Database Users

Support Cyanogen and the cause, read further

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

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

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

wont that person then be "under-fire"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feeyo banned?

Apparently so, according to: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=7663719&postcount=802
Reading the post, it's extremely clear that the decision to ban was not based on the evidence that is presented...it's quite obvious that the decision was made way beforehand and the "evidence" used as justification. In real life, we would call this a kangaroo court or a show trial...and these have been used in military dictatorships or autocratic governments to squash opposition.
"Distributing warez", really? We might as well ban all the developers on this forum. How many of the independent developers here actually have licenses from HTC or Qualcomm to redistribute their proprietary frameworks and libraries?...don't think there are too many.

Seeing as I banned him, and I generally dont do any rom development, what opposition would I be squashing?
Edit: Thanks for posting in the right section
Edit Edit: Let me add on by saying that in regards to your previous statement about HTC and Qualcomm, when they give us take down notices we always comply with them and we take them as they come. Same goes for the holders of the GNU GPL, we received complaints, we sought to resolve it via multiple requests, did not get a resolution, so we took the needed action. This will not be limited to Feeyo, but as far as I know right now, other Android Kernel devs provide their sources or abide by the GNU GPL guidelines.

Stericson said:
Seeing as I banned him, and I generally dont do any rom development, what opposition would I be squashing?
Edit: Thanks for posting in the right section
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed.
Not sure if you actually read the whole post, but it does mention that the decision was made my MODS. Not developers.
So your claim that the ban had some ulterior motive behind it doesn't really make sense.

theSpam said:
Apparently so, according to: xxp://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=7663719&postcount=802
Reading the post, it's extremely clear that the decision to ban was not based on the evidence that is presented...it's quite obvious that the decision was made way beforehand and the "evidence" used as justification. In real life, we would call this a kangaroo courtor a show trial..and these have been used in military dictatorships or autocratic governments to squash opposition.
"Distributing warez", really? We might as well ban all the developers on this forum. How many of the independent developers here actually have licenses from HTC or Qualcomm to redistribute their proprietary frameworks and libraries?...don't think there are too many.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep I agree! And I will send an email to these companies regarding all the devs breaking these licenses distributing "warez" on this forum.
Mod edit: This was a sock puppet account of Feeyo's

theSpam said:
[snip]...
Reading the post, it's extremely clear that the decision to ban was not based on the evidence that is presented...it's quite obvious that the decision was made way beforehand and the "evidence" used as justification. ... [snip]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What is quite obvious is that the this poster hasn't read carefully the post he linked to.
I normally don't like supporting mods; (it's bad for my anarchistic image); but this time they have it exactly right. Well done for getting there at last.

0xlab said:
Yep I agree! And I will send an email to these companies regarding all the devs breaking these licenses distributing "warez" on this forum.
Mod edit: This was a sock puppet account of Feeyo's
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dude unban my account? I am not an alt of Feeyo!!!
Mod edit: Well then Oxlab of cronosprojects who chooses to leave a public note rather than to contact the site's admin, consider this this warning the last

And that was the end of good roms for Hero when Feeyo is gone that for shure.

stinger32 said:
And that was the end of good roms for Hero when Feeyo is gone that for shure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sad but true
Hope he will come back... I don´t get it, why did he close the entire Cronos Project?

stinger32 said:
And that was the end of good roms for Hero when Feeyo is gone that for shure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Humanoids said:
Sad but true
Hope he will come back... I don´t get it, why did he close the entire Cronos Project?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Read this thread. It explains in more detail what the issue is.
And please don't be so naive to believe Feeyo's rom's are the only "good" rom's. That is a subjective perspective which differs from individual to individual. To force your view upon others is down right rude IMHO.
We can only speculate as to why Feeyo has closed the project but it is a shame when these licensing issues happen. It is typically due to the nature of western economies forcing the traditional all-rights reserved copyright laws upon everyone through mainstream culture, instead of moving towards much more community based copyleft licenses which research has shown to improve creativity and improve the rate of progress. IMHO this is an incredible shame.

