Related
(Note posting in this topic as to dev category for obvious reasons)
This whole incident has taken me by surprise with the actions of Google against Cyanogen. Now the actions from my understanding so far are likely the result of the early release of the Market app with his new Donut based releases. There is a valid argument for Google in which it is their own proprietary code in which they want to release on their terms I would assume, however I prefer to take the side of the community. The community around XDA has supported and nurtured the development of the Android OS and the devices based upon it, with the developers pushing the limits on what they can do and implementing smarter and better solutions. We the community in a sense become beta testers for the latest and greatest Android has to offer, how many applications do you think have already added support for 1.6 due to Cyanogen's mods and our feedback?
In summary, I believe while Google does have a valid argument against, but it would better serve them to not continue with this course of action. I invite you all to write and use all social networks available to you to spread the world, submit to every news site, raise awareness of the problem. Don't waste your time with petitions, just spread the word, go viral with it.
Digg search for cyanogen:
http://digg.com/search?s=cyanogen
Original article:
http://androidandme.com/2009/09/hacks/cyanogenmod-in-trouble/
Facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=144634407186&ref=nf
Send tweets to @google also, flood the information stream.
Email the people at Engadget, Slashdot, Gizmodo, all the major blogs just to keep focus upon it.
Someone should put it up on reddit too, get some visibility on wired.com!
Listen, this situation is really cut and dry. Cyanogen had NO LICENSE to distribute the CLOSED SOURCE APPS. The rest of it is perfectly fine.
The solution:
Develop the roms, DELETE the closed source apps, sign, publish. When someone installs the roms, let them install the closed source apps themselves -- i.e., *somebody* (who won't be linked back to cyanogen) will likely post a simple "closed-source-google-apps-for-cyanogenmod-4.xx.xx.xx.zip" which can be installed from recovery mode.
Problem solved.
wont that person then be "under-fire"?
gospeed.racer said:
wont that person then be "under-fire"?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only if the person gets caught.
tool to extract non free files and create a update image
If the binary files in a existing ROM can be used by cyanogenMod, what we need is a tool to reuse them in cyanogenMod. Am I wrong?
Or is it rebuild from source code ?
lbcoder said:
Listen, this situation is really cut and dry. Cyanogen had NO LICENSE to distribute the CLOSED SOURCE APPS. The rest of it is perfectly fine.
The solution:
Develop the roms, DELETE the closed source apps, sign, publish. When someone installs the roms, let them install the closed source apps themselves -- i.e., *somebody* (who won't be linked back to cyanogen) will likely post a simple "closed-source-google-apps-for-cyanogenmod-4.xx.xx.xx.zip" which can be installed from recovery mode.
Problem solved.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you a lawyer? no. So don't give your interpretation of what Cyanogen's license was and wasn't. You already started a thread about it and you're spamming the hell out of another. Don't mess with legal guesses, it's a bad bad idea. As I am someone who is studying law (and also a programmer/generally tech-smart), I am doing and suggesting to stay the hell away from that part when possible. Law -> politics -> flamewars -> ad hominem/bad posts. This is not tvtropes.
Meanwhile, can you even get past the start/initialization page without having the closed source apps, as they are market/gmail? This question is to actual modders.
Google has made a mess of thus, if they stop him from distributing with the apps it's only going to get *waaaay* messier.
You, are an IDIOT.
What happens when you *assume*? I'm sure that if you are, in fact, a law student (as you imply yourself to be, though you really only call yourself a "student" of the law, which could mean that you simply watch CNN from time to time), that this would have been answered on the first day of your first class.
Cyanogen's license *IS EXACTLY* the same as the license granted to *ALL OTHER USERS*. You want to read it? Its in your phone under About Phone --> Legal Information --> Google legal. Until you have read and understand *it all*, you should immediately cease offering your suggestions.
Edit: I just noticed your post count... 3.
Amazing, the audacity of some people. Whenever things start to get beyond the understanding of the average, all the chicken-littles come out from the woodwork and start crying about how evil the big company is. It is a direct function of a lack of understanding of the issues.
