Hello,
First I would like thank all developers for the wonderful work. It makes the HC tablets very valuable.
I read this forum now for several weeks but the current discussions between the developers about closed source and GPL compliant kernels really confuses me.
Could anyone explain me the current issue?
Currently I understand the issue in this way, please correct me for false statements.
- Thor provides a custom kernel as binaries only.
- The kernel is based on the Android Kernel licensed under GPL
- The source code cannot be downloaded on his website or here in the forum.
My questions are:
- Does the Thor kernel have altered source code lines and functions?
- Is the source code of the Thor kernel accessable by any repository like Git?
- Is the source code of the Thor kernel provided directly after requesting it from the developer?
- How can I obtain the source code I would like to check it?
I would appreciate some facts because currently I am not sure if I could use this kernel for my Iconia or not.
Regards from Germany
Lontro
Lontro said:
My questions are:
- Does the Thor kernel have altered source code lines and functions?
Yes
- Is the source code of the Thor kernel accessable by and repository like Git?
No
- Is the source code of the Thor kernel provided directly after requesting it from the developer?
Potentially. He has said no to others, but it can't hurt to ask.
- How can I obtain the source code I would like to check it?
At present you cannot.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hope that helps
Thank you,
If your answers define the reality than the kernel contravenes arcticle 2b and 3b.
Article 4 would revoke this kernel all licenses. I can´t believe that the developer would risk this.
Several myths have grown up around the GPL v2. Firstly, many people believe that modifying GPL v2-licensed software means that you are obliged to release your modified version to the world. This is not true. The GPL v2 simply states what you must do if you choose to release the modified code. You are at liberty to modify the GPL v2-licensed software in any way you like and keep your modifications for your own private use.
It is also commonly believed that GPL v2-licensed software cannot be bundled with non-GPL v2 software in a collection of software(ex. ROMs with GPL v2 kernels), or that if it is, then all the software must be relicensed under the GPL v2. Again, this is false. Section 2 of the GPL v2 states that such mere aggregations are not governed as a whole by the conditions of the licence.
Finally, it is very common to hear that the GPL v2 (and other general licences) are not binding on the licensee because there is not explicit agreement between the licensee and the licensor. This results from a misunderstanding of the way that such general licensing is intended to function. Section 5 of the GPL v2 expands upon this subject. The copyright of the material distributed under the GPL v2 belongs to the licensor. A potential licensee may not copy, adapt or distribute this material without some kind of licence from the owner. The GPL v2 supplies a route for a potential licensee to legally copy, adapt or distribute the material, provided that they abide by its conditions. Anyone who broke the conditions of the licence and then argued that they had not agreed to them, or that they were unaware of them, would also be arguing that they had no knowledge of a licence that permitted them to use the material in the first place.
I understand that you can modify GPL code without providing it to the public if you use the code for personal reasons.
But if you provide the program in the public you must provide the source code also. Public could be customers only then you must provide it to them but not to the whole world. The Thor kernel is a provided free and in this moment you must provide the source code also. It does not have to be a public access but then the binary download should not be public also.
Novell does not provide their kernel sources to the public of the Enterprise Sles like Redhat does but they provide the source for every licensed customer.
So why should the Thor kernel sources not be provided
Lontro said:
So why should the Thor kernel sources not be provided
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With respect, there's not a lot of point having this discussion. Thor has been asked many times to release source and has declined. I'm pretty sure we all (including him) know it's illegal, but there isn't really anything that we can do about it.
EDIT: Aside from just not using his kernel, and recommending that others don't either until he makes it compliant.
I think Acer and Google are interested in this issue
In this case the kernel were talking about can be discussed like this:
The licensor is the company who produced the original code distributed under GPLv2 and the licensee is Acer(that posted the source code that was incomplete and buggy) not other developers. That's why all the software that are on this site and others are distributed with disclaimer "we are not responsible for bricking/damaging your device..."
PS: You are not the first nor the last that asks how forums/communities like samdroid... that have software that comes from open source and no source codes.
