Database Users

[Q] close xda

*LOL*
You can close every single 1.5 and 2.1 SENSE release here on xda, when you ban Feeyo for that point 6 and point 9.
Or has ANY dev the permission of htc using THEIR sense or office-suite?
Come on, close xda-android except the real aosps:
6. Do not post warez.
If a piece of software requires you to pay to use it, either pay or find your cracks and serials somewhere else. We do not accept warez nor do we permit any member to promote or describe ways in which Warez, cracks, serial codes or other means of avoiding payment, can be obtained.
9. Don't get us in trouble.
Don't post copyrighted materials or do other things that will obviously lead to legal trouble. If you wouldn't do it on your own homepage, you probably don't want to do it here either. This does not mean we agree with everything the software piracy lobby try to impose on us, it simply means you cannot break any laws here, since we'll end up dealing with legal hassle caused by you. Please use common sense: respect the forum, its users, and those that write great code.

I can't believe someone would post a thread like this after what has happened... Facepalm...

dont know said:
*LOL*
You can close every single 1.5 and 2.1 SENSE release here on xda, when you ban Feeyo for that point 6 and point 9.
Or has ANY dev the permission of htc using THEIR sense or office-suite?
Come on, close xda-android except the real aosps:
6. Do not post warez.
If a piece of software requires you to pay to use it, either pay or find your cracks and serials somewhere else. We do not accept warez nor do we permit any member to promote or describe ways in which Warez, cracks, serial codes or other means of avoiding payment, can be obtained.
9. Don't get us in trouble.
Don't post copyrighted materials or do other things that will obviously lead to legal trouble. If you wouldn't do it on your own homepage, you probably don't want to do it here either. This does not mean we agree with everything the software piracy lobby try to impose on us, it simply means you cannot break any laws here, since we'll end up dealing with legal hassle caused by you. Please use common sense: respect the forum, its users, and those that write great code.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice try except Sense isn't warez. Anyone using a phone made by HTC has a license to use Sense. The -only- dubious ROMs are ROMs for phones that contain sense when the phones never had sense released on them by HTC, such as the Nexus One. In which case you raise a good point and instead of attempting to incite -another- flame war in regards to Feeyo, you should report those rom posts to the moderators.
I'm personally surprised and pleased XDA have started to take a harder stance on adherence to licenses. You have to look at it from their perspective too, XDA is a popular site and they don't need various license owners breathing down their necks from a legal standpoint, with XDA being a large distribution node for software.
Feeyo could have easily avoided all this. I actually thought the staff had closed the issue with a slapped wrist. All he had to do, was uphold agreements he made in regards to licensing when he chose to use software under the GPL. He didn't and thus only has himself to blame. I understand you being somewhat blinded by your fanboy spectacles, but try and see it in a bigger picture. If ever developer took Feeyo's attitude to redistributing GPL source code back into the community, we'd all still be sat on some crappy HTC ROM with an ancient and buggy kernel. Cyanogenmod project certainly wouldn't exist and projects like Feeyo's would never have gotten off the ground in the first place.
He was happy to take the benefits of the GPL. He should have been happy to give back as a result of taking those benefits. He wasn't, he didn't now he's banned.
He has been a walking GPL violation since day one. Not -once- has he offered or posted sources to GPL code that he uses. Not -once- has he even bothered to mention the GPL license to any of his users, which he is also required to do, so that they're aware that they're protected by the GPL. Look at the page/wiki for his Linux distribution. Not a single mention of the GPL and not a single link to the source code despite practically every package being protected under the GPL.
If you cannot understand why it is imperative for the GPL to be adhered to in order for it to work and for EVERYONE to benefit from it, if your vision stops at "me have awesome ROM on phone" and goes no further, well then you shouldn't really be posting on the subject in the first place.
Feeyo was so abusive of the community aspect to Android development, he even used a shadow account to ask questions of other developers, before releasing his "wonderful and all his own work" as Feeyo and not once did he credit anyone who helped him out.
Regardless of his development talent, he was still a bad seed and ultimately bad for the community.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=716916

Hi, don't know thank you for posting in the wrong section.
If we get complaints from HTC about those, you better believe that we will. I guess you must have missed the meaning of General Public License there, you must have spotted the word public in there, which means we have to take complaints serious. We did, this will ultimately create a healthier development environment, but I guess you'd rather have a new build then one thats fair. Feeyo is welcome to post his ROMs once more 30 days from now, if he would share the sources as required by GPL.