My advise: FORGET ABOUT IT. This has nothing to do with you and most likely won't have any (significant) impact on your life. At worst, you will have to add ONE SMALL STEP to the process of flashing the latest modrom.
Let me repeat: THIS IS NOT A BIG DEAL! IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER! Your phone is NOT about to catch on fire or start spying on you.
Oh, and for you information: regarding how I know what Cyanogen's license was....
1) the fact that it is included with the phone.
2) the fact that he received a c&d order (which they wouldn't send if he was licensed, or if they had, it would be the simplest matter to resolve).
3) the fact that he said so himself.
designerfx said:
Are you a lawyer? no. So don't give your interpretation of what Cyanogen's license was and wasn't. You already started a thread about it and you're spamming the hell out of another. Don't mess with legal guesses, it's a bad bad idea. As I am someone who is studying law (and also a programmer/generally tech-smart), I am doing and suggesting to stay the hell away from that part when possible. Law -> politics -> flamewars -> ad hominem/bad posts. This is not tvtropes.
Meanwhile, can you even get past the start/initialization page without having the closed source apps, as they are market/gmail? This question is to actual modders.
Google has made a mess of thus, if they stop him from distributing with the apps it's only going to get *waaaay* messier.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
gospeed.racer said:
wont that person then be "under-fire"?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
At this point we're talking warez, and though I won't advocate warez, when was the last time you saw Ahmed Ahmed Ahmed from Iran get persecuted for distributing warez?
Remember that the US government can't even find Bin Laden....
Or the apps can be pulled by the users from *legitimate* images, like ADP1. This, at least, is legal for owners of ADP1's for use on ADP1's.
Frankly, adding a step to complicate the process would probably go at least a little way in getting the super-noobs out of the game. They get *really* annoying.
Oh FYI: I got that board you sent me more-or-less cleaned up now, going to start mapping it out soon.
setupr said:
If the binary files in a existing ROM can be used by cyanogenMod, what we need is a tool to reuse them in cyanogenMod. Am I wrong?
Or is it rebuild from source code ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly. It is incredibly simple.
unzip (official-update.zip) /path/to/file1toextract /path/to/file2toextract ... /path/to/filentoextract
zip -g (mod-rom-update.zip) /path/to/file1extract /path/to/file2extract ... /path/to/filenextract
java -jar testsign.jar (mod-rom-update.zip)
Then just copy file to /sdcard/, recovery, flash, done.
Yeah, I know that us modders will continue to be doing the same thing and continue on, I know they aren't going after the entire community. It was for distributing the new Market app before its release as I understand currently. Hell, all I would do I an adb pull from a rom and push it into a new release. Just like I will be doing with the Market app if he can't put it in another release haha.
However the point of this thread was not to see if Google had the right to do that, they did. It is that simple. It is their proprietary code that was released early, by cyanogen, but I think it is unnecessary. The point of it was to support cyanogen for more ideological reasons, this community pushes the development at a rapid pace. My Dream would have been a nightmare without the likes of JF, haykuro, cyanogen, Dude, etc. With cyanogen releasing Donut in his builds, our community has been pushing developers to up their support to it and fix bugs relating to 1.6 before it is pushed as an update. The same thing with the Market app applies, how many of those apps have screenshots already? Why alienate the true heart of the device, we are basically beta testers for those of us running experimental roms. I understand the Google position, I just wish they would see that no harm, no foul.
And don't equate the amount someone posts to the boards to their understanding of a situation. There are quite a few people that just get the ROMs, run them and can use a search button if they have problems.
holy cow batman, flame much? Some people lurk for a long time before registering such as I.
I agree it's a small issue, and cyanogen is probably already working on it at least based off of his twitter. However, it doesn't matter what you or I feels about the licensing, nor even what the courts would interpret were it to get to that point.
It however, is very inappropriate to be ad hominem and/or bar threatening to people over this issue, basically getting worked up yourself. Honestly, playing seniority and insulting my schooling? I was not trying to be threatning to you, simply pointing out that you are not a spokesperson for interpreting a software license. Really, it's like you went into an emotional rage the minute cyanogen got the C&D.