Code that is added by developer is their property and they decide how its distributed.
themono said:
With respect, there's not a lot of point having this discussion. Thor has been asked many times to release source and has declined. I'm pretty sure we all (including him) know it's illegal, but there isn't really anything that we can do about it.
EDIT: Aside from just not using his kernel, and recommending that others don't either until he makes it compliant.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To OP welcome to XDA looks like this is your first post
Has anyone brought this to the attention of GNU? Attached is the URL of their guidlines for reporting. I don't use this ROM so I can't speak to any of these claims.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
I loathe anyone who abuses the GPL and if he is indeed doing so would like to see him made to comply or punished as much as possible. Another solution would be for XDA to remove his ROM(they don't allow pirated apps afaik, so GPL violations should fall in with that).
muqali said:
Has anyone brought this to the attention of GNU? Attached is the URL of their guidlines for reporting. I don't use this ROM so I can't speak to any of these claims.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
I loathe anyone who abuses the GPL and if he is indeed doing so would like to see him made to comply or punished as much as possible. Another solution would be for XDA to remove his ROM(they don't allow pirated apps afaik, so GPL violations should fall in with that).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The thread about the said kernel was closed by moderator and Thor removed the link of the website from his signature. So basically its out of XDA's hand since the said kernel is not distributed from this site. It's up to the users if they want to use it or not.
I'm not sure where the confusion lies -- a kernel without source is a violation of the GPLv2.
When you are given the source to a kernel, and you distribute a binary form of it, you are required to pass the modifications along.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Terms_and_conditions
The fourth section for version 2 of the license and the seventh section of version 3 require that programs distributed as pre-compiled binaries are accompanied by a copy of the source code, a written offer to distribute the source code via the same mechanism as the pre-compiled binary, or the written offer to obtain the source code that you got when you received the pre-compiled binary under the GPL. The second section of version 2 and the fifth section of version 3 also require giving "all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program". Version 3 of the license allows making the source code available in additional ways in fulfillment of the seventh section. These include downloading source code from an adjacent network server or by peer-to-peer transmission, provided that is how the compiled code was available and there are "clear directions" on where to find the source code.
Full document here:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
Even Acer is required to post kernel source:
http://support.acer.com/us/en/product/default.aspx?tab=1&modelId=3851
Not posting source is a violation of the GPL and is stealing other's work. No two ways about it.
I can't think of any good reason not to distribute the source to a kernel that you added a few patches to. /sigh
Micoman said:
The thread about the said kernel was closed by moderator and Thor removed the link of the website from his signature. So basically its out of XDA's hand since the said kernel is not distributed from this site. It's up to the users if they want to use it or not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unless an organization or kernel developer decides to drop a cease & desist on said author, gpl-violations.org gets involved and/or Acer's legal team decides to get ugly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#The_GPL_in_court
http://gpl-violations.org/
Lontro said:
My questions are:
- Does the Thor kernel have altered source code lines and functions?
- Is the source code of the Thor kernel accessable by any repository like Git?
- Is the source code of the Thor kernel provided directly after requesting it from the developer?
- How can I obtain the source code I would like to check it?
I would appreciate some facts because currently I am not sure if I could use this kernel for my Iconia or not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1. The Thor kernel contains altered source code lines and functions.
2. The source code of the Thor kernel is NOT accessible in any way.
3. As far as I am aware, the source code of the Thor kernel is NOT provided directly after requesting it from the developer.
4. You can NOT obtain the source code.
It will function if installed on an appropriate Acer A500 operating system, but there is no way to know what modifications have been made to it.
See links in my previous posts for more information on how this is a violation of the GPL.
This is the reason why linking to it from these forums is not permitted.
More here:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1159293
jm77 said:
1. The Thor kernel contains altered source code lines and functions.
2. The source code of the Thor kernel is NOT accessible in any way.
3. As far as I am aware, the source code of the Thor kernel is NOT provided directly after requesting it from the developer.
4. You can NOT obtain the source code.
It will function if installed on an appropriate Acer A500 operating system, but there is no way to know what modifications have been made to it.
See links in my previous posts for more information on how this is a violation of the GPL.
This is the reason why linking to it from these forums is not permitted.
