Database Users

[Q] DK28 == warez?

The DK28 software that was distributed to the Version 4 Epics by Samsung & Sprint contains a Linux kernel that is licensed under GPLv2.
According to the GPLv2 license, the source code must be offered & available to hose who received the kernel. Since previous sources have appeared on Samsung's site, I will assume they are assuming the licensing responsibility for distribution.
Since the source for the DK28 Linux kernel is not available, GPLv2 says that Samsung cannot legally distribute the Linux kernel, which makes DK28 warez.
The XDA forum rules say,
Don't post copyrighted materials or do other things that will obviously lead to legal trouble
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Since the Linux kernel in DK28 cannot be legally distributed without the source being available, all DK28 kernels need to be removed from the XDA forum due to its status as illegally distributed.
Samsung needs to negotiate with the Linux copyright owners before they can legally distribute the kernel. Posting the sources later does not reinstate the license.
(If Linux used GPLv3, all Samsung would need to do to be legal would be to release the source code.)
See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html for more information on GPLv2.

prodigyplace == troll?
Troll somewhere else....TROLL!!!
reported

Pretty sure they have 30 days. Also, Samsung did not distribute this at all, it was obtained in a non-approved manner.

I'm lost as to why you would want dk28 roms taken down, in response to what you're saying is a breach on sammys part...? I have much respect for open source, but it seems like the anarchy police make more problems with retentively adhering to the brotherhood of steel codex. Sorry, too much fallout lately. But I'm pretty sure the xda admins have looked over the legalities considering all the press they have gotten. Besides, can the cooks be faulted for tinkering with something THEY never got source on?? Thought I read this debate a while back... anyways, I think the spirit of open source is so that more people develop and we all get better software....?

Sounds like this is typical in linux land... either that or an evo owner...

leatherneck6017 said:
Troll somewhere else....TROLL!!!
reported
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I completely agree. This is what we refer to at work as "Poking the bear".

Funny ****
Troll be gone!
Sent from my Epic 4G

welp, id better download it fast before they pull it.not.

People calling this guy a troll are fools. You might disagree with him but his argument has reason.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

Mushmaster said:
People calling this guy a troll are fools. You might disagree with him but his argument has reason.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes troll would give him more credit than he deserves....
he's an intelligent moron... pm a mod if you think it is illegal, buy a lawyer and sue samsung if you feel your rights have been violated... other than that you're crying on deaf ears

I have a sneaking suspicion this is a previously banned former member, disgruntled, back under a new ID simply trying to stir the chit.
I'm just sayin'...

They would have to release source code if this was a public release since DK28 is an internal beta that got leaked I don't believe that releasing source code applies.

Technically, it's a question of distribution... since they distributed it to owners of .4 hardware, whether testers or not, whether on purpose or not, those receivers of the OTA are legally entitled to the source code. Samsung has a "reasonable" amount of time to comply... and 30 days is generally considered reasonable.

Prodigy I agree with you. Basically the people who disagree with statment. Get some glasses and read the licence yourself. If you want a microsoft world go get a windows phone. From all the posting I see about dk28, there is nothing about who created the kernel. The gpl licence is there to proctect you as a indivdual, so next time you rant or rave about infomation like this. You will only have yourself to blame in the future.
prodigyplace said:
The DK28 software that was distributed to the Version 4 Epics by Samsung & Sprint contains a Linux kernel that is licensed under GPLv2.
According to the GPLv2 license, the source code must be offered & available to hose who received the kernel. Since previous sources have appeared on Samsung's site, I will assume they are assuming the licensing responsibility for distribution.
Since the source for the DK28 Linux kernel is not available, GPLv2 says that Samsung cannot legally distribute the Linux kernel, which makes DK28 warez.
The XDA forum rules say,
Since the Linux kernel in DK28 cannot be legally distributed without the source being available, all DK28 kernels need to be removed from the XDA forum due to its status as illegally distributed.
Samsung needs to negotiate with the Linux copyright owners before they can legally distribute the kernel. Posting the sources later does not reinstate the license.
(If Linux used GPLv3, all Samsung would need to do to be legal would be to release the source code.)
See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html for more information on GPLv2.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App

Any assumption of an assumption is an endless pool of BS

OP: Thanks for looking out for our welfare.

