mostly comprised of the Linux kernel and a few underyling libraries. In other words, it isn't the interesting/useful part of Honeycomb.
Furthermore, just to clarify, the GPL does not require source code to be published publicly, just that it be made available to those who legitimately acquite the binary code, i.e., who actually purchase Honeycomb tablets. That said, public publication of that code is often the easiest/most efficient method of making it available to tablet owners.
Edit: The copyright of much of the Android sources are claimed by "The Android Open Source Project", which is the "overseeing" organization Google established. I'm not sure what the policies of code licensing are among Google and other AOSP partners, but the point is that AOSP as the copyright owner is not bound by the existing license for that code.

mkasick said:
First, the majority of Android source code isn't GPL licensed, but rather Apache License v2.0, which does not require publication of modified sources.
Third, the portions of Honeycomb that are GPL licensed, to which AOSP is not the sole copyright owner, have been publically released.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Beat me to it, but I figured I'd re-quote you with a shortened version in bold.
It's been long known. Android is OPEN SOURCE (Apache). It is not FREE SOURCE (GPL).
Further, I think the author misunderstands what the linux kernel is. You can't really do much with it alone, but it is a powerful piece. On a train, it's like the transmission that connects the engine to the wheels of the train, but you still need the body and the train tracks to go anywhere (Android).

jnadke said:
Beat me to it, but I figured I'd re-quote you with a shortened version in bold.
It's been long known. Android is OPEN SOURCE (Apache). It is not FREE SOURCE (GPL).
Further, I think the author misunderstands what the linux kernel is. You can't really do much with it alone, but it is a powerful piece. On a train, it's like the transmission that connects the engine to the wheels of the train, but you still need the body and the train tracks to go anywhere (Android).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, I do understand what a kernel is and what it does (small main-brain controller of hardware, usually with a few modules built into it). I've recompiled mine on my media server a few times. I do see your point though, you're right, not much you can do with it all by itself for sure.
I also understand that they aren't breaking the law, I guess I just thought part of the gpl was that to use gpl software in a project, that project must also comply (which I now understand is false). Always assumed that to be the reason Apple uses a UNIX kernel rather than a LINUX kernel for osx.
So I guess they do have a right to do what they're doing, but the idealist in me still wishes they'd do the right thing...
Anyone wanna make a Ubuntu port to phones...complete with dialer, launcher, dalvik vm (for running android apps)? j/k
Sent from my pocket rocket

mkasick said:
There are quite a few folks who are unhappy with Google for their decision not to release Honeycomb platform sources, and there's a good debate there. However, there's nothing unlawful about Google's actions.
First, the majority of Android source code isn't GPL licensed, but rather Apache License v2.0, which does not require publication of modified sources. This is why Samsung hasn't (fully) released sources for the Epic's Android platform code, which is much more problematic for us.
Second, AOSP is the sole copyright owner of much of the Android platform code. This enables them to release and relicense that source code however they wish, even if the code were nominally GPL licensed (although it's Apache).
Third, the portions of Honeycomb that are GPL licensed, to which AOSP is not the sole copyright owner, have been publically released. However, this code is mostly comprised of the Linux kernel and a few underyling libraries. In other words, it isn't the interesting/useful part of Honeycomb.
Furthermore, just to clarify, the GPL does not require source code to be published publicly, just that it be made available to those who legitimately acquite the binary code, i.e., who actually purchase Honeycomb tablets. That said, public publication of that code is often the easiest/most efficient method of making it available to tablet owners.
Edit: The copyright of much of the Android sources are claimed by "The Android Open Source Project", which is the "overseeing" organization Google established. I'm not sure what the policies of code licensing are among Google and other AOSP partners, but the point is that AOSP as the copyright owner is not bound by the existing license for that code.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well said...
Help support autism awareness,it only takes 2 seconds to help make a difference...
http://picketfenceblogs.com/vote/3616

If Android is opensource, how can Google hold back Honeycomb Src?