More here:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1159293
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not sure what's going on in Thor's head, nor why he refuses to comply.
He will be missed though, as he's one of the best DEVs we had for the Iconia
kjy2010 said:
Not sure what's going on in Thor's head, nor why he refuses to comply.
He will be missed though, as he's one of the best DEVs we had for the Iconia
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If he cared in the slightest, he'd release his code; unless it's doing something it shouldn't.
Now I know enough not to use the Kernel at all.
I did not want to bother this forum with my discussion. Thanx alot.
i know that thor's kernel is krippeld anyhow, there are basic functions in the acer kernel which he has removed, especially the data encryption necessary to make exchange (enterprise) push work with the a500, it will not work without that.
it might be due to the usage of ramdisk, but i am not sure about that.
anyhow as long as he does not implement every function of the original kernel, i will not use his, with or without the availability of the source.
there is a kernel from richardtrip in this forum which works very well has o/c and some other features and has a full implementation of all the original acer functions.
so i really have no need of using thor's kernel, even if he is the best developper in the world.
have fun everybody.
kjy2010 said:
Not sure what's going on in Thor's head, nor why he refuses to comply.
He will be missed though, as he's one of the best DEVs we had for the Iconia
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He's been saying that m-deejay (the virtuous roms chef) is a thief and liar, hence no (more) source for anyone. this presumably means that he's shared the source before, but not anymore.
edgie168 said:
He's been saying that m-deejay (the virtuous roms chef) is a thief and liar, hence no (more) source for anyone. this presumably means that he's shared the source before, but not anymore.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wtf? im thief & liar?
haha
I do not need nothing from his ****ty "source"
Related
why cm7 source are missing.
@genokolar, is there a problem?
reminding: gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
i noticed now. there is no rom with source code! oxygen, miui or cm7. how we can trust these ROMs?
Nobody forces anyone to use any custom ROM, if the ROMS have problems or don't behave as they should, someone would find out (and people post comments every day in the dev section), our devices can be equipped with firewalls, loggers etc so that we can check what happens/happened to our phones during the day.
Oxygen source is available, check the post in dzos thread
cm7 source is in their website, Geno just made port. you can get u8800 device and vendor from other source that are in geno git. if i found - you can too it just very complicated
thanks for all replies.
priestx said:
Nobody forces anyone to use any custom ROM, if the ROMS have problems or don't behave as they should, someone would find out (and people post comments every day in the dev section), our devices can be equipped with firewalls, loggers etc so that we can check what happens/happened to our phones during the day.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i now no body force us, but what i want is a situation that should be already.
Tommixoft said:
cm7 source is in their website, Geno just made port. you can get u8800 device and vendor from other source that are in geno git. if i found - you can too it just very complicated
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
good news. but u8800-cm7 not an "official" cm7 port, it should has differences.
Android isn't GPL, it's Apache Software License 2.0. You don't have to make the code available for others and you are allowed to use code but not publish the changes.
So as nice as it would be for Genokolar to share the code, he doesn't have to.
at the end he must hear me.
you are did the right thing.
"knowledge grows by sharing"
thanks Genokolar.
Hi,
I 've look around for 2.6.35 kernel for GT540 and I saw several sources trees on github from several authors :
* lynxr :
- LG-GT540-2.6.35 Forked from Mur4ik/LG-GT540-2.6.35
- 2.6.35 Forked from franciscofranco/2.6.35
- ThunderG-Kernel Forked from Mur4ik/ThunderG-Kernel
- android_kernel_swift-35 Forked from wingrime/android_kernel_swift
- android_kernel_swift Forked from OpenSwift/android_kernel_swift
* pcfighter :
- 2.6.35 Forked from mikegapinski/2.6.35
- android_kernel_swift Forked from wingrime/android_kernel_swift
* wingrime :
- android_kernel_swift 2.6.35 linux kernel for GT540 Swift (Optimus)
- android_kernel_swift_lg Forked from OpenSwift/android_kernel_swift (I'm not sure that it's .35)
* Mur4ik :
- LG-GT540-2.6.35 Forked from franciscofranco/LG-P500-2.6.35-re-write
- ThunderG-Kernel Forked from mik9/ThunderG-Kernel
So, my query is which kernel do you recommends to have best support of GT540 hardawre ?
