[Mods: I felt that this thread is most appropriate in this section as it pertains specifically to Android development. If you feel this is not the case and should be moved, please do so.]
As many of us know, Eugene and TeamWhiskey both released completely working Froyo ROMs today, and they were able to do so with leaked code that both were asked not to divulge. There's been some infighting between developers, and the use of the leaked code is the major point of contention.
What interests me is how developers have been respecting the GPL. As a major free/open source supporter, the fact that how this license permits developers and users alike to use any source code has not been respected scares me. I certainly don't want to see development of our phones fall by the wayside because some developers have access to code that others don't, when that code [or at least, the source code of developed ROMs that use leaked code] is legally required to be released to the public. (source, and examples of the GPL's standing in an American court of law)
Based on the current events and major milestones in Android development, I'm interested to see if anyone else agrees with me. (Or perhaps I'm wrong entirely - but there's a sticky on the top of this forum reminding developers about abiding by the GPL, so I assume that any ROM or kernel we've seen is GPL-derived.) I realize that some aspects of the Samsung version of Android in particular is under a proprietary license (TouchWiz, RFS), and this little point gets touchy. But Android itself and kernels for Android are GPL - so shouldn't any source code used by any Android project be released?
honestly? I'm concerned about the GPL implications too but I'm 100% sure that I don't have enough information to try to form an opinion about what's right or wrong in this scenario. I'm sure there is a lot going on in the background the average user such as myself doesn't know of what's going on here. edit: trying to speculate here is just too hard to guess, and would invoke both drama and the answers are not backed by anyone.
If you're not sure, ask the FSF.
Eugene and Sombionix need to take up their issues privately (and have since), and that was their only mistake. The rest of the scenario is simply not appropriate to come up publicly.
Although, I agree with the fact that the GPL has to be followed, the GPL only applies to source code. From what I gather, neither of these parties have any source code. They are both in the possession of a leak ROM. The word source here is used to mean the ROM from which the files came from.
When it comes to leaks, files in leaks CAN be traced back to the leak in some cases which is why many times, leaks cannot and will not be shared.
On the other hand, if they have the source code and it has been modified, then they must abide by the GPL.
One thing to consider here is that to the best of my knowledge, nobody other than Samsung at this point has the source to the SGS FroYo builds. What I mean by that is; everything that went on regarding the leak, is based off of binary files taken from a working phone. No source code involved. Google has released the code to 2.2, which satisfies the GPL licensing; with which Samsung has added proprietary software on top of for use with their phones, but because what they have added is NOT GPL'd, are not obligated to provide the source for.
I might be mistaken here, but assuming Samsung didn't change any of the existing AOSP code, and only added their proprietary software on top, then the 'must provide source code' clause is in fact being satisfied by Google. All Samsung needs to do to cover their behinds is provide a link to Google's Android development pages.
if it was GPLv3 we wouldn't have this problem, but a lot of companies are unwilling to jump to GPLv3 instead of GPLv2.
To clarify the position XDA takes on GPL code (having worked on the GPL policy you see at the top of every forum), it is required to release kernel sources if you have access to them.
It seems likely that no source code was available here, and the use of leaks in ROMs has been standard practice for a long time on XDA, and on other sites. There's no issue with this, and it is a signal of trust from the leaker to the developer that the source file will not be made available. Thus you are unlikely to get access to such leaks as a user, though you can enjoy the fruits of them after established developers with contacts have got access to them.
If it were insisted that sources be provided for EVERYTHING, then releases like this would be in breach of the XDA GPL code, and thus would stifle development. Samsung has not provided them with the sources (as I understand), so they have no obligations as far as I can identify, beyond passing on any standard notices placed in the ROM by Samsung, offering source code.
If a custom kernel was compiled to use the ROM, then its sources would be required under the GPL. The actual ROM itself is not GPL'd as such, and treating it as such would be detrimental to users on XDA.
If GPL sources have been used, then they must be posted per the GPL. Otherwise, there are no further obligations per the XDA rules. This does not appear to be the case here.
Just to back up this point, I worked on and released some ROMs, and never touched a line of source code personally. It's possible to do a surprising amount to ROMs without actually editing sources (often they're not available either when working on HTC devices...). It's only within the last month or two that I've actually looked at source code properly with intent on making changes.
Finally, I'll move this into general with a redirect for just now, as it's not directly related to a ROM, though is "on topic".