btdag said:
Read this thread. It explains in more detail what the issue is.
And please don't be so naive to believe Feeyo's rom's are the only "good" rom's. That is a subjective perspective which differs from individual to individual. To force your view upon others is down right rude IMHO.
We can only speculate as to why Feeyo has closed the project but it is a shame when these licensing issues happen. It is typically due to the nature of western economies forcing the traditional all-rights reserved copyright laws upon everyone through mainstream culture, instead of moving towards much more community based copyleft licenses which research has shown to improve creativity and improve the rate of progress. IMHO this is an incredible shame.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its funny you should mention that, this is EXACTLY what GPL is

Does anybody know why the Cronos Project site is offline?

mikeyd85 said:
Does anybody know why the Cronos Project site is offline?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Read http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=754401

12aon said:
Its funny you should mention that, this is EXACTLY what GPL is
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed - the android forums are a great example of the creativity. Maybe i'll do a research project on it... (my uni degree final project was on copyrights/copyleft theories )

btdag said:
Indeed - the android forums are a great example of the creativity
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
mwahahaha
Ya, our fixes on bugs (hex-code binary edits, framework resigns, bluetooth, etc...) are all completely legal. And everything is fine. We dont break any licenses of 3rd party companies. Ya... now... i got it. We take libcamera.so out of HTC builds and reinject them onto self-made roms.
mwahaha. cmon, this is ridiculous. We (in here) brake licenses (not all roms, but mosts), and there is nothing better to do than attacking a dev cause of a (gpl'ed) kernel* ?
I need a beer.
*which he shared with other ROM devs (as a binary !!!). The community was working, 2 other ROM's had a great kernel.

Andro1d said:
(...)
I need a beer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 or make it two Been quite a day

Andro1d said:
mwahahaha
Ya, our fixes on bugs (hex-code binary edits, framework resigns, bluetooth, etc...) are all completely legal. And everything is fine. We dont break any licenses of 3rd party companies. Ya... now... i got it. We take libcamera.so out of HTC builds and reinject them onto self-made roms.
mwahaha. cmon, this is ridiculous. We (in here) brake licenses (not all roms, but mosts), and there is nothing better to do than attacking a dev cause of a (gpl'ed) kernel* ?
I need a beer.
*which he shared with other ROM devs (as a binary !!!). The community was working, 2 other ROM's had a great kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The GPL requires kernels be distributed as sources, and not merely as binaries. Hence the distribution was unlawful, and XDA acted upon request from GPL users.
If HTC, the holders of the copyright to the other things you mentioned, were to issue a C&D against the site, it would be dealt with properly, as any other site would deal with it.
But I would point to a discussion I had with some of Cronos' developers today on their IRC channel, where I (and they) discussed how the lack of sources now meant they are unable to continue to work on this ROM. This lock-in, relying on one person to permit them to enjoy GPL code is what is absolutely prohibited in the GPL, and hence the requirement for the sources to be made available.
This doesn't benefit users, who are now left to pick an alternative ROM if they wish to continue to receive updates, and it doesn't benefit other developers who could have continued with any work in progress that feeyo has left behind.

pulser_g2 said:
The GPL requires kernels be distributed as sources, and not merely as binaries. Hence the distribution was unlawful, and XDA acted upon request from GPL users.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know the GPL.
pulser_g2 said:
But I would point to a discussion I had with some of Cronos' developers today on their IRC channel, where I (and they) discussed how the lack of sources now meant they are unable to continue to work on this ROM. This lock-in, relying on one person to permit them to enjoy GPL code is what is absolutely prohibited in the GPL, and hence the requirement for the sources to be made available.
This doesn't benefit users, who are now left to pick an alternative ROM if they wish to continue to receive updates, and it doesn't benefit other developers who could have continued with any work in progress that feeyo has left behind.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ack that. I dont wanna defend Feeyo,...
but if the MOD's start to force the GPL and credits, they should do it right. From NOW on... and for ALL ROMs ! If not... this (whole mess) was just 90% against Feeyo, and only 10% against a license.