--
Jim
.35 my mikegapinski is fully working. 2.3.7 AOSP v6 should come out with that kernel but stilll not there, (ICS is using that kernel )
.35 my miroslav_mm has no overclock
.35 by wingrime seems to be nearly(?) finished
andreas__ said:
.35 my mikegapinski is fully working. 2.3.7 AOSP v6 should come out with that kernel but stilll not there, (ICS is using that kernel )
.35 my miroslav_mm has no overclock
.35 by wingrime seems to be nearly(?) finished
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For as far as i know: mike put a license on his work, so if you want to make your rom public, you can't use mike's kernel. Altough i think it would be fair if mike remove that license, 'cause there are almost no dev's anymore, and a for starting dev's is a working kernel halve of the work
Sent from my GT540 using Tapatalk
jasper580 said:
For as far as i know: mike put a license on his work, so if you want to make your rom public, you can't use mike's kernel. Altough i think it would be fair if mike remove that license, 'cause there are almost no dev's anymore, and a for starting dev's is a working kernel halve of the work
Sent from my GT540 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I haven't followed this license issue very closely but as far as I know, since Linux kernel is licensed under GPL then every derivative work must also be covered by GPL (that's why GPL is called viral). And GPL explicitly forbids anyone forbidding to make derivatives and publishing them. So if Mike makes claims contrary to the GNU license, it voids the license on which HE based his works.
Thus it would be fair if Mike removed that license because it has no effect anyway and it's harmful in long run. And is illegal.
I'm talking about the kernel only, not the whole system (ROM).
hmskrecik said:
I haven't followed this license issue very closely but as far as I know, since Linux kernel is licensed under GPL then every derivative work must also be covered by GPL (that's why GPL is called viral). And GPL explicitly forbids anyone forbidding to make derivatives and publishing them. So if Mike makes claims contrary to the GNU license, it voids the license on which HE based his works.
Thus it would be fair if Mike removed that license because it has no effect anyway and it's harmful in long run. And is illegal.
I'm talking about the kernel only, not the whole system (ROM).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So if I understand you right: he can't forbid to use his kernel, but on things like the extra stuff for ICS he can put a license, right? But jimpulse only needs the kernel for debian. So: which one will you use?
Sent from my GT540 using Tapatalk
jasper580 said:
So if I understand you right: he can't forbid to use his kernel, but on things like the extra stuff for ICS he can put a license, right? But jimpulse only needs the kernel for debian. So: which one will you use?
Sent from my GT540 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure if I'm right. That's just my understanding of GPL. And regarding the rest of the ICS it all depends on the licence it's covered by, as a whole or every redistributed part of.
About which kernel to use, if no other considerations apply, I'd use the one which is actively maintained, and from those I'd choose the most recent one.
hmskrecik said:
I'm not sure if I'm right. That's just my understanding of GPL. And regarding the rest of the ICS it all depends on the licence it's covered by, as a whole or every redistributed part of.
About which kernel to use, if no other considerations apply, I'd use the one which is actively maintained, and from those I'd choose the most recent one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll check it: i'm going to build my own ROM
Sent from my GT540 using Tapatalk
Closed due to stupid forum rules
Anyone Flash yet???
Why should we donate to you? What's your part in this ROM? However protekk yet posted his ROM here, but as he did use Thor's kernel it was removed! I'll check the github link to see if everything is correct now.
smaury said:
Why should we donate to you? What's your part in this ROM? However protekk yet posted his ROM here, but as he did use Thor's kernel it was removed! I'll check the github link to see if everything is correct now,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
its just my sig chill look at the top it says where i got this, however it took me 3 hour to get this post up and all the screenshots
BTW this does work cuz im running as i type
i put a footer on now, could you now remove your post, thank you
On github I can't find any source for A500 kernel, please give us a direct link.
Only found device related folder and vendor folder with related configurations and if i'm not wrong they are took from waydownsouth and his team's sources.