Ah - so the leaked code used to finish both Eugene's and Team Whiskey's was not code, but binaries (i.e., a leaked ROM?) This makes a lot more sense to me. Thanks for clarification.
I suppose this point becomes moot when froyo finally drops officially, but it's still important.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Well said Pulser_g2
Pulser.......Well said. The important thing people need to remember is not to "create" drama where it is not. The Dev's do work in concert and do produce amazing results contrary to the public chatter.
It is a blessing that there are so many good developers working on the Vibrant vs, say ...(you insert phone of choice). ......now off to flash............
As I mentioned in one of the Froyo threads, I feel like the GPL doesn't really apply in the case of leaked ROMs, since 1) nobody has the source anyway and 2) they're chock full of closed source Samsung bits. The leaked ROMS, and any ROM derived from it in some way, is already questionable to redistribute since Samsung hasn't granted permission to do so.
On the other hand, I do wish people would release source to any modifications of the Linux kernel and any other GPL software that's acquired through legitimate channels. I can understand that the source might be released slightly later than the binary, but most kernels at this point haven't had any source accompany them, ever. This really isn't in the spirit of the GPL, and as a long time Linux user it came as a surprise to me that this is the way things seem to work here.
The bottom line is that, like it or not, people actually don't have the *right* to not release source eventually. I hope they start doing so sooner rather than later.
Looks like a lot of people don't understand the GPL, even senior moderators.
We ARE talking about the GPL, not LGPL, right?
Samsung hasn't made any of the stuff they have posted official... Why would samsung release anything for something that is not yet official...
How would the devs of xda be able to give you the source they don't have?
If you want to fight a losing battle email htc about the mytouch slide..
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
First, I'm not trying to start a web battle here, just stating the facts.
1. The files that I received from our source gave me consent via email to build a rom and release it. Unfortunately, after the fact the rom was built and released, the source has been claiming that he did not want the files released, which was not at all what was discussed originally. Had he clearly stated that he did not want them released, I would not have done so. He specifically asked me to build a rom, but that he did not want his identity released, which I did not do.
2. You information regarding GPL is very wrong. We were not working from souce because source for the Vibrant 2.2 has not yet been released. The only Galaxy S device that has had source officially released has been the I9000. Had we been working from source, we would have gladly posted our edited source code with accordance with GPL law.
sombionix said:
2. You information regarding GPL is very wrong. We were not working from souce because source for the Vibrant 2.2 has not yet been released. The only Galaxy S device that has had source officially released has been the I9000. Had we been working from source, we would have gladly posted our edited source code with accordance with GPL law.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, this was my mistake. I was under the impression that you were working from source, not just a ROM, as was previously pointed out. So I guess it's a moot point.
Related
*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.
Have anyone found kernel source for this model?
i have seen discussion on roms without gpl, and is this model released with kernel source available?
I believe Google has not released source for Honeycomb yet. That is the answer I got when I asked the same question over at thriveforums.org.
mknewman said:
I believe Google has not released source for Honeycomb yet. That is the answer I got when I asked the same question over at thriveforums.org.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
indeed google have, and kernel source needs to be posted, or roms on this forum seems to be illegal.. xda don't allow roms with a gpl kernel without source code linked, if its posted..
so thats pretty sad for toshiba.
even android 3.2 source is available, so toshiba thrive has to release their source now.. but 3.1 will do fine to begin with.
This is how it works. Various parts of the software are licensed by different entities. So the Android source includes Google's code and anything Toshiba does is affected. Android is under and open source license, but it is built on top of GNU/Linux. The Linux kernel is under the Greater Public License which requires the source to be distributed or accessible by request online when the binary is distributed. Typically as companies go though their code making sure they only release source they are supposed to and don't accidentally release proprietary code it may take them a while to post it. Regardless it must be posted or things get a little hot when advocates press for it.
exactly, xda rules says no uploads on information roms including gpl kernels without source included..
so its kinda funny if toshiba continue not to post it. maybe i should request it from toshiba somewhere..
The Kernal has been requested multiple times over on the Toshiba run forum. Users have even started to pull out the legal aspect of it citing the 30 day requirement and expamples of HTC getting into hot water when they passed that deadline.
I think Toshiba is just now realizing they HAVE to post it.