Cyanogen in trouble
I can't believe Google is pulling this crap. I can only hope that Google is smart enough to work something out with Cyanogen so he may continue to share his awesome developments. I would expect some restrictions, but they need to work with him and let him do his thing. Otherwise, where's the incentive for anyone else following in his footsteps to make programs better for Google?
setupr said:
If the binary files in a existing ROM can be used by cyanogenMod, what we need is a tool to reuse them in cyanogenMod. Am I wrong?
Or is it rebuild from source code ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe this is the answer?
cyanogen : And regarding the keep-proprietary-apps-on-device-for-custom-rom install, with all the odexing and resource id mismatches... Ugh.​http://twitter.com/cyanogen/status/4384352484
I am specifically asking around using code from something else. I.e., lets say Jon develops an app. Can I view that source code, modify it and use it for myself? Can I also place it on the market for free? Can I charge for it? Is there a certain % of code that needs to be changed?
Thanks
The question doesn't make sense. The only way for you to get the source code is from the developer. In which case you can ask him those questions.
Isn't the whole point of open source that the source code is available? What if a Dev is publishing his/her code?
Short answer: Only if the app developer gives you permission on specific things. Talk to the developer about it.
Detailed:
Disclaimer: This is not legal advice and may be inaccurate. Be sure to study the license in full.
Its dependent on what license the source code is published with. The android-specific AOSP code is licensed under the apache license (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0), which lets you modify, reuse, redistribute the code, and the program freely as long as you include a copy of the license with the code and program for others to read.
Open source does not necessarily mean free to modify or reproduce with or without credit. Its fully possible (although somewhat difficult to enforce) to release source with a license denying any reuse of the code.
As for percent code change, there is no magic number. If you reuse any of the code, in whole or in part, the code's license applies unless it explicitly states otherwise.
As to redistributing the code on the market or otherwise, and charging for it, thats all covered under the licenses.
It is possible for the developer to take legal action against someone who violates the terms of code licenses, depending on local government.
hah2110 said:
Isn't the whole point of open source that the source code is available? What if a Dev is publishing his/her code?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Open source refers to the AOSP, not every application in the market.
The general theme of open source is to be able to review and modify the code, if needed.
However, there are several licenses which covers different open source projects. Some of the major ones are GPL, BSD and Apache.
While any open source License gives you permissions to view and modify the code, they restrict you in several ways.
For instance, first version of GPL allowed viewing, modification and reselling of the code and binaries as commercial, given that the source code and the modifications that you made, are reasonably accessible to general public. You don't need to provide the source and/or modifications to public, if you use it personally or internally within your organization.
BSD on the other hand, gives you freedom to do whatever the heck you want, sell it, modify it, have it tattooed over your body. No strings attached.
Apache, pretty much like BSD, except you need to give proper attribution to the all the people who contributed to the code base that you are using.
There are several others, and all of them have some method of restricting the things you can do with the source. Read each of them carefully if you intend to modify and resell the code and consult a lawyer.
And as usual, the disclaimer: This is not legal advice, just a simple analysis and I am not in any way responsible for any mishaps, should you decide to use it as such.
[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.
Hey guys,
I've been developing for Android as a kernel developer from around a year, and one thing I like about it is that it is open. It helps in getting patches from other developers, and implement new features.
Recently I've started learning Application Development, and I feel there is one thing that is missing with it. The Openness like the AOSP android source and ROM's...
So here, I am to kick-start a project to develop Open Source Android Applications. We can have a collection of different apps, and update them on the market for the whole world to use.
OpenDroidApps​
Different Apps Planned:
Launcher
Messaging
Contacts
Dialer
Music Player
And Many More...
So, this is a request to all the app developers out there, to come join me in developing a collection of different apps with excellent features and options.
Required:
App Developers
Sources to start of the apps
Website
nice idea
specially the music player one
fire_kid2003 said:
nice idea
specially the music player one
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks
Shouldb start working on the project today...
sources will be from the android 4.0.4 r1.2...