Edited
WHY DONT U LIKE IT???
jnktechstuff said:
its just my sig chill look at the top it says where i got this, however it took me 3 hour to get this post up and all the screenshots
BTW this does work cuz im running as i type
i put a footer on now, could you now remove your post, thank you
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What Smaury was trying to explain to you, is that the AOKP type roms, use kernels that violate GPL. And roms that use kernels violating such license, are prohibited from being posted at XDA, or having direct links to such roms.
If you would read the rules about posting, you would have seen this.
Considering most A500 AOKP roms use Thor's kernel, and his kernel violates GPL, roms cntaining Thor's kernel, or links to it, cannot be posted. Period.
This is why these guys have their own place.
You should remove your post.
MD
haha dang i spent so much time on it, but i dont get it, how does this violate GPL, i used the rom from flexreaper not thor, also i credited people
It's not the rom, but the kernel.
In a short story, GPL basically states that changes to the android kernel must be made public. If a dev does not reveal the kernel source, then the kernel is in violation of GPL. Most decent sites will not host these types, as they do not want legal liability.
Thor is a great dev. Unfortunately he doesn't release kernel source, which is why he has his own site. It's a pity as he really does great stuff.
Kang roms, generally steal code and device trees from other devs, without giving credit to where they took it, and generally claim it as their own. As stated before, most of the kang roms use Thor's kernel therefore are not allowed to be posted. By nature of their practices, they generally are not welcome in a lot of places.
The rules are not stupid. They are in place to protect the devs and the users alike.
MD
Thanks haha I got u now
I will try not to do this again, just trying to learn a become a good developer
So everybody knows, I have taken over as one of the Moderators for this forum.
Feel free to PM for questions,
Hit the report button if it's something you think I should take a look at.
Pax
EDIT FROM Moscow Desire,
Pax is now retired from FSM Duties. :crying:
MD
paxChristos said:
So everybody knows, I have taken over as one of the Moderators for this forum.
Feel free to PM for questions,
Hit the report button if it's something you think I should take a look at.
Pax
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Welcome great job thanks for being a mod;-)
Welcome~!
welcome
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1711137
can u look at this thread and see if the thors kernel was ever present if it was fine if not can we get the thread reopened AOKP would be another good option for roms for the tablet.
Timelord83 said:
welcome
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1711137
can u look at this thread and see if the thors kernel was ever present if it was fine if not can we get the thread reopened AOKP would be another good option for roms for the tablet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why not just go get it from rootzwiki if you want it so bad?
bfranklin1986 said:
Why not just go get it from rootzwiki if you want it so bad?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll stick to XDA. Not everyone on here has social skills to participate in forum discussions but i find that this site has much more information and the groups of people are more eager to help troubleshoot. by unlocking the thread if its not thors kernel it opens it up to ALL of xda to help.
Timelord83 said:
I'll stick to XDA. Not everyone on here has social skills to participate in forum discussions but i find that this site has much more information and the groups of people are more eager to help troubleshoot. by unlocking the thread if its not thors kernel it opens it up to ALL of xda to help.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure how many actually remember the events relating to this earlier this year... But it was a mess.
Thor decided to start developing a ICS rom providing (presumably under apache2) the device/vender tree to the build. Just two little tidbits were, how to say, off with his approach.
a) The device tree included his kernel still without the source code (so now we have some apache2 code.. nice but not required, and its poisoned with a closed source kernel)
b) he provided links to the github repo (now deleted and/or hidden) on XDA via adfly.
After this was reported, XDA closed the thread, Thor took down the git repo and tried to pan this off to his greater followers (probably successfully) as XDA not even allowing him in when him to work here even when his code is "open".
--
While the source was open blazingwolf, ProTekk, randomblame (and some others?) managed to get the repo and clone it (or parts of it) into their own projects.. Mostly with little or no credit, and not always properly removing all traces of Thors kernel (either the main kernel was replaced with blazingwolfs open kernel, but a second copy of Thors kernel in the repo was left, or they just used thors kernel as it existed in the device tree).