Mushmaster said:
People calling this guy a troll are fools. You might disagree with him but his argument has reason.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Every argument has reason...it just might be the wrong reason.
Just in case it is just a "trolling" attempt, though...

Wow.. you guys consider this a troll? I'd madhouse over here if I didn't frequent the foroum for advice.
If it were me.. I'd be asking you guys when Gingerbread would be released for my iPhone 4.

wow.. really?? Its either people complain about not getting leaks or they complain when a leak is out. smh you cant win..

Don't they have two weeks to release the source?
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

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.

Petition for Samsung to be more open :)

Hi, a developer called pulser_g2 developer called codeworx made this petition for Samsung to be more open and be a lot more developer friendly, this petition is for all Samsung android devices, not just the s2. So I thought I would post it here in the hope a few of you may consider singing it please
http://www.change.org/petitions/sam...t-achieve-full-potential-of-purchased-devices
Thank you
Edit: Sorry I made a mistake, the developer Codeworx just heavily promoted the petition, pulser_g2 is the developer who made it, and thanks entropy512 for pointing the mistake out

danielsf said:
Hi, on the galaxy s2 forum, the cm9 developer called codeworx made this petition for Samsung to be more open and be a lot more developer friendly, this petition is for all Samsung android devices, not just the s2. So I thought I would post it here in the hope a few of you may consider singing it please
http://www.change.org/petitions/sam...t-achieve-full-potential-of-purchased-devices
Thank you
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually pulser_g2 created it - codeworkx is just pushing it hard. (he deserves to as he's the one maintaining CM9...)

Also consider pestering them on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/#!/search/users/samsung

Signed
10char

Im hoping the lack of posts in this thread just means people arent commenting in this thread but have signed the petition
I submitted this as a tip for the portal page, hopefully it gets picked up, since being on the portal would generate more interest in this

DT3CH said:
Im hoping the lack of posts in this thread just means people arent commenting in this thread but have signed the petition
I submitted this as a tip for the portal page, hopefully it gets picked up, since being on the portal would generate more interest in this
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only reason it's not on the portal is because pulser forgot his portal password (He even said so elsewhere.)
(This petition was filed by one of our senior moderator team.)
I haven't signed yet, but that is because I plan on writing a fairly decent bit on why cooperating with developers will benefit Samsung in my "Reason" field and need a bit more time.

signed!
10char

signed
Signed.
10char

IMO, in this day when manufacturers are locking down devices and intentionally making it very difficult for any development, Samsung has really catered to this small community. Companies like Motorola go as far as sabotaging their products to prevent any type hacking, rooting etc.
Sure, Samsung's official software upgrades are slow but I give them a lot of credit for reaching out in ways such as offering some of our top developers free devices.

Entropy512 said:
Only reason it's not on the portal is because pulser forgot his portal password (He even said so elsewhere.)
(This petition was filed by one of our senior moderator team.)
I haven't signed yet, but that is because I plan on writing a fairly decent bit on why cooperating with developers will benefit Samsung in my "Reason" field and need a bit more time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL shows you what I know
Dont know any of the mods here

