Related
[Mods: I felt that this thread is most appropriate in this section as it pertains specifically to Android development. If you feel this is not the case and should be moved, please do so.]
As many of us know, Eugene and TeamWhiskey both released completely working Froyo ROMs today, and they were able to do so with leaked code that both were asked not to divulge. There's been some infighting between developers, and the use of the leaked code is the major point of contention.
What interests me is how developers have been respecting the GPL. As a major free/open source supporter, the fact that how this license permits developers and users alike to use any source code has not been respected scares me. I certainly don't want to see development of our phones fall by the wayside because some developers have access to code that others don't, when that code [or at least, the source code of developed ROMs that use leaked code] is legally required to be released to the public. (source, and examples of the GPL's standing in an American court of law)
Based on the current events and major milestones in Android development, I'm interested to see if anyone else agrees with me. (Or perhaps I'm wrong entirely - but there's a sticky on the top of this forum reminding developers about abiding by the GPL, so I assume that any ROM or kernel we've seen is GPL-derived.) I realize that some aspects of the Samsung version of Android in particular is under a proprietary license (TouchWiz, RFS), and this little point gets touchy. But Android itself and kernels for Android are GPL - so shouldn't any source code used by any Android project be released?
honestly? I'm concerned about the GPL implications too but I'm 100% sure that I don't have enough information to try to form an opinion about what's right or wrong in this scenario. I'm sure there is a lot going on in the background the average user such as myself doesn't know of what's going on here. edit: trying to speculate here is just too hard to guess, and would invoke both drama and the answers are not backed by anyone.
If you're not sure, ask the FSF.
Eugene and Sombionix need to take up their issues privately (and have since), and that was their only mistake. The rest of the scenario is simply not appropriate to come up publicly.
Although, I agree with the fact that the GPL has to be followed, the GPL only applies to source code. From what I gather, neither of these parties have any source code. They are both in the possession of a leak ROM. The word source here is used to mean the ROM from which the files came from.
When it comes to leaks, files in leaks CAN be traced back to the leak in some cases which is why many times, leaks cannot and will not be shared.
On the other hand, if they have the source code and it has been modified, then they must abide by the GPL.
One thing to consider here is that to the best of my knowledge, nobody other than Samsung at this point has the source to the SGS FroYo builds. What I mean by that is; everything that went on regarding the leak, is based off of binary files taken from a working phone. No source code involved. Google has released the code to 2.2, which satisfies the GPL licensing; with which Samsung has added proprietary software on top of for use with their phones, but because what they have added is NOT GPL'd, are not obligated to provide the source for.
I might be mistaken here, but assuming Samsung didn't change any of the existing AOSP code, and only added their proprietary software on top, then the 'must provide source code' clause is in fact being satisfied by Google. All Samsung needs to do to cover their behinds is provide a link to Google's Android development pages.
if it was GPLv3 we wouldn't have this problem, but a lot of companies are unwilling to jump to GPLv3 instead of GPLv2.
To clarify the position XDA takes on GPL code (having worked on the GPL policy you see at the top of every forum), it is required to release kernel sources if you have access to them.
It seems likely that no source code was available here, and the use of leaks in ROMs has been standard practice for a long time on XDA, and on other sites. There's no issue with this, and it is a signal of trust from the leaker to the developer that the source file will not be made available. Thus you are unlikely to get access to such leaks as a user, though you can enjoy the fruits of them after established developers with contacts have got access to them.
If it were insisted that sources be provided for EVERYTHING, then releases like this would be in breach of the XDA GPL code, and thus would stifle development. Samsung has not provided them with the sources (as I understand), so they have no obligations as far as I can identify, beyond passing on any standard notices placed in the ROM by Samsung, offering source code.
If a custom kernel was compiled to use the ROM, then its sources would be required under the GPL. The actual ROM itself is not GPL'd as such, and treating it as such would be detrimental to users on XDA.