XDA operates a non-invasive policy with regard to such matters. To quote from HTC
"While HTC tries to take a hands off [approach] about the modder / ROM chef community, this site's sole purpose [is] to make HTC's content available for download from a source other than HTC. That content is not just the open source parts and kernels of Android but all of the software that HTC itself has developed. This is a clear violation of our copyrights and HTC needs to defend itself in these cases."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This was in response to ShippedROMs being asked to stop hosting RUUs of unreleased ROMs.
It is XDA policy to act swiftly in response to any take-down or C&D request directed to the site from a company such as HTC. As HTC make good money out of selling their phones, they are not bothered about a few people making ROMs for each other to use, as it drives up sales of phones.
Moved out of development as irrelevant. No more random threads like this please guys, this is a warning as I'm not going to spend the day moving posts about.

Damn! Don't even know what to believe now... I wish I had been following this from the start...
Maybe someone can send a PM to me with a short resume even I can understand? xD

C0mpu13rFr34k said:
Damn! Don't even know what to believe now... I wish I had been following this from the start...
Maybe someone can send a PM to me with a short resume even I can understand? xD
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think any PM is needed here. Read the info posted by stericson, as that is a full explanation of what's happened.

pulser_g2 said:
I don't think any PM is needed here. Read the info posted by stericson, as that is a full explanation of what's happened.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's just that that post is very hard for me to understand I get really confused reading it...

Guys, why even bother?
A decision made is a decision made.. and only the involved people should take steps to work it out.
Peace,
Bryanarby

C0mpu13rFr34k said:
It's just that that post is very hard for me to understand I get really confused reading it...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then don't worry about it. Feeyo did a bad thing and continued to do a bad thing. Bad thing thoroughly investigated and now rectified, Feeyo given vacation for his trouble.

Hacre said:
Then don't worry about it. Feeyo did a bad thing and continued to do a bad thing. Bad thing thoroughly investigated and now rectified, Feeyo given vacation for his trouble.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not saying I'm agreeing with you but I guess I'm going to start using both your ROMs Your both great developers

pulser_g2 said:
It is XDA policy to act swiftly in response to any take-down or C&D request directed to the site from a company such as HTC. As HTC make good money out of selling their phones, they are not bothered about a few people making ROMs for each other to use, as it drives up sales of phones.
Moved out of development as irrelevant. No more random threads like this please guys, this is a warning as I'm not going to spend the day moving posts about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry for choosing dev and not general
hmm - Froyd119 does have an office-view integrated...
passionqickoffice.apk was never delivered with htc hero.
OK, EVERYONE at xda does cook ROMS out of others...
But it's ridiculous to ban feeyo out from these two points.
GPL - OK (discussion when someone has to publish the code - immediatly, or after 2 weeks) , but not quote THIS points when banning a dev, cause ALL devs has to be banned - which is death to xda

dont know said:
Sorry for choosing dev and not general
hmm - Froyd119 does have an office-view integrated...
passionqickoffice.apk was never delivered with htc hero.
OK, EVERYONE at xda does cook ROMS out of others...
But it's ridiculous to ban feeyo out from these two points.
GPL - OK (discussion when someone has to publish the code - immediatly, or after 2 weeks) , but not quote THIS points when banning a dev, cause ALL devs has to be banned - which is death to xda
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know what Hero you're using but I had Quick Office on my phone when it came from Orange.
EDIT: In fact, from the official HTC 1.5 RUU:
Code:
[email protected] ~/downloads/apps/phone/roms/official/RUU/app $ ls | grep -i quickoffice
Quickoffice_HTC_1.0.1.apk
This would be Quickoffice, themed to match HTC Sense. In Android 1.5. This file was never deleted in the subsequent OTAs:
Code:
[email protected] ~/downloads/apps/phone/roms/official $ find . -iname *office*
./evo/system/app/Quickoffice.apk
./RUU/system/app/Quickoffice_HTC_1.0.1.apk
./RUU/app/Quickoffice_HTC_1.0.1.apk
./postpatch/system/app/Quickoffice.apk
QuickOffice is a licensed Google application. HTC have a google app license. Therefore people using HTC phones have a Google app license to use Google apps on their phones. QED.
Google's Cease and Desist against Cyanogenmod fell down on these very grounds.
You're becoming more ridiculous by the post.

It IS interesting how we only get to see the "bad" side of Feeyo.
It's just.. I know Feeyo's side aswell, so it looks really weird to have (all) people saying he didn't release it.
I'm not familiar with the GPL so correct me if I am wrong.
I would say that the coder has the freedom to atleast clean his code pre-releasing?
Don't get me wrong.. the code should be released and was in a way.
Declining that the code was released..
The essential parts are there?
btw, Warez?
6. Do not post warez.
If a piece of software requires you to pay to use it,-> nope
either pay or find your cracks-> nope
and serials somewhere else.-> nope
We do not accept warez nor do we permit any member to promote or describe ways in which Warez, -> nope
cracks, -> nope
serial codes -> nope
or other means of avoiding payment, -> nope
can be obtained.
So, unless this rule is bigger then that.. I do not agree with the Warez branding.