I don't understand how if Android is Opensource and borrows code from Linux kernel and other OpenSource projects, how Google can legally hold back the honeycomb sourcecode?
I'm not really interested in Honeycomb source myself, nor the OS dev scene, but what I DO care about, is that some of my favorite apps are broken on my Tablet, and the developers all point the finger at Google, saying the flash API changed in Honeycomb, and they need the source to get it working.
The biggest broken apps for me are:
Opera Mobile 11
BBC iPlayer App
Opera even come out and tell us why Flash does not work on Opera Mobile 11 on Honeycomb:
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.opera.browser&feature=search_result
(What's New Tab)
"Flash not supported on Android 3.x due to Google not releasing necessary platform code"

"Open source" doesn't mean what you think it means.
The Linux kernel source is available under the GPLv2, this mean that is you ship a product you must provide the source, hence its the device manufacturers responsibility to give us the kernel source because it's them we buy the product from.
The Android framework and the Dalvik virtual machine are all available under an Apache licence, this allows anyone to take the source code and make a closed proprietary product and/or addition (Like Blur/Sense/Touchwiz) without this Android would not have caught on anywhere near as fast, but it also means that there is no requirement for future derivative products to have source code released. Even if the person doing that is Google.
All the API's that people _should_ be using are documented, the problem is that the products you mention are trying to mimic the native browser and use internal only method calls, if you step out of the approved API box then you have problems like this.
Why BBC iPlayer needs flash I don't know, all 3.1 tablets can play the flashhigh and flashhd (h.264) iPlayer streams natively I use get-iplayer and transfer the files to my Transformer for viewing and it works beautifully. I guess the Android app team are just lazy (or iPhone developers who don't know Android very well)

SilentMobius said:
The Android framework and the Dalvik virtual machine are all available under an Apache licence, this allows anyone to take the source code and make a closed proprietary product and/or addition (Like Blur/Sense/Touchwiz) without this Android would not have caught on anywhere near as fast, but it also means that there is no requirement for future derivative products to have source code released. Even if the person doing that is Google.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While this is true, it is not the real reason why Google can hold back the souce code. Google owns the copyright to DalVik and the Android platform. All contributions checked into the Android tree in the end have their copyright assigned to Google, regardless of who wrote them.
Because they own the copyright, they can do whatever the heck they want with the code, whenever they want. A copyright owner can not violate their own license, the license is only applicable for other people (who have no copyright to the code) to use it in their projects.
It's a subtle but very important distinction, because even if Android was all GPL they still would not have to be releasing any changes, because they own it.
The only part of the code Google is obligated to release, is their kernel changes (because it is Linux, which is GPL and they don't have the full copyright to) - and they do release these, always.

brunes said:
While this is true, it is not the real reason why Google can hold back the souce code. Google owns the copyright to DalVik and the Android platform. All contributions checked into the Android tree in the end have their copyright assigned to Google, regardless of who wrote them.
Because they own the copyright, they can do whatever the heck they want with the code, whenever they want. A copyright owner can not violate their own license, the license is only applicable for other people (who have no copyright to the code) to use it in their projects.
It's a subtle but very important distinction, because even if Android was all GPL they still would not have to be releasing any changes, because they own it.
The only part of the code Google is obligated to release, is their kernel changes (because it is Linux, which is GPL and they don't have the full copyright to) - and they do release these, always.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually no, just because they hold the rights doesn't mean they don't have to obey the license. It's just that Android is released under the Apache license which states that source must be released, but doesn't say WHEN the source has to be released, so they can hold it back as long as they deem fit.

seshmaru said:
Actually no, just because they hold the rights doesn't mean they don't have to obey the license. It's just that Android is released under the Apache license which states that source must be released, but doesn't say WHEN the source has to be released, so they can hold it back as long as they deem fit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, no!
The ASL is not a copy left licence, so if Google so wish they do not have to release the source code for Honeycomb ever. In much the same way, I can download Android code from AOSP, create my own unique version, and I don't have to contribute my code back to AOSP, nor do I need to supply it to anyone on demand (with the exception of GPL'd kernel code of course).
Regards,
Dave

foxmeister said:
Actually, no!
The ASL is not a copy left licence, so if Google so wish they do not have to release the source code for Honeycomb ever. In much the same way, I can download Android code from AOSP, create my own unique version, and I don't have to contribute my code back to AOSP, nor do I need to supply it to anyone on demand (with the exception of GPL'd kernel code of course).
Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's correct that it is not copyleft, and I was aware of this. All android releases however are released under the Apache license, which means the source for android itself has to be there, but any further modifications can use whatever they want. So yes google has to make Honeycomb open source eventually since it was released under the Apache license. Any derivatives of honeycomb wouldn't need to provide the source though.