And any developer wanting to contribute to the project let me know...
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA
I am confused whether I can use the android open source code provided by google as the base to build the apps ? Will it be violating and licence ? Can anyone clear my doubts ?
Read the licence, for the most part, if your code stays open, you are safe in forking a project. As long as you dont sell the code as your own and keep it opensource. That way improvements cant be submitted upstream, which is the core of FOSS, enhancing projects, fixing bugs and building better software
cornelha said:
Read the licence, for the most part, if your code stays open, you are safe in forking a project. As long as you dont sell the code as your own and keep it opensource. That way improvements cant be submitted upstream, which is the core of FOSS, enhancing projects, fixing bugs and building better software
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But i will be changing the package names initially itself...coz i dont think you can upload an app to the market with the package com.android.... So is this allowed?
Sent from my GT-I9100
Dharam_Maniar said:
But i will be changing the package names initially itself...coz i dont think you can upload an app to the market with the package com.android.... So is this allowed?
Sent from my GT-I9100
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wouldn't be allowed most probably, you'll need to change the package name and possibly add a note starting that you used sources from blah and blah.
Even if the same package name was allowed, you'ld be signing your apps with your own key, and the original apps on the device would be signed by the OEM's key, but with the package name being the same, Play Store would show it as an update, but installing it won't work, and that'ld cause issues.
So, as long as you name it anything other than the default name, and provide source code to public, and keep the apps free, it won't cause any problem.
Read through the Play Store ToS once if you're in doubt, or contact the staff if you still have doubts
I am interested. Just started with app development a couple of months back
Also intersted ill help with anythong....
Sent from my VS910 4G using xda premium
I would also help, if needed
Add Clock to the app list: Most proprietary clock apps provide timer and stopwatch but aosp does not - so it should be added
I think it is not needed to do another launcher - there are enough aut there.
And the license thing: nearly everything in android is Apache licensed, which means that you only need to mention original source in the app - it is not needed to publish the source code, however i would like to say that i would not work on a project that is licensed proprietary or pseudo-free (GPL)
MaR-V-iN
suhas_sm said:
I am interested. Just started with app development a couple of months back
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
motodroidfreak said:
Also intersted ill help with anythong....
Sent from my VS910 4G using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
MaR-V-iN said:
I would also help, if needed
Add Clock to the app list: Most proprietary clock apps provide timer and stopwatch but aosp does not - so it should be added
MaR-V-iN
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the interest guys...
I was waiting for a reply on the licence issue...Seems there shouldn't by any problems...
So we can start off with the project...
I'll try to setup everything soon and we can then work on the apps
Dharam_Maniar said:
I was waiting for a reply on the licence issue...Seems there shouldn't by any problems...
So we can start off with the project...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
See my post - i wasnt fast enough in editing
MaR-V-iN said:
See my post - i wasnt fast enough in editing
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I didn't understand. The project will have all the apps on the market for everyone to download, and the source code will be hosted on github so that we can improve the code be providing patches...So you are interested or no ?
For web i can help you
Let me know
Sent from my Xperia Play using Tapatalk 2
Dharam_Maniar said:
I didn't understand. The project will have all the apps on the market for everyone to download, and the source code will be hosted on github so that we can improve the code be providing patches...So you are interested or no ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just saying it is open source does not make clear which license to use - i would suggest Apache License as it is my favourite one and i would not like GPL as i hate how they force developers to make everything opensource what is really **** for business developers...
Just say it will be Apache License and you got me in
MaR-V-iN
MaR-V-iN said:
Just saying it is open source does not make clear which license to use - i would suggest Apache License as it is my favourite one and i would not like GPL as i hate how they force developers to make everything opensource what is really **** for business developers...
Just say it will be Apache License and you got me in
MaR-V-iN
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually speaking, I don;t understand most of the license stuff...
But If we see the source of the apps provided by google in AOSP, it says
/*
* Copyright (C) 2007 The Android Open Source Project
*
* Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
* you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
* You may obtain a copy of the License at
*
* http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
*
* Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
* distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
* WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
* See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
* limitations under the License.