In addition to this there was a recovery that used blazingwolf's kernel but otherwise was a nearly unmodified thor recovery binary (simply a hex edit to change the title, and thus hide the upstream source)
--
AOKP is now using the CM9 base for the device and vender trees, so everything including the CM9 T20 kernel is open source. However I its up to the AOKP team to re-post here at this point and not someone just wanting a mirror with their own unrelated donate link.
Some locked threads to remember in relationship to this:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1353252 - ProTekk bit of ICS locked
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1426617 - randomblame recovery - locked
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1524919 - original A500 AOPK thread - locked
Just to clear this up, roms are under Apache v2 license (which doesn't require source release) kernels are under GPL which does require source release.
Sent from my R800x using Tapatalk 2
ezterry said:
I'm not sure how many actually remember the events relating to this earlier this year... But it was a mess.
Thor decided to start developing a ICS rom providing (presumably under apache2) the device/vender tree to the build. Just two little tidbits were, how to say, off with his approach.
a) The device tree included his kernel still without the source code (so now we have some apache2 code.. nice but not required, and its poisoned with a closed source kernel)
b) he provided links to the github repo (now deleted and/or hidden) on XDA via adfly.
After this was reported, XDA closed the thread, Thor took down the git repo and tried to pan this off to his greater followers (probably successfully) as XDA not even allowing him in when him to work here even when his code is "open".
--
While the source was open blazingwolf, ProTekk, randomblame (and some others?) managed to get the repo and clone it (or parts of it) into their own projects.. Mostly with little or no credit, and not always properly removing all traces of Thors kernel (either the main kernel was replaced with blazingwolfs open kernel, but a second copy of Thors kernel in the repo was left, or they just used thors kernel as it existed in the device tree).
In addition to this there was a recovery that used blazingwolf's kernel but otherwise was a nearly unmodified thor recovery binary (simply a hex edit to change the title, and thus hide the upstream source)
--
AOKP is now using the CM9 base for the device and vender trees, so everything including the CM9 T20 kernel is open source. However I its up to the AOKP team to re-post here at this point and not someone just wanting a mirror with their own unrelated donate link.
Some locked threads to remember in relationship to this:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1353252 - ProTekk bit of ICS locked
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1426617 - randomblame recovery - locked
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1524919 - original A500 AOPK thread - locked
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
sadly i do but the thread i linked is albeit messy with side stuff i made the assumption it was mod locked. after talking with the other people i have foudn out that the OP requested it be locked. i went and got the rom from AOKP website and as far as i can tell is Thor free and i run clockwork recovery and V8 ICS bootloader.
As for the motives for my request is i'd like to see more roms succeed for this tablet as it is "old" tech people are moving to the tegra 3 Tabs i am not ready to give up on my $567.87 less than year old purchase. I own the A501 ATT 4G LTE Variant i bought it from ATT without contract hence the price
Uhm... Hi paxChristos! Welcome to our slightly disfunctional family! I hope that you have a great time.:silly:
Timelord83 said:
As for the motives for my request is i'd like to see more roms succeed for this tablet as it is "old" tech people are moving to the tegra 3 Tabs i am not ready to give up on my $567.87 less than year old purchase. I own the A501 ATT 4G LTE Variant i bought it from ATT without contract hence the price
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As do we all (want larger choices in roms).
But there-in lies the issue. We have an AOKP rom that has been through many hands, and at times, had some suspicious coding involved. Including getting closed on more than 1 occassion due to shady practices and non-GPL kernels. Might have been 3 seperate roms for all we know.
To post the rom now, would probably piss off quite a few people if enough credits were not given, even if the kernel proved to be legit. And even then, you would have several people claiming the rom was theirs and they were the original authors. That's the nature of these "KANG" roms and "MIUI" roms.
Well, we have polluted PaxChristo's welcome thread enough for now. I suggest we give it a rest, and probably open a new thread in the General Forum. I'll DL and install it, and see what's up with it. Post some results later.
MD
good job
paxChristos said:
So everybody knows, I have taken over as one of the Moderators for this forum.
Feel free to PM for questions,
Hit the report button if it's something you think I should take a look at.