seshmaru said:
So yes google has to make Honeycomb open source eventually since it was released under the Apache license. Any derivatives of honeycomb wouldn't need to provide the source though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No they don't! That is the *whole* point. Honeycomb, at this point in time, is *not* an open source project because no source has been released, and the license of its antecedents is not a copyleft licence.
Honeycomb is, broadly speaking, a derivative of an earlier Android build (Froyo/Gingerbread whatever), and in this respect it is no different to say HTC's Sense builds which are also not open source.
Regards,
Dave

Hey ice cream will be open sourced. I don't think they want honeycomb plopped onto phones so they won't push it to aosp. Ice Cream will be a hybrid.
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA Premium App

Have also wondered this myself.. but reading all of this has made me more confused than I was before.. who's right? :S

It's correct that Google hold the copyright for the bulk of the android framework, and as the copyright owners they are not subject to license terms, so they don't need to release anything but that only works for Google products. If the licence had been GPL then manufacturers would need to supply source with their products, not Google but ASUS/Samsung/HTC/etc/etc.
Short version: Google don't need to release anything, app developers shouldn't use internal APIs and rely on having platform source to make things work.
That said I want to change some of the browser behaviour and plumb back in handling for the .mkv file extension (because the container parsing is already in there) So I'd love to get my hands on the HC source, no matter how messy.

david279 said:
Hey ice cream will be open sourced. I don't think they want honeycomb plopped onto phones so they won't push it to aosp. Ice Cream will be a hybrid.
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And yet, it didn't seem to worry them when the first flurry of tablets came out with a phone (Froyo/GB) OS. Sorry, but to me, that excuse doesn't fly.

Divine_Madcat said:
And yet, it didn't seem to worry them when the first flurry of tablets came out with a phone (Froyo/GB) OS. Sorry, but to me, that excuse doesn't fly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually they did worry, that's exactly why they made honeycomb you derptard and exactly the reason they aren't releasing the source to honeycomb.
And yes they don't want manufacturers shoehorning a tablet OS into a phone just so they can say OH OUR PHONE HAS ANDROID 3.0 INSTEAD OF 2.3.

Derptard... certainly a new one for the books. haha

Blue Stacks Beta Is Available.

Hey Guys
The beta of blue stacks in now available. Now u can run Android app on windows Downloading on CP now. Will post later how it is

I would not install it, caused me to get bluescreens after reboot

I have just installed it, played angry bird space and it works fine for me.

1/2asleep said:
I have just installed it, played angry bird space and it works fine for me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
On Windows 8?
I can't get BlueStacks to run in Windows 8 at all. Every time I run the installer I get a blue screen with a frown face saying that something went wrong and Windows needs to restart. I have been testing the private beta build on Windows 7 though and it is definitely fun and useful

After Few blue screen restarts it worked. Uninstalled it because it not what i expected to be. I cant run any app in full screen. I run in only a portion and i cant use gmail and angry birds because of some high performance driver issue. The alpha version before this was better.

At the moment, this is so bad

Thanks for the heads up! Going to try this.

I really wanted to try it on my Windows 8 netbook but the Thinstaller executable they gave me refused to install because my it claimed my graphics performance would be under the minimum recommended requirement. It was rather sad since the Alpha worked fine and even running the same version of Android they base their rootfs images off of (Android-x86) as a addition to my Linux dual-boot.

buggatti said:
After Few blue screen restarts it worked. Uninstalled it because it not what i expected to be. I cant run any app in full screen. I run in only a portion and i cant use gmail and angry birds because of some high performance driver issue. The alpha version before this was better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Windows 8? I tried as many as 8 blue screen restarts so far. No luck. Still keeps crashing my system into the BSOD. Did alpha work on Windows 8 CP x64?

I was part of the closed beta 1 test and have been in email communication with Bluestacks development and they informed me that they do not have a beta ready for Windows 8 because it is still changing. It sounds like the focus is on Windows 7 for now.

