Related
I can't believe how much HTC is screwing us. Ok, I guess I totally get it. I wrote a post about this but I wanted to get everyone's opinion.
Does anyone else want HTC to opensource the drivers for the Hero? I think it would breath new life into the phone and send a sign that HTC supports their hardcore users.
giovannizero said:
I can't believe how much HTC is screwing us. Ok, I guess I totally get it. I wrote a post about this but I wanted to get everyone's opinion.
Does anyone else want HTC to opensource the drivers for the Hero? I think it would breath new life into the phone and send a sign that HTC supports their hardcore users.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i completely agree. the hero has only been out 8 months and they just completely abandoned it. i vote... hell yes!!
cp0020 said:
the hero has only been out 8 months and they just completely abandoned it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HTC only writes the software that Sprint pays it to write. All direction and control of development on single-carrier devices comes from that carrier. Its a business decision, basic cost/benefit analysis. There's not enough financial incentive for Sprint to pay for any more updates to the Hero. If people would stop shelling out cash for the latest and greatest (Evo 4G) each time it comes out and stop tolerating oppressive contracts with ETF fees, then devices wouldn't get abandoned so quickly.
cmccracken said:
HTC only writes the software that Sprint pays it to write. All direction and control of development on single-carrier devices comes from that carrier. Its a business decision, basic cost/benefit analysis. There's not enough financial incentive for Sprint to pay for any more updates to the Hero.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
glad your on board.....
cp0020 said:
glad your on board.....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its irrelevant if people think HTC should or should not "opensource the drivers". Since HTC uses a monolithic kernel in the Hero (except for the wifi), they are required to release the source code for all components of the shipping kernel (including all "drivers") under terms of the GPL. Even if they do so, it will be the code for the kernel used in the 2.1 Android release, not for the kernel in the 2.2 release. It may still be useful, but is not a guaranteed slam dunk.
They have repeatedly chosen to stall and delay the source code release process and violate the copyright policy on the software they are using for their devices. Until an actual author of Linux kernel code sues them for violating his/her intellectual property's copyright, they will likely continue to do this. If you have a problem with the way they do business, stop giving them money. They've been doing this since far before the Hero was released.
My original comment was in response to the "hero has only been out 8 months and they just completely abandoned it" comment. I'll add a quotation before it for context.
cmccracken said:
Its irrelevant if people think HTC should or should not "opensource the drivers". Since HTC uses a monolithic kernel in the Hero (except for the wifi), they are required to release the source code for all components of the shipping kernel (including all "drivers") under terms of the GPL. Even if they do so, it will be the code for the kernel used in the 2.1 Android release, not for the kernel in the 2.2 release. It may still be useful, but is not a guaranteed slam dunk.
They have repeatedly chosen to stall and delay the source code release process and violate the copyright policy on the software they are using for their devices. Until an actual author of Linux kernel code sues them for violating his/her intellectual property's copyright, they will likely continue to do this. If you have a problem with the way they do business, stop giving them money. They've been doing this since far before the Hero was released.
My original comment was in response to the "hero has only been out 8 months and they just completely abandoned it" comment. I'll add a quotation before it for context.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
just letting you know i wasnt trying to be a smartass before. sorry if it came off like that. your probably right but we can still dream lol
cp0020 said:
just letting you know i wasnt trying to be a smartass before. sorry if it came off like that. your probably right but we can still dream lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You were being a smart-ass, but I wasn't offended. I would have done the same.
cmccracken said:
You were being a smart-ass, but I wasn't offended. I would have done the same.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol now that were best friends again let me buy you a beer lolol
Sent from my HERO200 using XDA App
cmccracken said:
Its irrelevant if people think HTC should or should not "opensource the drivers". Since HTC uses a monolithic kernel in the Hero (except for the wifi), they are required to release the source code for all components of the shipping kernel (including all "drivers") under terms of the GPL. Even if they do so, it will be the code for the kernel used in the 2.1 Android release, not for the kernel in the 2.2 release. It may still be useful, but is not a guaranteed slam dunk.