Pax
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
t my a500wondering where to post question about how to root my tab. Sadly it is running 3.2 honey and I am very confused as what to do to get it rooted. I am in southern Louisiana, maybe there are folks close to me that could help.
Thanks everyone don
Hey thanks for being a mod' it is a lot of work I know. Listen I am knew as I just go
Hello from Moscow, Russia. I can't write in Firmware section, so I write here.
I'm and my teammate(Dblm) ported 3.10.33 kernel from Nvidia Shield. TWRP works fine with this kernel. But android don't work cuz our graphical blobs are very very old. So may be somebody can find necessary blobs and run android.
zImage: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2...nhPdlJkWkdYQjg
TWRP recovery with this kernel: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2...FhQTHJIa2xVems
reserved
Artemka2008 said:
Hello from Moscow, Russia. I can't write in Firmware section, so I write here.
I'm and my teammate(Dblm) ported 3.10.33 kernel from Nvidia Shield. TWRP works fine with this kernel. But android don't work cuz our graphical blobs are very very old. So may be somebody can find necessary blobs and run android.
zImage: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2ALf4H-2aBrZnhPdlJkWkdYQjg
TWRP recovery with this kernel: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2ALf4H-2aBrZFhQTHJIa2xVems
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks a lot for posting this. It would be more helpful if you could post your source code for the port and the source (the original shield kernel).
drakonizer said:
Thanks a lot for posting this. It would be more helpful if you could post your source code for the port and the source (the original shield kernel).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
At the moment my teammate does not want to publish the source code.
CPU fixed in this build(all 4 cores work)
Artemka2008 said:
At the moment my teammate does not want to publish the source code.
CPU fixed in this build(all 4 cores work)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I really appreciate your work. Don't get me wrong. But Linux is licensed under GPL. The law requires you to open source your work, and so does XDA. This is why we didn't have a Mi Pad forum till now. To avoid problems and to prevent XDA from banning you or closing this thread, I suggest you either publish your source or remove the link.
None of the devs can help you if you don't release the source code. Please co operate with the open source community.
Thanks for understanding.
drakonizer said:
I really appreciate your work. Don't get me wrong. But Linux is licensed under GPL. The law requires you to open source your work, and so does XDA. This is why we didn't have a Mi Pad forum till now. To avoid problems and to prevent XDA from banning you or closing this thread, I suggest you either publish your source or remove the link.
None of the devs can help you if you don't release the source code. Please co operate with the open source community.
Thanks for understanding.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ok, I will delete this thread.
Artemka2008 said:
ok, I will delete this thread.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You don't have to delete the thread. It can be used for discussions. You can upload your kernel whenever you feel its appropriate to release your source code.
On a more helpful note: I can't say much without seeing the source code, but if you have ported the kernel drivers as well from shield, you can try using the blobs from Shield itself. You'll probably need to use blobs that match the version of the kernel you are trying to port.
so does that mean that there is a chance for cm12+?
Jahhhhhhh said:
so does that mean that there is a chance for cm12+?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Without camera and sound now. I tried to run Android 5.1.1 with our kernel. But I can't find working graphical blobs. I need help with it.
This is my last logcat https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2ALf4H-2aBrX3dCRkthR21wM1U
This is going nowhere until you share the source code with the community as per GPL. How long does your teammate want to drag the process? Release the source code today and start getting feedback from other devs - what's the hold up?
Palm Trees said:
This is going nowhere until you share the source code with the community as per GPL. How long does your teammate want to drag the process? Release the source code today and start getting feedback from other devs - what's the hold up?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
God, the source code will not help here. You just need to pick up the blobs to run android. With the kernel of today there are no problems.