Pls provide download links.....
Sent from my Dell Streak using XDA

nitin1978 said:
Pls provide download links.....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://bluestacks.com/

nobody wants this cancer on their computers

Be on the lookout for this (when or if) it comes out
http://ces.cnet.com/8301-33377_1-57355786/bluestacks-goes-metro-with-windows-8/

o2neouzr said:
nobody wants this cancer on their computers
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed, Bluestacks should be avoided. They have no support forums (personal top gripe) and have made it quite clear they plan to try to make a quick buck leveraging VirtualBox and Android x86 while not giving anything back.
As best I can tell, they have just added an OpenGL pass through driver to Android x86 when running on VB as well as started to recompile some apps which use the ARM NDK to the x86 NDK. Far better to have the Android x86 community work on an automated NDK conversion and their own driver implementation than be shackled.
Also, their TOS lets them abuse your facebook page in new and interesting ways as well as do some serious data mining without any form of opt-out or transparency.

There are support forums:
https://getsatisfaction.com/bstk
BlueStacks even went as far as supplying a link on how to root and install gapps. I wouldn't say there is a lack of support. BlueStacks in my opinion also runs faster than x86 on a virtual machine.

aaronb1138 said:
Indeed, Bluestacks should be avoided. They have no support forums (personal top gripe) and have made it quite clear they plan to try to make a quick buck leveraging VirtualBox and Android x86 while not giving anything back.
As best I can tell, they have just added an OpenGL pass through driver to Android x86 when running on VB as well as started to recompile some apps which use the ARM NDK to the x86 NDK. Far better to have the Android x86 community work on an automated NDK conversion and their own driver implementation than be shackled.
Also, their TOS lets them abuse your facebook page in new and interesting ways as well as do some serious data mining without any form of opt-out or transparency.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Virtualbox and android are licensed under GPLv2/CDDL and apache respectively. Android specifically is exactly the same as stock device roms, they're under no obilgation to return code to upstream. (though every large project like this should return code, but bar the kernel they dont have to for the android portion).
virtualbox, i'm guessing they're using CDDL for it if they're not returning code.
Tell oracle (or whoever is developing it) and the android x86 teams to not release their sources under free software licenses that arnt also copyleft then.
At least with androidx86 I believe that they're free to migrate from apache -> gplv3 (according to wikipedia I dont believe gplv2 is applicable without relicensing?). But they didnt, they're still apache, which means they full well know that they can be forked and not have code returned.
Those two points are pretty much universally expected for android devices. Samsung and HTC are good enough that they provide mode then the minimal GPL modules, but they're closer to the exception then the norm. There's plenty of very low end (but inexpensive) ICS tabs being hawked on our own market. I cant really see them giving more then the bare minimum (even if that) much less providing any updates at all. They're just as much making a quick buck by only offering updates by buying a new model.
They've havnt required facebook since 0.5.0.2002, which I believe was their first public release. It was merely the cloud client that required it. You can easily use the alphas and betas without even having a facebook acct. I cant speak on how they are about people that actually opt-ed in to attachign their FB accts, but I dont have one period.
Perhaps their cloud sync isnt respecting your privacy as it should, because you right about that part. Bstacks doesnt have a clear privacy policy (or any at all on their site currently)
They're not the only ones using getsatisfaction, which acts as their support point. I cant say that I like it, but it's there. They've added a couple suggestions due to it, but it's not a forum.
Realistically, how long do you have to wait for androidx86 to be bundled in a way that lets you run it in a vm, have fair virtualization/emulation, and is stable? (though bstacks is still beta, and androidx86 is 'rc1') Androidx86 is targeting bare metal, bstacks isnt. Perhaps androidx86 actually runs perfectly well under a vm and also supports some level of hardware passthough too. Their site has instructions for using the eeepc froyo iso on virtualbox. But they obviously dont officially support virtualbox or qemu as they dont provide direct images, they merely happen to work/boot on them.
Androidx86 has 5 different isos targeting 5 different platforms, and none of them match my devices (or any of my vms explicitly). Bstacks explicitly supports vista/7 and implicitly is going to support xp/8 in the future.
I'd much rather have something working now that targets my interests then wait for something that might be more sustainable but isnt targeting me.
It's much like how xda has moto droid forums, really you shouldnt be supporting moto at least when it comes to their locked down bootloaders.
But we're not telling people to buy a different device, we give them workarounds and guides.
Finally, all bstacks is is just an opengl passthough, why has noone else done it already?
I dont expect that androidx86 on virtualbox integrates as well otherwise it'd already be huge news.
I want a virtualized android so my convertable laptop can double as a really high end android tablet, and that's what bstacks will eventually offer.
(if and when they migrate from 2.3.4 to 4.0.x)
If there's any errors, feel free to correct me. I'm rather unsure about how correct I am on the virtualbox parts.
Edit: after trying androidx86 2.3/3.2/4.0 it's fairly useless as a android tablet replacement. They dont support VM integration, and that's pretty much a requirement if you intend to use it to compliment your OS (vs merely being a utility on your os).
4.0 doesnt even work on vb with vb 4.1.8, it cant reach the home screen.
Dont take this as criticism of androidx86 though, they're always going to be undermanned and underfunded. And like previously mentioned VB isnt even a tier 1 target for them.
But realistically, there's no current alternative to bstacks for windows. Seriously suggesting androidx86 + virtualbox right now is like saying to trade for a transformer to someone asking how to install CM9 on the touchpad