They have repeatedly chosen to stall and delay the source code release process and violate the copyright policy on the software they are using for their devices. Until an actual author of Linux kernel code sues them for violating his/her intellectual property's copyright, they will likely continue to do this. If you have a problem with the way they do business, stop giving them money. They've been doing this since far before the Hero was released.
My original comment was in response to the "hero has only been out 8 months and they just completely abandoned it" comment. I'll add a quotation before it for context.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not true at all. Drivers do not have to be open source. Drivers do not have to be released under the GPL just because the kernel is released under the GPL, if they did, then why are so many linux drivers just binary blobs and not source?
liquidtenmillion said:
That's not true at all. Drivers do not have to be open source. Drivers do not have to be released under the GPL just because the kernel is released under the GPL, if they did, then why are so many linux drivers just binary blobs and not source?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're thinking of drivers that are distributed via loadable kernel modules. On the Hero, there is only one module (wlan.ko, for the wifi chipset). Everything else is built into the GPL'ed kernel. The entire kernel from GPL sources is the "binary blob" distributed by HTC.
liquidtenmillion said:
That's not true at all. Drivers do not have to be open source. Drivers do not have to be released under the GPL just because the kernel is released under the GPL, if they did, then why are so many linux drivers just binary blobs and not source?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The justification is that the HTC drivers are included in a monolithic compilation of the kernel and therefore fall under the GPL as a modification to the kernel. The binary blobs you are referring to are not distributing a modified kernel with the drivers such as HTC did, therefore do not fall under GPL. You do not have to distribute your code if you work alongside GPL software, only if you modify it.
I posted up your blog post on digg, link.
Also I tweeted a link to the article, link; please retweet.
gu1dry said:
I posted up your blog post on digg, link.
Also I tweeted a link to the article, link; please retweet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Retweet'd because I agree that they should be open, but I am not entirely inclined to believe they are required to open the drivers. Similar to their power control software, its their code - it just lives next door to the kernel.
I am however really ticked that they haven't released Kernel Code even though they have obviously used that...they where quick with Legend and Desire.
I know we already have "Kernel Code that works" from the eris - but it's still not OURS and toast had to do a hell of a lot of work to get that. Work that shouldn't have even needed to be done. Compiled Code ships...source should ship as well.
Retweet'd because I agree that they should be open, but I am not entirely inclined to believe they are required to open the drivers. Similar to their power control software, its their code - it just lives next door to the kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, it would live "next door" to the kernel if they were .ko loadable kernel modules. HTC compiled it straight into the kernel. Thus, under GPL2, they *are* part of the kernel, and therefore must be released as open source as well.
.ko binary drivers were a practical real-world compromise to allow proprietary binaries to coexist without screwing up the efforts of others to independently build their own kernels that make use of them. That's the key contention here. A .ko module allows you to treat it as a black box with a well-defined interface, and rewrite everything else around it. A monolithic binary blob is the software equivalent of a circuit board with bare, carrier-free chips soldered directly to it, then sealed in a blob of epoxy like a big IC that can't be meaningfully modified without breaking the whole thing.
I usually look the other way when I see posts on craigslist wanting to root/jailbreak your phone for a fee, but the below post just kills me.
He is selling a 8gb mSD card with Honeycomb for the nook color for $80!! That's pretty much a 400% profit all thanks to the fine people here.
http://miami.craigslist.org/brw/ele/2258357972.html
That's very bad... :/
Dade county hustlaaaa
Ima jump on the train
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA Premium App
BreakTheLaw said:
Dade county hustlaaaa
Ima jump on the train
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What you said? I can't understand a word from this
nathanpc said:
What you said? I can't understand a word from this
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol
Dade county = Miami, florida
Hustla = hustler
For real?
The guy is smart, im thinking of doing the same. Why the **** not.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA Premium App
I want to say before jumping on the trash the man band wagon, this is exactly the kind of thing that has kept opensource alive. I suggest reading the cathedral and the bazaar. This is no different then redhat repackaging linux, or cononical repackaging debian. There are many people almost incapable of using dd to create a sdcard, have the time to read and research for hours how to make it work etc. A working bootable sdcard that doesn't void your warranty for 80/OBO? Seems like a decent deal for those who just want the latest without the work. Do you bad mouth the plumber who puts in a new toilet because he didn't create the toilet? How much do you pay for win7? do you assassinate bestbuy because they are selling it?