Joe T said:
IMO, in this day when manufacturers are locking down devices and intentionally making it very difficult for any development, Samsung has really catered to this small community. Companies like Motorola go as far as sabotaging their products to prevent any type hacking, rooting etc.
Sure, Samsung's official software upgrades are slow but I give them a lot of credit for reaching out in ways such as offering some of our top developers free devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The problem is they have, over time, become increasingly antagonistic to platform developers.
They are now failing to comply with the GPL with kernel source for many devices on a regular basis. The Infuse AT&T update took a month for source to show up, and Samsung ignored multiple requests for source in compliance with the GPL. The one time they answered, they claimed that they didn't have to provide source because they had stopped providing the update - that's bull****. If you provide a binary to someone, you MUST provide them the source - even if you are no longer providing binaries to other people.
They go out of their way to avoid releasing source whenever possible - see the AR6000 driver fiasco on the Tab 7 Plus.
The Galaxy S II hardware donation to the Cyanogenmod team was nothing but a PR stunt. If you follow the progress of CM9 on the I9100, you'll see that in addition to not providing any assistance to codeworkx and xplodwild, they are actively throwing barriers in the way. For example, secure containers (used by many apps) are disabled if a custom kernel is used in ICS.
Compare this to Sony, who provided technical assistance to the Cyanogenmod team leading to their entire 2011 lineup being well supported by CM, and also open-sourcing their sensor HALs when they didn't need to. They have also provided OFFICIAL ICS alphas and betas including source in compliance with the GPL, while everyone else just has leaks.
Unless Samsung changes their attitude - my next phone will be a Sony or a Nexus of some sort.

Entropy512 said:
The problem is they have, over time, become increasingly antagonistic to platform developers.....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, I didn't realize all of that. As a GNex owner, I suppose I'm looking at things through rose colored glasses. I thought they changed a lot since the Froyogate fiasco which they received a lot of bad press. Thanks for the info, petition signed!

Signed
Especially since I have 2 Samsung devices currently

Entropy512 said:
The problem is they have, over time, become increasingly antagonistic to platform developers.
They are now failing to comply with the GPL with kernel source for many devices on a regular basis. The Infuse AT&T update took a month for source to show up, and Samsung ignored multiple requests for source in compliance with the GPL. The one time they answered, they claimed that they didn't have to provide source because they had stopped providing the update - that's bull****. If you provide a binary to someone, you MUST provide them the source - even if you are no longer providing binaries to other people.
They go out of their way to avoid releasing source whenever possible - see the AR6000 driver fiasco on the Tab 7 Plus.
The Galaxy S II hardware donation to the Cyanogenmod team was nothing but a PR stunt. If you follow the progress of CM9 on the I9100, you'll see that in addition to not providing any assistance to codeworkx and xplodwild, they are actively throwing barriers in the way. For example, secure containers (used by many apps) are disabled if a custom kernel is used in ICS.
Compare this to Sony, who provided technical assistance to the Cyanogenmod team leading to their entire 2011 lineup being well supported by CM, and also open-sourcing their sensor HALs when they didn't need to. They have also provided OFFICIAL ICS alphas and betas including source in compliance with the GPL, while everyone else just has leaks.
Unless Samsung changes their attitude - my next phone will be a Sony or a Nexus of some sort.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
very well said

Done
Thanks for the info...
Everything to help the devs...
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium

signed.. hope this petition will do something

Joe T said:
IMO, in this day when manufacturers are locking down devices and intentionally making it very difficult for any development, Samsung has really catered to this small community. Companies like Motorola go as far as sabotaging their products to prevent any type hacking, rooting etc.
Sure, Samsung's official software upgrades are slow but I give them a lot of credit for reaching out in ways such as offering some of our top developers free devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I totally agree.I would like Sammy to be more open, like Sony, but I understand they are a company and they have certain policies which will increase their profits...Since my tab has unlocked bootloader and I can flash anything I want I'm ok.
sent from my nokia 3210

Signed.... suggest you do also...
Sent from my Inspire 4G using XDA

signed........let us know how it goes

Signed. Glad to see this.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

Calling all htc one owners PLEASE READ

HTC has been releasing new kernel bases and have not bothered to release source. According to the GPL this is unacceptable. This is not only important to developers but to we the users as well. I know a lot of you love to use custom kernels and they have improved all of our phones. Let's band together send them an e-mail and remind them that the source should be released with new kernels. Letting them get away with this will only reward this type of behaviour.
http://www.htc.com/www/contact/email/ here is the link to the e-mail even if only a little bit of people send it it still says something thank you and lets make it happen!
Sent from my HTC One using xda premium