*/
So, I guess it will be Apache Licence...But I would like to tell you, that these apps will be complete open source...Its not a project for business but for developing great apps for the community, by the community...Anyone and everyone can help in improving these apps.
I'm no dev but if I'm understanding correctly you will set up the environment on github ,everyone can just push in code and from time to time u publish the latest apks to the market right?
Sent from my SGS2 powered by cm9 love
bartoloandre98 said:
I'm no dev but if I'm understanding correctly you will set up the environment on github ,everyone can just push in code and from time to time u publish the latest apks to the market right?
Sent from my SGS2 powered by cm9 love
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes... You understand correct...
Dharam_Maniar said:
Yes... You understand correct...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Make an org on github, would be the best way
Sent from my GT-P1000 using XDA
cdesai said:
Make an org on github, would be the best way
Sent from my GT-P1000 using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
did that long back
Just busy with my other project also...i.e. the DarkKnight Kernel for CheckROM ICS (Galaxy S2)
Hello,
thinking about installing OmniROM which sounds great! I'm using CyanogenMod 10.1.3 Stable. If you guys had CM what do you think? Is there big difference between those two ROMs?
Well as far as I know about CyanogenMod is been the best to date..!! OmniRoM on the other had has made a huge followers list and has been lead by Chainfire (superuser app developer).
My opinion is to be in CyanogenMod as long as you need changes to play with. Moreover Cyanogen has more supported devices than that of Omni.. And if you have your device on their list.. Give it a shot!
Well now coming to differences, Omnirom has multi-window support, has over clocking, and the rest are the same but with different interface..
Sent from my Motorola Xoom using xda app-developers app
Thank you for answer. I'm on Nexus 4 (soon Nexus 5). So I will continue with CyanogenMod until there will be stable version of OmniROM
It is way too early to tell if OmniROM can have as great of a following as CM. OmniROM has a very long road ahead if it wants to compete with CM simply because it needs to be supported on all the flagship devices and more. That is the only way OmniROM's name will get out there. There are so many people out there that haven't even heard of OmniROM yet but ask anyone about CM and most will tell you that they have heard of it.
I will give OmniROM a chance but it has to come to the Sprint LG G2 or else they are losing potential followers.
Better? Who knows, too early to tell.
Different? Sure. Many of the first developers involved with Omni are former CM maintainers/contributors dissatisfied with certain recent events (frequent ninjamerges without review, leads -2ing things with little explanation beyond "I don't like it", and most importantly, attempting to use their Contributor License Agreement against a longtime contributor in order to create a proprietary closed-source derivative of Focal under a commercial license.) To a great degree, it's about the spirit in which the projects are developed. We're going to try to be as open and receptive to new ideas as we possibly can.
Among other things I expect to see going forward - as CyanogenMod attempts to obtain GMS certification for CM on some devices, you may see a lot more features getting removed/rejected. (GMS is the ability to officially include gapps with a device. The CTS and CDD which have been discussed many times in the past are a part of this, but GMS can actually go way beyond this. I've heard, for example, of one OEM that wanted to preinstall a particular rotation control app. While that app is readily available on the Play Store, Google effectively said to that OEM, "You can preinstall that app, or have a GMS license - not both.")
Entropy512 said:
Better? Who knows, too early to tell.
Different? Sure. Many of the first developers involved with Omni are former CM maintainers/contributors dissatisfied with certain recent events (frequent ninjamerges without review, leads -2ing things with little explanation beyond "I don't like it", and most importantly, attempting to use their Contributor License Agreement against a longtime contributor in order to create a proprietary closed-source derivative of Focal under a commercial license.) To a great degree, it's about the spirit in which the projects are developed. We're going to try to be as open and receptive to new ideas as we possibly can.