If GPL sources have been used, then they must be posted per the GPL. Otherwise, there are no further obligations per the XDA rules. This does not appear to be the case here.
Just to back up this point, I worked on and released some ROMs, and never touched a line of source code personally. It's possible to do a surprising amount to ROMs without actually editing sources (often they're not available either when working on HTC devices...). It's only within the last month or two that I've actually looked at source code properly with intent on making changes.
Finally, I'll move this into general with a redirect for just now, as it's not directly related to a ROM, though is "on topic".
Ah - so the leaked code used to finish both Eugene's and Team Whiskey's was not code, but binaries (i.e., a leaked ROM?) This makes a lot more sense to me. Thanks for clarification.
I suppose this point becomes moot when froyo finally drops officially, but it's still important.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Well said Pulser_g2
Pulser.......Well said. The important thing people need to remember is not to "create" drama where it is not. The Dev's do work in concert and do produce amazing results contrary to the public chatter.
It is a blessing that there are so many good developers working on the Vibrant vs, say ...(you insert phone of choice). ......now off to flash............
As I mentioned in one of the Froyo threads, I feel like the GPL doesn't really apply in the case of leaked ROMs, since 1) nobody has the source anyway and 2) they're chock full of closed source Samsung bits. The leaked ROMS, and any ROM derived from it in some way, is already questionable to redistribute since Samsung hasn't granted permission to do so.
On the other hand, I do wish people would release source to any modifications of the Linux kernel and any other GPL software that's acquired through legitimate channels. I can understand that the source might be released slightly later than the binary, but most kernels at this point haven't had any source accompany them, ever. This really isn't in the spirit of the GPL, and as a long time Linux user it came as a surprise to me that this is the way things seem to work here.
The bottom line is that, like it or not, people actually don't have the *right* to not release source eventually. I hope they start doing so sooner rather than later.
Looks like a lot of people don't understand the GPL, even senior moderators.
We ARE talking about the GPL, not LGPL, right?
Samsung hasn't made any of the stuff they have posted official... Why would samsung release anything for something that is not yet official...
How would the devs of xda be able to give you the source they don't have?
If you want to fight a losing battle email htc about the mytouch slide..
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
First, I'm not trying to start a web battle here, just stating the facts.
1. The files that I received from our source gave me consent via email to build a rom and release it. Unfortunately, after the fact the rom was built and released, the source has been claiming that he did not want the files released, which was not at all what was discussed originally. Had he clearly stated that he did not want them released, I would not have done so. He specifically asked me to build a rom, but that he did not want his identity released, which I did not do.
2. You information regarding GPL is very wrong. We were not working from souce because source for the Vibrant 2.2 has not yet been released. The only Galaxy S device that has had source officially released has been the I9000. Had we been working from source, we would have gladly posted our edited source code with accordance with GPL law.
sombionix said:
2. You information regarding GPL is very wrong. We were not working from souce because source for the Vibrant 2.2 has not yet been released. The only Galaxy S device that has had source officially released has been the I9000. Had we been working from source, we would have gladly posted our edited source code with accordance with GPL law.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, this was my mistake. I was under the impression that you were working from source, not just a ROM, as was previously pointed out. So I guess it's a moot point.
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
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.
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
Just checked HTCdev's kernel source page and there is no source code out for 4.2.2, even though it has been officially released. Are HTC trying to break the GPL?
Theshawty said:
Just checked HTCdev's kernel source page and there is no source code out for 4.2.2, even though it has been officially released. Are HTC trying to break the GPL?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really trying to break GPL. Reckon they're just using legal roadblocks to delay the release. They want it closed source for as long as possible. It's theirs and they don't want rival company's discovering how they've done things. It just means developers like us suffer too.
Sent using xda app on ViperOne.
Thread closed
This thread is pointless. HTC always takes months to release kernel sources. Nothing new. So a thread like this adds nothing and can only lead to arguing.