I started a thread over on Toshiba's forum and indeed did explain that they have 30 days to release. "Jim" said he would look into it but then came back and made it sound like "contact our legal team".
Precedent has been set - GPL breaking software is not allowed on XDA, specifically in the a500 forum. This primarily refers to kernels. Software that breaks GPL is considered "warez" - aka illegally distributed software.
Recently there has been an unofficial leak of an early version of Android 4.0 for the a500 tablet. This software contained a Linux kernel. The source code for this kernel has not been released, even though Linux kernels are required to have the sources posted to be GPL compliant. This makes the a500 ICS leak "warez" which are not allowed on XDA. There are also custom ROMs containing the leaked kernel, posted in the development forum. Since this kernel may differ from the final version, there is a possibility the source for it may never be released, setting it status as "illegal" software in stone.
According to XDA policies, and set precedent, the creators of the offending software (the custom ROMs) must provide the kernel source code, or have their offemding work, as well as their user accounts, banned from XDA. All other re-postings of the offending software (all sources of the ICS leak) must also be removed, per XDA policy and set precedent.
Just to clarify, Acer did NOT leak this ROM, it was leaked completely unofficially. Acer will release their kernel source code once they officially release the ROM.
Very good point. However, that emphasize my point even further - since this is an unofficial early leak, source code for this kernel may change before the final version is released, meaning there is a possibility that we will NEVER get the source code for this specific kernel. According to XDA rules and precedent, that makes it guarenteed "warez"
mtmerrick said:
Precedent has been set - GPL breaking software is not allowed on XDA, specifically in the a500 forum. This primarily refers to kernels. Software that breaks GPL is considered "warez" - aka illegally distributed software.
Recently Acer has leaked an early version of Android 4.0 for the a500 tablet. This software contained a Linux kernel. The source code for this kernel has not been released, even though Linux kernels are required to have the sources posted to be GPL compliant. This makes the a500 ICS leak "warez" which are not allowed on XDA. There are also custom ROMs containing the leaked kernel, posted in the development forum.
According to XDA policies, and set precedent, the creators of the offending software (the custom ROMs) must provide the kernel source code, or have their offemding work, as well as their user accounts, banned from XDA. All other re-postings of the offending software (all sources of the ICS leak) must also be removed, per XDA policy and set precedent.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this shows how bureaucracy kills. this is hilarious.
updated OP with clarification. Thanks to floating fat man
yes the hypocrisy is rampant, the irony, tasty as ics
Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk
Lol.
How can you hold acer responsible for violating GPL when they didn't release the ROM?
That's like someone winning a PS3 the day before it was released and then suing the guys that held the contest for breaking street date.
Good luck with that.
teflontactics said:
Lol.
How can you hold acer responsible for violating GPL when they didn't release the ROM?
That's like someone winning a PS3 the day before it was released and then suing the guys that held the contest for breaking street date.
Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no one's blaming Acer. the posting of the leak violates the rules of this forum, just as the posting of Thor's roms, even links to his site, are a violation of the forum rules.
Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk
Somairotevoli said:
no one's blaming Acer. the posting of the leak violates the rules of this forum, just as the posting of Thor's roms, even links to his site, are a violation of the forum rules.
Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correct! And the makers of ROMs that include this kernel are even more in trouble. That is, if the mods follow their own rules, which they seem to take very seriously.....
mtmerrick said:
Correct! And the makers of ROMs that include this kernel are even more in trouble. That is, if the mods follow their own rules, which they seem to take very seriously.....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think having the source and not releasing it (Thor) is different than not having the source and not releasing it (leak based rom devs).
There were plenty of gingerbread roms running around the inspire 4g forum that were up BEFORE HTC actually released the source code for the kernel. So were the devs of the roms running the kernel in violation of the GPL or was it HTC since it was their kernel and therefore was their source code to release?
The problem is that Acer is not required to release the source for that kernel, since it is a leak and wasn't supposed to be publicly released.
Also, you seem way too excited about potentially killing the recent spark in development that has taken place around here recently. If the mods need to remove them, they will and they will handle it how they see fit.
This thread = garbage.
just playing devils advocate here. so if one was to share their private kernel with a few friends and one of those friends chose to "leak" it here, it would be acceptable?
Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk
wolverine423 said:
I think having the source and not releasing it (Thor) is different than not having the source and not releasing it (leak based rom devs).