Artemka2008 said:
God, the source code will not help here. You just need to pick up the blobs to run android. With the kernel of today there are no problems.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Blobs are heavily linked to the kernel drivers. Without even knowing what kernel you have used as a source for the port (the one for Shield), how can we randomly test blobs and somehow magically fix this? I really don't want to piss you guys off, but the reason why you can do the work you do is because the Linux kernel is open source. And it's stayed that way because people have followed the GPL (with only a few exceptions like Xiaomi). I do not understand why you don't want to release the source code. Nobody is trying or will try to steal your work and claim credits. In the end we all want the same thing - stable Android 5/6/7 on the Mi Pad. Let other people help too.
drakonizer said:
Blobs are heavily linked to the kernel drivers. Without even knowing what kernel you have used as a source for the port (the one for Shield), how can we randomly test blobs and somehow magically fix this? I really don't want to piss you guys off, but the reason why you can do the work you do is because the Linux kernel is open source. And it's stayed that way because people have followed the GPL (with only a few exceptions like Xiaomi). I do not understand why you don't want to release the source code. Nobody is trying or will try to steal your work and claim credits. In the end we all want the same thing - stable Android 5/6/7 on the Mi Pad. Let other people help too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's my point exactly. Have you tried asking in the Nvidia Shield xda thread: http://forum.xda-developers.com/shield-tablet/development. There's plenty of development going on, you might be able to get some tips and tricks.
Palm Trees said:
That's my point exactly. Have you tried asking in the Nvidia Shield xda thread: http://forum.xda-developers.com/shield-tablet/development. There's plenty of development going on, you might be able to get some tips and tricks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not the point. The shield developers will not be able to help us. Things will become very easy if this shield kernel port works. We will probably be able to use the newer blobs meant for the Shield, which makes development very easy, if this becomes bootable/stable. I really hope the OP manages to get it working. We either need newer blobs from Xiaomi or we need to write wrappers to use the current kitkat blobs (not easy, since Nvidia documentation is nowhere near as detailed as say, Qualcomm) or we need to get this port working well, which would enable us to use most of the blobs from the Shield (provided Xiaomi hasn't gone out of their way to screw with their blobs). The first two ways are practically impossible, which leads me to rest all my hope on this port. Unfortunately without the source code, we will just have to be silent spectators, waiting for some news.
Here's my effort for asking sheild developer- http://forum.xda-developers.com/shield-tablet/help/help-support-xiaomi-mipad-custom-rom-t3512695
I also posted a xiaomi forum link where Sheild Lollipop kernel is accessible for developers. It's available in Xiaomi forum.
Here's the link - http://en.miui.com/thread-439620-1-1.html
I have just shared the information available. Not taking any credit away from developer from 4pda.ru.
Thanks
rocky869 said:
Here's my effort for asking sheild developer- http://forum.xda-developers.com/shield-tablet/help/help-support-xiaomi-mipad-custom-rom-t3512695
I also posted a xiaomi forum link where Sheild Lollipop kernel is accessible for developers. It's available in Xiaomi forum.
Here's the link - http://en.miui.com/thread-439620-1-1.html
I have just shared the information available. Not taking any credit away from developer from 4pda.ru.
Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I asked LuckyMeAgain to publish on the official website, so it's the same thing. I am ArtemkaVZM on 4pda and arttt on en.miui.com MiuiSmokeRom dev team.
Presumably the easiest way is to go through TheMuppets repo and testing them at different points in time by checking commit history.
https://github.com/TheMuppets/proprietary_vendor_nvidia
Harrynowl said:
Presumably the easiest way is to go through TheMuppets repo and testing them at different points in time by checking commit history.
https://github.com/TheMuppets/proprietary_vendor_nvidia
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think that we have to make a new build. Current builds are useless for us now. I mean available android 5 roms.
This is my last logcat with 5.1.1 Vartom's SlimRom: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2ALf4H-2aBrX3dCRkthR21wM1U
Artemka2008 said:
I think that we have to make a new build. Current builds are useless for us now. I mean available android 5 roms.
This is my last logcat with 5.1.1 Vartom's SlimRom: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2ALf4H-2aBrX3dCRkthR21wM1U
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
looks like hwcomposer is the broken blob. Have you tried using the hwcomposer.tegra.so from a Sheild ROM to boot it?
drakonizer said:
looks like hwcomposer is the broken blob. Have you tried using the hwcomposer.tegra.so from a Sheild ROM to boot it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All the necessary blobs were taken from Shield. More no such files, which could be replaced.