Bryanarby said:
It IS interesting how we only get to see the "bad" side of Feeyo.
It's just.. I know Feeyo's side aswell, so it looks really weird to have (all) people saying he didn't release it.
I'm not familiar with the GPL so correct me if I am wrong.
I would say that the coder has the freedom to atleast clean his code pre-releasing?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Incorrect. If you provide me with software licensed by the GPL I am entitled to the EXACT SOURCE CODE USED to compile that piece of software. It's why the GPL has made so many in roads in the security community because the code can be vetted upon request. Once the code is "cleaned up" then it isn't the same code as used to provide the binary release and therefore, a breach in GPL.
Bryanarby said:
Don't get me wrong.. the code should be released and was in a way.
Declining that the code was released..
The essential parts are there?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No it wasn't and no they aren't. Every "source code" release Feeyo ever provided either didn't work or wasn't the source code that was asked for. You don't do partial releases of source code, or "here's most of it, work the rest out for yourself". That only works if you provide a complete diff patch of the original source to the source used which in essence will provide the original source code used. Feeyo didn't do this either.
Bryanarby said:
btw, Warez?
6. Do not post warez.
If a piece of software requires you to pay to use it,-> nope
either pay or find your cracks-> nope
and serials somewhere else.-> nope
We do not accept warez nor do we permit any member to promote or describe ways in which Warez, -> nope
cracks, -> nope
serial codes -> nope
or other means of avoiding payment, -> nope
can be obtained.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes warez. In the broader sense, Warez is the distribution/use of software for which you do not have a valid license. In most cases, yes, this is because it's paid software being distributed for free, however it boils down to the same legal issue, no valid license.
So warez applies to Feeyo's kernels. He does not have a valid license to distribute them because he does not have a valid GPL license, because he refuses to provide:
A copy of the GPL with his releases or an easily accessible copy of the GPL at distribution point. There's a reason I keep a link to my kernel source in my signature, you're only a click away from your copy of the GPL as well as a click away from your copy of the source code, including easy to read, detailed, changelogs.
AND
A written offer to provide the source code upon request
OR an archive of the source code used to build the binary release at the point of distribution
OR an archive of the source provided upon request.
Failure to match this criteria breaches GPL and once you have breached GPL you no longer have a license to distribute the GPL software in question.
No license + distribution = illegal distribution = Warez.
Bryanarby said:
So, unless this rule is bigger then that.. I do not agree with the Warez branding.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well then I hope I've cleared that up for you.
Furthermore, looking at the Cronos Linux distribution, which Feeyo advertises in his forum signature, that's an even bigger GPL breach than his ROMs are. It's a walking, talking, urination all over the GPL. Not a single mention of the GPL on the site or in the wiki, not a single link to the source code anywhere that I can find.

Ok, I agree, Feeyo should abide by the GPL..
Although the aggressive level of demanding was rediculously high, leading to the defensive stance against releasing.
It is/was still not finished and the issues that it brought could not be fixed, as such the rollback.

Bryanarby said:
Ok, I agree, Feeyo should abide by the GPL..
Although the aggressive level of demanding was rediculously high, leading to the defensive stance against releasing.
It is/was still not finished and the issues that it brought could not be fixed, as such the rollback.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My initial request was very polite. The aggressiveness came when he refused.
It was finished enough to include in a ROM release. You don't seem to understand how the GPL and open source development works. Once he released that "2.6.32" kernel to the wild, he was obligated to provide the source code he used to build it. Not when he felt like it, not after he'd changed it again, but as it was when that kernel was built.
Myself and others are working on a 2.6.34 port for the Hero. The source code we are working on doesn't work properly as yet, however the source code is STILL PUBLICLY AVAILABLE so that other developers can contribute to it and improve upon it and who knows, even help us get it finished faster.
I wasn't going to do this, however given that Feeyo has outright lied again here to his OWN COMMUNITY, I'm going to.
Feeyo didn't port 2.6.32 to the Hero. Feeyo changed the version string in the Makefile. Do I have proof of this? Not a jot but I'd bet my house on it. There's some incredibly talented devs working on the 2.6.3x port for the Hero and there's more than one of them. Feeyo got it working in under a week or so he claims. He refused to release the source and pulled the distribution because he was rumbled and he knows it.
Either you're in on it with him, or he's got you completely fooled as well. Or you and he are the same person. After all the deceit from the Cronos group, stemming from way back when he claimed to have goldfish sources for the hero and ended up posting a git snapshot that had nothing at all to do with the Hero up until recently, who the hell knows what's going on.
But I draw the line at GPL breach and lying to a community which Feeyo has done on numerous occasions. Thankfully, XDA seem to agree with me, which at the end of the day, is the opinion that counts.
His actions were contemptuous and the attempted defense/excusing of his actions by the likes of you and your ilk are equally contemptuous.