moved to general - not dev

[Q] Poll how much would you pay for an Android compatibilty layer?

Sailfish OS will soon be spreading to many devices when they release the development kit but that still leaves us without the ability to run Android apps on our phones.
If we were allowed to buy a license for Myriad Alien Dalvik how much would you be willing to pay?

aironeous said:
Sailfish OS will soon be spreading to many devices when they release the development kit but that still leaves us without the ability to run Android apps on our phones.
If we were allowed to buy a license for Myriad Alien Dalvik how much would you be willing to pay?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think that Sailfish OS should not support android application and Dalvik at all.
1. Android is developed constantly and very quickly. Very soon new apps will not be able to work on Dalvik.
2. Android layer will always be more eating CPU power then Qt apps.
We should better pay for Qt development, because Qt is much better and powerful then "google java".

nimnull said:
I think that Sailfish OS should not support android application and Dalvik at all.
1. Android is developed constantly and very quickly. Very soon new apps will not be able to work on Dalvik.
2. Android layer will always be more eating CPU power then Qt apps.
We should better pay for Qt development, because Qt is much better and powerful then "google java".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android will support Dalvik Apps a long time from now because many phone are still running with version that don't support ART and so the apps will support Dalvik.

taaeem said:
Android will support Dalvik Apps a long time from now because many phone are still running with version that don't support ART and so the apps will support Dalvik.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dalvik support by Google is not the reason why Sailfish OS should support Dalvik.
Most of the money for "Android compatibility layer" will be payed for google license. Why we should give our money to Google, then it is better to spend them motivating native application development.
Sailfish should develop native applications, because Qt5 is open source now and community will be much bigger.
Best regards.

Apps are always a key issue. The forums are filled with people posting, "I'm considering leaving OS 'A" in favor of OS 'B' but I need to know if I can get apps X, Y and Z or a suitable replacement."
It's not necessarily the number of apps in an ecosystem so much as specific apps and what they accomplish. And the list is mutable. Every user has a make-or-break app need. For some it is banking, others require certain social media apps, office editing, navigation, entertainment, games... If you can't fill that perceived need, you can't lure anyone to your OS. It was smart of Jolla to team with Myriad and offer Alien Dalvik with their Jolla phone. It breaks down resistance to change for the widest possible spectrum of users. Don't forget - most users aren't capable of writing their own apps - even if they can flash a ROM. At this stage of the game, any OS needs a robust ecosystem to prosper.
Myriad seems a savvy company to me. I'm quite sure they will have Alien ART to go alongside Alien Dalvik. They need to in order for their business model to continue. Jolla will want to upgrade to Alien ART. And they should if they want to prosper.
I agree that development of QT based apps is highly desirable. Throw in HTML 5, Enyo 2 and Mochi as well. Open the standards. Great all around for developers and users when apps can easily be ported from one OS to another and run seamlessly within each OS and identically through each version. But to believe that it currently will support most users, or will do so soon, is a dream. And to insist that it should right this moment is elitist and alienates huge swaths of the potential user base.
Should Myriad (not Jolla - they don't own it) provide a license and installer for Alien Dalvik for Sailfish images on Android handsets? They should if they want to expand their market and recognition. But what are the logistics? Would it not need to be tuned for each specific device's hardware configuration? I believe it does... That may be why it isn't in the N4 images yet. Not ready for the hardware, and the image isn't ready either. Sailfish need to at least reach a Beta level and have the ability for OTA updates. What point is there to Alien Dalvik at this point when you need to flash the OS complete at each new release? It's just masturbation right now to have Sailfish on your N4. I know; I've slathered my N4 in Sailfish and stroked it.
Let Sailfish mature for the N4 where it can be a daily and receive OTA and then, yes, at that point please give us Alien Dalvik. And Alien ART afterwards.
How much would I pay. Not $30. Not $20... I think $15 is probably my top price. I'd like to see $10 or even $5... I know $1 is a crack induced daydream.