Sent from my Black HTC ONE

Response -
Sent from my Black HTC ONE

Technically, 4.2.2 is a leak, so until it's officially released, then they don't have to do anything, am I right?
Sent from my HTC One using xda premium

cdordon said:
Technically, 4.2.2 is a leak, so until it's officially released, then they don't have to do anything, am I right?
Sent from my HTC One using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correct but there has been like two base updates and still no kernel source so a little push wont hurt
Sent from my HTC One using xda premium

cdordon said:
Technically, 4.2.2 is a leak, so until it's officially released, then they don't have to do anything, am I right?
Sent from my HTC One using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Absolutely.

That response email just shows how ignorant of GPL HTC is. They have to supply source to anyone who submits a request in writing if I'm not mistaken.

Where did u see that rule?
Op is just a busybody who doesnt even know what to do with the source but screams for it lol.
This is what happens, when u fed too much they become too dependent on u. A tad bit late and they will start screaming.
Kinda reminds me of the horde.
Remember when the one first came out, then the source follows in a week? Thats called feeding too much.
When the horde realized that the source for 2.17 is slow, they start screaming.
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

I think the sources will be released when 4.2.2 is official carried out. The 4.1 sources were avaiable really quickly so I'm looking forward

HTC has gotten better than they used to be. If the op is looking for 2.17 source then lol.
---------- Post added at 07:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:09 AM ----------
gunnyman said:
That response email just shows how ignorant of GPL HTC is. They have to supply source to anyone who submits a request in writing if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just spent a little while reading the gpl and I'm wrong. Htcdev is complying properly.

As already stated, they haven't "released" 4.2.2 yet, so they are not required to release the source.
We see this every time they release an update. People start crying for the source. Give them time...it WILL appear, just not always straight away.

There's no such thing as propriety in the the current HTC One's linux kernel. All the codes in there are GPL licensed.
The camera fix + the back button sensitivity fix are all in a GPL licensed driver. And I quote.
The GPL states that anyone who modifies GPL licenced code is required to make available the sources used to compile it. This is to further improve and encourage collaborative work, as well as to ensure that the best code possible is produced, and to encourage peer-review of all work. This benefits both developers and end users in numerous ways, including:
Allowing anyone to verify the code they are trusting with their data, and its authenticity
Encouraging community collaboration to produce faster fixes and updates, and better code
Helping bring new developments from other devices and fields to your own, letting you benefit from new code that wouldn’t have been available without this sharing.
The GPL imparts great freedom for GPL end users. It ensures innovation is never stifled and no project is dependent upon any single developer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
alphamale99 said:
Response -
Sent from my Black HTC ONE
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
cdordon said:
Technically, 4.2.2 is a leak, so until it's officially released, then they don't have to do anything, am I right?
Sent from my HTC One using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
4.2.2 is leaked but 1.29.***.12, 1.29.***.13, 1.29.***.16, 1.29.***.16R are official releases with new kernel revisions and they should be obligued to release what they have modified on those revisions.
shiningarmor said:
Where did u see that rule?
Op is just a busybody who doesnt even know what to do with the source but screams for it lol.
This is what happens, when u fed too much they become too dependent on u. A tad bit late and they will start screaming.
Kinda reminds me of the horde.
Remember when the one first came out, then the source follows in a week? Thats called feeding too much.
When the horde realized that the source for 2.17 is slow, they start screaming.
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Read GPL for the rules. The OP might not have direct benefit over this but we developers have and end users in return benefit from us.