Hacre said:
QuickOffice is a licensed Google application. HTC have a google app license. Therefore people using HTC phones have a Google app license to use Google apps on their phones. QED.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's an interpretation of a "law" - OK (we all use the passion.apk)
but accuse feeyo of warez because not IMMIDIATLY public the code is also an interpration of a "law"
http://www.cronosproject.org/kernelSources.tar.bz2
Hacre said:
You're becoming more ridiculous by the post.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
perhaps
But for me the whole war is so ridiculous that my posts are peanuts

Hacre said:
I wasn't going to do this, however given that Feeyo has outright lied again here to his OWN COMMUNITY, I'm going to.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, as you started there aswell.. let's keep it at one place or it would get too chaotic to follow for anyone. As Feeyo can atleast speak on the other forum, I will halt following this topic.
Hacre said:
Either you're in on it with him, or he's got you completely fooled as well. Or you and he are the same person.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I only hear bits and pieces of both sides, that's why I changed standing point after gathering more info.
I, myself(not Feeyo), have no access to any sources.
Really, really, really not imposing on anyone:
Is this how issues should be solved? Handing one side free speech and silencing the other side?
God, how I hated that about my ex (good thing she doesn't know my internet identity/doesn't look for it.)

I get the impression that a lot of people are really looking at the GPL the wrong way, not really able to shake off a capitalist mindset from it. The fact of the matter is, if someone develops something and releases it under GPL it means it's free to distribute and edit all you like ON THE CONDITION THAT THE GPL REMAINS. You *CANNOT* take some code, edit it and then claim "welllllll, it's really my code so I'll release it when I'm good and ready". No, that's not the GPL - go and write something from scratch if you want to do that.
The ethos behind the GPL is to promote development, holding sources back until you're happy with them is fine, but then you can't release the ROM. That's far too much like wanting some limelight for yourself before you allow others to carry on. Again - Feeyo did not own the code that he was withholding, he did not author it from scratch and as such he was OBLIGED to make the source available the nanosecond he made a compiled ROM available. I think it's absolutely fair and just that he gets banned for this breach as it's such a fundamental "f**k you" to the GPL, hopefully he'll see what he was doing wrong and remedy it. After all, the more developers working on an open source project the better.
Bryanarby said:
I only hear bits and pieces of both sides, that's why I changed standing point after gathering more info.
I, myself(not Feeyo), have no access to any sources.
Really, really, really not imposing on anyone:
Is this how issues should be solved? Handing one side free speech and silencing the other side?
God, how I hated that about my ex (good thing she doesn't know my internet identity/doesn't look for it.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As far as I'm concerned, there are no *sides* on this. I'm not a huge follower of XDA, so I'm not involved in all the politics but I have a reasonable understanding of the GPL after living with a total Linux nerd/open source zealot at Uni. The facts are that Feeyo did not make the proper sources available as soon as he released a compiled ROM - that's not how the GPL works. It seems he persistently resisted and as such, was banned. Totally fair enough.

Unfamiliar term!

Heard the word kanging in another thread! What does that word mean when someone is kanging?
Sent from my Full Android using XDA App

a discussion about somebody that doesnt include them or taking work from somebody and claiming it as yours

its stolen code, a programmer writes something, someone else steals the code and then tries to pass it off as theirs, they kang'd it.
Taken from another website
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App

It means taking another person's code, claiming it to be your own, and/or not giving credit to the original developer.
Examples: The Ultimate Droid (Part 2), KingKlick

Aaah yes figured something like that!
Sent from my Full Android using XDA App

Used in a sentence
Wow lots of righteous indignation. Here's it being used in a sentence.
Google didn't Kang Vlingo's concepts cause of the open license agreement that it was posted under.
iphone devs can have their code Kanged cause they keep their intellectual rights to it. Android devs don't have to worry about that.

willy900wonka said:
Wow lots of righteous indignation. Here's it being used in a sentence.
Google didn't Kang Vlingo's concepts cause of the open license agreement that it was posted under.
iphone devs can have their code Kanged cause they keep their intellectual rights to it. Android devs don't have to worry about that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really... Just because something is FOSS doesn't mean it can't be kanged (see: Kingklick, TUD, etc.). If credit is removed or lied about, then it is considered kanged.

aka KAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGed
If you find yourself in the position to accuse someone of kanging code, I would use the above reference to do so.

thor2002ro's Kernel Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

"It will come when it's done"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whatever birkajerkoff

All ICS leak based ROMs must go

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.

Calling all htc one owners PLEASE READ

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