Andro1d said:
I know the GPL.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Apparently not, or you wouldn't be saying "BBBBUT HE DID SHARE THE BINARY!!!!!111oneeleven" as if that excuses it somehow.

pulser_g2 said:
The GPL requires kernels be distributed as sources, and not merely as binaries. Hence the distribution was unlawful, and XDA acted upon request from GPL users.
{...}
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just tried to find the Kernel-Sources for Villain-ROM at the Site in your Signature ( {placeholderforworldwideweb}.villainrom.co.uk ). Please can you give me a hint where to search? (Without to Donate!)
Thanks,
Albert

Andro1d said:
but if the MOD's start to force the GPL and credits, they should do it right. From NOW on... and for ALL ROMs ! If not... this (whole mess) was just 90% against Feeyo, and only 10% against a license.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In a gesture of good faith towards the Hero xda-developers community, a mod audit of all actively distributed ROMs (akin to what is seen here) needs to be conducted in order to discover which are non-GPL compliant. This would show the community that the preceding events were not initiated by particular individuals/dev teams (with moderator support) against Feeyo and Cronos Droid for issues not encompassing the GPL.

[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.

[Q] 3.2 is boring and lagy , how can i ''''''''''''''''''''

Hello
3.2 is lagy and boring with out root ,so which custom Rom is the fastest and most stable for the a500 that support the HDMI, TETHER ROOT , ARABIC LANGUG ,GPS ,USB STUFF , 3G DONGLE , etc

Check this thread

wlk0 said:
Check this thread
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 / regards

wlk0 said:
Check this thread
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks
But what about the HDMI is it working and the rotation lock

There is a rom called Thor did anyone try it
http://www.tegraowners.com/?cat=7

gab182 said:
thanks
But what about the HDMI is it working and the rotation lock
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why wouldn't that work ?

gab182 said:
There is a rom called Thor did anyone try it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
is breaking GPL, and not allowed here, so no one here tried it and made positive comments on it unless they agree with breaking GPL.
breaking GPL means stealing other peoples work and takes creds for it.

Once again, the usual about the GPL. The end user really doesn't care about this debate, you know. The matter is far from settled, what you said is just the position of the XDA admins. And I can understand the forum policy of not allowing a link to Thor's site for that reason, it is their forum and their rules.
If you don't want to use Thor's mods, by all means, don't use them. If you think that linking to his site is against the rules, go ahead and report the post to the mods. But don't go on around accusing people of being thieves or pirates simply because they disagree with you on such a trivial matter.

Biologos said:
Once again, the usual about the GPL. The end user really doesn't care about this debate, you know. The matter is far from settled, what you said is just the position of the XDA admins. And I can understand the forum policy of not allowing a link to Thor's site for that reason, it is their forum and their rules.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The more valid version is its a "pireted" kernel.. seems silly since all that is needed to make it not pireted is making the code avalible to those that download it.
I can't stop the average user from using it.. Just like I can't stop you from downloading a movie.. You may think of the changes under fair use, I don't know (GPL does not remove any rights under fair use). But I hope the understanding that its distributed in a way not desired by the creators (of at least most of the code) is understoo.. And that linux could not be what it is without this code sharing.
Since no one is asking for money just a simple access to the source code that github will host for free.. I don't get why you want to simply accept such a pirited kernel if alternatives exist. Also as the open source dev I must strive to promote / create such alternatives.

Well, as you say, Thor's kernel may or may not fall under fair use policy. I too don't know. And I am not advocating its use, or abstaining from using it. What I do object to is calling people pirate or thief , just because they use a free mod for a free operational system. GPL or no GPL, calling someone a thief (just like you accused me of downloading movies, without any cause or basis) is just bad manners.

Biologos said:
Well, as you say, Thor's kernel may or may not fall under fair use policy. I too don't know. And I am not advocating its use, or abstaining from using it. What I do object to is calling people pirate or thief , just because they use a free mod for a free operational system. GPL or no GPL, calling someone a thief (just like you accused me of downloading movies, without any cause or basis) is just bad manners.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thor is using the licence outside its licence (unless it is to be considered fair use); this is the deffinition of a software pirate like it or not.. (This is unless source code is released to those that request)
You are not a thief unless you distribute the kerel and are requested for the code: GPL says nothing about you needing the code as an end user, unless you request it, and if you have not requested and Thor has given you permission to use the kernel you are *Not* a pirate.
As for theif... Its the *AA's that call software pirate's thifs.. and much more for their own ends than people on XDA wany to discurage GPL code not released under terms of the licence.
Anyone confused about licences ought to read some..

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.