RumoredNow said:
Apps are always a key issue. The forums are filled with people posting, "I'm considering leaving OS 'A" in favor of OS 'B' but I need to know if I can get apps X, Y and Z or a suitable replacement."
It's not necessarily the number of apps in an ecosystem so much as specific apps and what they accomplish. And the list is mutable. Every user has a make-or-break app need. For some it is banking, others require certain social media apps, office editing, navigation, entertainment, games... If you can't fill that perceived need, you can't lure anyone to your OS. It was smart of Jolla to team with Myriad and offer Alien Dalvik with their Jolla phone. It breaks down resistance to change for the widest possible spectrum of users. Don't forget - most users aren't capable of writing their own apps - even if they can flash a ROM. At this stage of the game, any OS needs a robust ecosystem to prosper.
Myriad seems a savvy company to me. I'm quite sure they will have Alien ART to go alongside Alien Dalvik. They need to in order for their business model to continue. Jolla will want to upgrade to Alien ART. And they should if they want to prosper.
I agree that development of QT based apps is highly desirable. Throw in HTML 5, Enyo 2 and Mochi as well. Open the standards. Great all around for developers and users when apps can easily be ported from one OS to another and run seamlessly within each OS and identically through each version. But to believe that it currently will support most users, or will do so soon, is a dream. And to insist that it should right this moment is elitist and alienates huge swaths of the potential user base.
Should Myriad (not Jolla - they don't own it) provide a license and installer for Alien Dalvik for Sailfish images on Android handsets? They should if they want to expand their market and recognition. But what are the logistics? Would it not need to be tuned for each specific device's hardware configuration? I believe it does... That may be why it isn't in the N4 images yet. Not ready for the hardware, and the image isn't ready either. Sailfish need to at least reach a Beta level and have the ability for OTA updates. What point is there to Alien Dalvik at this point when you need to flash the OS complete at each new release? It's just masturbation right now to have Sailfish on your N4. I know; I've slathered my N4 in Sailfish and stroked it.
Let Sailfish mature for the N4 where it can be a daily and receive OTA and then, yes, at that point please give us Alien Dalvik. And Alien ART afterwards.
How much would I pay. Not $30. Not $20... I think $15 is probably my top price. I'd like to see $10 or even $5... I know $1 is a crack induced daydream.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed, it's the applications that make an ecosystem, NOT how elegant that ecosystem is. Paraphrasing badly but: if you have no users, who's there to see the tree fall? To simply say "well, everyone should just code QT!" is pretty short-sighted, even though I agree. You need to coax people over and then have them notice how lovely this also-supported-by-the-now-popular-OS framework is. Just because you build it, doesn't mean they will come.
The reason there is no installer for Jolla N4 adaptation yet though is just plain licensing. They don't seem to be too fussed about driving adoption of their VM (maybe they're happy already with their customer base?) so why should they give away their proprietary software for free? As for Jolla, why should they pay for it for people who haven't forked out for their handset? I think these are reasonable standpoints from both Myriad and Jolla and why, as long as I can get full functionality out of my N4 running Sailfish, I'll happily fork out for a VM to run those must-have 'droid apps. That would be reasonable. If I can get a free, Free one then even better!