Among other things I expect to see going forward - as CyanogenMod attempts to obtain GMS certification for CM on some devices, you may see a lot more features getting removed/rejected. (GMS is the ability to officially include gapps with a device. The CTS and CDD which have been discussed many times in the past are a part of this, but GMS can actually go way beyond this. I've heard, for example, of one OEM that wanted to preinstall a particular rotation control app. While that app is readily available on the Play Store, Google effectively said to that OEM, "You can preinstall that app, or have a GMS license - not both.")
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I noticed that Omni has a CLA as well (https://gerrit.omnirom.org/static/cla_individual_omni.html). How is the Omni CLA different from that of CM?
nushoin said:
I noticed that Omni has a CLA as well (https://gerrit.omnirom.org/static/cla_individual_omni.html). How is the Omni CLA different from that of CM?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you didn't read the full sentence
attempting to use their Contributor License Agreement against a longtime contributor in order to create a proprietary closed-source derivative of Focal under a commercial license
AFAIK CLA will be same, just that they won't try to trick authors into dual licensing like CM tried with focal
ericdabbs said:
I will give OmniROM a chance but it has to come to the Sprint LG G2 or else they are losing potential followers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol
Sent from my SCH-I545 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
munchy_cool said:
you didn't read the full sentence
attempting to use their Contributor License Agreement against a longtime contributor in order to create a proprietary closed-source derivative of Focal under a commercial license
AFAIK CLA will be same, just that they won't try to trick authors into dual licensing like CM tried with focal
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah.
To be absolutely, 100% clear - They attempted to represent the CLA as something that would give them the ability to relicense a GPL contribution if the contributor was the original copyright holder of said contribution. (In the event where the contributor is not original copyright holder, no CLA in existence would allow relicensing because the contributor didn't have the rights to relicense the code.)
THIS IS NOT THE CASE. YOU CAN'T USE THE CLA THAT WAY. But they attempted to do so anyway - not only was it just wrong to treat a contributor like that, they misrepresented the document as giving legal powers it didn't actually give them.
The CLA is there as a "cover your ass" legal document in the case of a nasty legal dispute. I hope to hell we never have a need to use it. (In fact, in my opinion, the CLA is redundant and unnecessary for Apache and GPL licensed contributions, as the Apache and GPL licenses explicitly grant compatible redistribution/usage rights. Some other contributions are not as clear in terms of licensing, for example, media assets.) Another place it might come into play is if someone submits something with a license like that found in this file:
https://github.com/oppo-source/R819...89/kernel/drivers/dum-char/partition_define.c
In theory, if someone who was in the category of MTK or a licensor contributed such an item to our Gerrit, that contribution in combination with the CLA would be written permission to reproduce/modify/disclose the file. Note that not just anyone can submit something like that - there are other clauses to handle that (clause 7 I think???) - effectively saying that you yourself have the legal rights to contribute whatever you're contributing.
Oh, FYI, that file and files with similar licensing are one of the things holding back support of MTK devices.
One thing to note: CLAs DO exist that do give the kinds of power that Cyanogen, Inc. wanted to wield. An example is Canonical's Harmony CLA:
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/4553.html - He links to the Harmony CLA there (direct link - http://www.canonical.com/sites/default/files/active/images/Canonical-HA-CLA-ANY-I.pdf ), take a look at clause 2.3 - it's nasty:
Code:
2.3 Outbound License
Based on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, if We
include Your Contribution in a Material, We may license the
Contribution under any license, including copyleft,
permissive, commercial, or proprietary licenses. As a
condition on the exercise of this right, We agree to also
license the Contribution under the terms of the license or
licenses which We are using for the Material on the
Submission Date.
This is VERY different from the "sublicense" language in the AOSP CLA. For a bit on sublicensing:
(crap, can't find one of the better links I used to have...)
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/189633/what-sublicense-actually-means has some info
http://www.contractstandards.com/document-checklists/technology-license-agreement/sublicenses - Note "Additionally the scope of rights that the Licensee can sublicense is often narrower than the scope of the original license (e.g. the purpose or end-product is limited to those specifically enumerated)." - Commercial dual-licensing of a GPL contribution is prett unambiguously expanding the scope of the original license and NOT something that a CLA which only grants you sublicensing rights allows.