There were plenty of gingerbread roms running around the inspire 4g forum that were up BEFORE HTC actually released the source code for the kernel. So were the devs of the roms running the kernel in violation of the GPL or was it HTC since it was their kernel and therefore was their source code to release?
The problem is that Acer is not required to release the source for that kernel, since it is a leak and wasn't supposed to be publicly released.
Also, you seem way too excited about potentially killing the recent spark in development that has taken place around here recently. If the mods need to remove them, they will and they will handle it how they see fit.
This thread = garbage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, not only were they at fault for using illegal software in their ROM, every android user who has a non-GPL compliant kernel is breaking the law - they are in possession of illegally distributed software.
Kinda shows how stupid the XDA rule is, doesn't it? That's what I'm trying to do, which most everyone else in the thread has understood; showing how rediculous using GPL compliance as a forum weapon is
mtmerrick said:
Kinda shows how stupid the XDA rule is, doesn't it? That's what I'm trying to do, which most everyone else in the thread has understood; showing how rediculous using GPL compliance as a forum weapon is
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
On this, there can be little argument.
mtmerrick said:
Actually, not only were they at fault for using illegal software in their ROM, every android user who has a non-GPL compliant kernel is breaking the law - they are in possession of illegally distributed software.
Kinda shows how stupid the XDA rule is, doesn't it? That's what I'm trying to do, which most everyone else in the thread has understood; showing how rediculous using GPL compliance as a forum weapon is
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually no, using examples of how the GPL applies to users in no way shows me how stupid the xda rule is.
NOTE: I have not stated whether or not I agree or disagree with the rule.
This is taking it out of hand. Wonder how many phones here have custom stock roms with out the manufacturers source.....
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk
nevermind. The post in dev is for the A200 kernel.
Just for fun:
GPLv2 3.c) said:
Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm no lawyer, but vache doesn't have the sourcecode, so... I'll let everyone come to their own conclusions, as this is a rather technical problem.
In the end, only Acer can fix this problem -- and they probably will once they release the final version of the ROM.
Other than that, the Acer ROM was never supposed to be public, so I doubt Acer can be held accountable for the leak. If anything, vache's source has made himself liable under copyright law.
the self righteous gpl nazis sure are quiet.
Well Vache is not the author of the code. Perhaps you should switch your sites at Acer and ask why there is no kernel source....
Even if Thor was operating in the gpl his website requires a sign in to get his work. Again against XDA rules.
The OP is a complete moron....if he wants to further cripple this community go ahead, seeing as Vache is selling his A500, which will most likely leave us with one less Dev. I suggest we all do since this community is head strong about ruining it for everyone, while trolling other users
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk
This thread brings up an interesting point.
I'm not entirely convinced that the kernel source being unreleased qualifies the Acer ICS ROM as "warez" (I'm fairly confident we'll eventually get the source for the kernel from Acer).
What could potentially be construed as warez are the Acer-specific applications, assuming they're licensed/paid for by Acer for inclusion in their ROM.
Back in the day, Motorola send out C&Ds to sites hosting a leaked 2.2 ROM for DX because it included Swype (IIRC).
In any case, it's a good point to consider.
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
HTC has been releasing new kernel bases and have not bothered to release source. According to the GPL this is unacceptable. This is not only important to developers but to we the users as well. I know a lot of you love to use custom kernels and they have improved all of our phones. Let's band together send them an e-mail and remind them that the source should be released with new kernels. Letting them get away with this will only reward this type of behaviour.
http://www.htc.com/www/contact/email/ here is the link to the e-mail even if only a little bit of people send it it still says something thank you and lets make it happen!
Sent from my HTC One using xda premium
Sent from my Black HTC ONE
Response -
Sent from my Black HTC ONE
Technically, 4.2.2 is a leak, so until it's officially released, then they don't have to do anything, am I right?
Sent from my HTC One using xda premium
cdordon said:
Technically, 4.2.2 is a leak, so until it's officially released, then they don't have to do anything, am I right?
Sent from my HTC One using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correct but there has been like two base updates and still no kernel source so a little push wont hurt
Sent from my HTC One using xda premium
cdordon said:
Technically, 4.2.2 is a leak, so until it's officially released, then they don't have to do anything, am I right?
Sent from my HTC One using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Absolutely.
That response email just shows how ignorant of GPL HTC is. They have to supply source to anyone who submits a request in writing if I'm not mistaken.
Where did u see that rule?