Is there a specific time limit mentioned in the GPL? I don't think they are obliged to provide it on the spot as soon as someone requests it.

the_scotsman said:
Is there a specific time limit mentioned in the GPL? I don't think they are obliged to provide it on the spot as soon as someone requests it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@the_scotsman
There is no specific time limit in the GPL license as you are suppose to be obligued to release the source code as soon as the binary is distributed to the public.
Link is here. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
Refer to #3
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Letter A should be the one applicable to HTC's kernel license. As
B - If you're selling the software
C - If the licensor limits the license.

Thanks for that. My next point is then, if HTC are violating GPL so badly as people seem to ALWAYS be claiming, why haven't they been contacted about it? The fact they haven't is good enough for me not to stress over it.

the_scotsman said:
Thanks for that. My next point is then, if HTC are violating GPL so badly as people seem to ALWAYS be claiming, why haven't they been contacted about it? The fact they haven't is good enough for me not to stress over it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@the_scotsman
They already have been contacted for numerous times. But once they receive a valid complaint they then comply to it and release the source code so the claimant then decides to discontinue the case.
Although if we really enforce this strictly when one company violates GPL he then get's blacklisted and is not allowed anymore to use any GPL licensed source code unless the company makes an appeal and no GPL licensor would oppose to the appeal.
Here's a good example
http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/2011-February/002645.html
even an official from google took action in there.

There's no time limit specified... I guess the spirit is at the same time as the binaries. I doubt this has been tested in court. Usually it's settled, or they're forced to release after the fact. The timing is unlikely to have been tested, but I'd love to be informed otherwise.

Done.
Sent from my HTC One using xda app-developers app

-IMPORTANT UPDATE!- Petition to LEECO for source code release, now in change!

If developers have source code, they will make 100% functional roms. I try sending multiple times emails to LeEco asking for this, but the server always give me spam reply. Because of that I've created a thread in LeEco forum.
Please help doing a coment and voting in the poll.
This is the link to the thread: http://forum.le.com/in/index.php?threads/source-code-for-lemax2.14951/
Regards.
IMPORTANT UPDATE! Now we have a petition in change.org to do the max press possible to the brand. And the signs are for ALL the devices with Qualcomm processors.
Here it is!: https://www.change.org/p/leeco-letv...ents_action_panel_wrapper&utm_medium=copylink

great specs but the development is not so good. if they only release the sources.

Someone mentioned that they are releasing sources in September.

sanke1 said:
Someone mentioned that they are releasing sources in September.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup, in the official forum, but who knows if is true or a fake...?

I read that they are selling these phones at less than cost as a loss leader to sell people their content services. If so, I very much doubt they are interested in supporting the dev community as that makes it easier for people to get rid of their apps and services from the devices.

We need to achieve that fast!!

Did you get source code from Le? Why don't you share for us?

Anyone has updates about the source code questions?
I didn't find any update on the change.org site.
BTW' we need more votes!!

I sign!
More people need to sign!!
does anyone confirm source code release soon???

i signed.

Signed.

I got response but still no plan for releasing...
https://twitter.com/LeEcoGlobal/status/782992367280422913

I have not (yet) bought the phone b/c there will be no proper development in the absence of a source code release. I will probably go for the Axon 7 although I would like to have a bigger screen. (I will also not buy the Le Pro 3 although it is an interesting phone. Developer-unfriendly phone companies like LeEco are an absolute no-go for me. So sad ... )

Signed

Every tweet they post about their USA launch should get a comment about how their crappy source code policy is...

I doubt they will release the source code

Do not purchase le Max2. Most of the phones have finger print sensor issues.
Sent from my HTC Desire 820 dual sim using XDA-Developers mobile app

mikeysteele said:
Every tweet they post about their USA launch should get a comment about how their crappy source code policy is...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup, do it guys. I will put it in my petition, that people send tweets with that.

Do you have new news about letv's codes? Why didn't share with us about it?

Maybe the US launch change something I really like the phone my fingerprint has no issue except some times unresponsive but I only had it for a month LOL so fingers crossed
Maybe they'll release the source code and the worth of this phone will double