Op is just a busybody who doesnt even know what to do with the source but screams for it lol.
This is what happens, when u fed too much they become too dependent on u. A tad bit late and they will start screaming.
Kinda reminds me of the horde.
Remember when the one first came out, then the source follows in a week? Thats called feeding too much.
When the horde realized that the source for 2.17 is slow, they start screaming.
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
I think the sources will be released when 4.2.2 is official carried out. The 4.1 sources were avaiable really quickly so I'm looking forward
HTC has gotten better than they used to be. If the op is looking for 2.17 source then lol.
---------- Post added at 07:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:09 AM ----------
gunnyman said:
That response email just shows how ignorant of GPL HTC is. They have to supply source to anyone who submits a request in writing if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just spent a little while reading the gpl and I'm wrong. Htcdev is complying properly.
As already stated, they haven't "released" 4.2.2 yet, so they are not required to release the source.
We see this every time they release an update. People start crying for the source. Give them time...it WILL appear, just not always straight away.
There's no such thing as propriety in the the current HTC One's linux kernel. All the codes in there are GPL licensed.
The camera fix + the back button sensitivity fix are all in a GPL licensed driver. And I quote.
The GPL states that anyone who modifies GPL licenced code is required to make available the sources used to compile it. This is to further improve and encourage collaborative work, as well as to ensure that the best code possible is produced, and to encourage peer-review of all work. This benefits both developers and end users in numerous ways, including:
Allowing anyone to verify the code they are trusting with their data, and its authenticity
Encouraging community collaboration to produce faster fixes and updates, and better code
Helping bring new developments from other devices and fields to your own, letting you benefit from new code that wouldn’t have been available without this sharing.
The GPL imparts great freedom for GPL end users. It ensures innovation is never stifled and no project is dependent upon any single developer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
alphamale99 said:
Response -
Sent from my Black HTC ONE
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
cdordon said:
Technically, 4.2.2 is a leak, so until it's officially released, then they don't have to do anything, am I right?
Sent from my HTC One using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
4.2.2 is leaked but 1.29.***.12, 1.29.***.13, 1.29.***.16, 1.29.***.16R are official releases with new kernel revisions and they should be obligued to release what they have modified on those revisions.
shiningarmor said:
Where did u see that rule?
Op is just a busybody who doesnt even know what to do with the source but screams for it lol.
This is what happens, when u fed too much they become too dependent on u. A tad bit late and they will start screaming.
Kinda reminds me of the horde.
Remember when the one first came out, then the source follows in a week? Thats called feeding too much.
When the horde realized that the source for 2.17 is slow, they start screaming.
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Read GPL for the rules. The OP might not have direct benefit over this but we developers have and end users in return benefit from us.
Is there a specific time limit mentioned in the GPL? I don't think they are obliged to provide it on the spot as soon as someone requests it.
the_scotsman said:
Is there a specific time limit mentioned in the GPL? I don't think they are obliged to provide it on the spot as soon as someone requests it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@the_scotsman
There is no specific time limit in the GPL license as you are suppose to be obligued to release the source code as soon as the binary is distributed to the public.
Link is here. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
Refer to #3
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Letter A should be the one applicable to HTC's kernel license. As
B - If you're selling the software
C - If the licensor limits the license.
Thanks for that. My next point is then, if HTC are violating GPL so badly as people seem to ALWAYS be claiming, why haven't they been contacted about it? The fact they haven't is good enough for me not to stress over it.
the_scotsman said:
Thanks for that. My next point is then, if HTC are violating GPL so badly as people seem to ALWAYS be claiming, why haven't they been contacted about it? The fact they haven't is good enough for me not to stress over it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@the_scotsman
They already have been contacted for numerous times. But once they receive a valid complaint they then comply to it and release the source code so the claimant then decides to discontinue the case.
Although if we really enforce this strictly when one company violates GPL he then get's blacklisted and is not allowed anymore to use any GPL licensed source code unless the company makes an appeal and no GPL licensor would oppose to the appeal.
Here's a good example
http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/2011-February/002645.html
even an official from google took action in there.
There's no time limit specified... I guess the spirit is at the same time as the binaries. I doubt this has been tested in court. Usually it's settled, or they're forced to release after the fact. The timing is unlikely to have been tested, but I'd love to be informed otherwise.
Done.
Sent from my HTC One using xda app-developers app