Umm to the above post it's still B.S you don't understand the law I think... He is charging people for software he didnt write nor does he own! That my friend is © infringement...Even if it is opensource it's not his to sell! Charging to root others phone is fine there is work involved in rooting some of these phones not all are one click root but charging for the software is a completely different story! Well I did a google search and it depends on whether the opensource as been copyrighted if it has then it's illegal if it hasnt then you can sell it all you want... Apparently opensource gives you the permission to change run and charge if repackaged... So he is right as much as it's ethically wrong!
again, you are free to charge for opensource, read the licence as well as the book i mentioned.
This is no different than best buy installing windows for you, and then charging for the service of doing so. he's not selling the software, he's selling the service of getting it working and the hardware (SDcard) involved.
Some people either cannot do it themselves for numerous reasons, or just don't want to mess with it.
If you were to actually to take the time and read eric raymonds book, you would know that money is not made on the software, its not free beer its free to do with it as you want, money is made in the opensource world by providing services.
http://catb.org/~esr/writings/homesteading/cathedral-bazaar/
you will notice this was first presented in 1997 as is a fundamental foundation in opensource as a basis for economic viability. by your very primiss that money cant be made off opensource software, then no business can run linux servers as they are making money off of the work of others.
There is nothing you can show me in GPL that says you cant sell the software, infact what it says is, you must provide the sourcecode if requested, which you can even charge for but you cannot dictate what one does with the code once they take possession of it as long as credit is given for the work.
I really suggest knowing more then 20 mins of web browsing wiki's before condemning ones method of taking advantage of the opensource community
If it wasn't for the ability to use opensource in an effort to make money, redhat, ubuntu, google, htc would not exist. Turn in your android phone as the manufacturer is stealing the code and selling it to you.
To make things easy, here are the first few lines from GPL3
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 3, 29 June 2007
Copyright © 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/>
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Preamble
The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.
The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.
BreakTheLaw said:
Lol
Dade county = Miami, florida
Hustla = hustler
For real?
The guy is smart, im thinking of doing the same. Why the **** not.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
SO should I say I want it then beat him with a bat when I meet him?
I wouldn't say that in the state of florida!
I don't see a problem. I see a potential of all future mods becoming viable sources of income for a select few hard working, talented individuals who deserve kick back for the fruits of their labor.
Jealousy and envy paint an ugly picture of the person on the other side.
- Posted via mobile
If SDCard man made you mad, this should make your head expload
saw this ad on facebook
http://unlockedereaders.com/
Rooted Nook Color w/ 8GB MicroSD
Rooted Nook Color w/ 8GB MicroSD
This is a BRAND new Nook Color. It has only been removed from the packaging long enough to root the device and replace it back in the packaging. This Nook comes rooted with the ability to choose between Android 2.2 Froyo and 2.3 Honeycomb operating systems. When you receive the item, it will be rooted running the stock Nook operating system. From here you may access the App Market and download whatever you wish, while still maintaining your existing Nook functionality, look, and feel. Should you want to run another operating system, all you have to do is open the preinstalled RomManager app and restore to one of the operating system images included with the device.
This comes with an 8 GB Class 6 A-Data microSD card. This card comes with backup images of Froyo, Honeycomb, and stock image for you to switch between with RomManager at your choosing. Also provides extra storage for your device. Nook will be shipped in factory packaging with FREE Priority Mail 2-3 day shipping!
Price: $ 450.00
A site actually in the open doing the same thing but charging such an exorbitant price all for a sdcard.
@NuroSlam Unofficial Android builds for the Nook are NOT under the GPL, they may contain GPL'd components, but the full software is not under the GPL. Canonical HAS permission to redistribute what Debian parts they do use in Ubuntu.
Best Buy is a retail store and they are in the direct distribution channel for Microsoft product. They provide a legal service for people unable to install the operating system they bought legally. I do not even run Windows so the price doesn't bother me, their OS monopolization does though which is a whole other discussion.
evilkorn said:
A site actually in the open doing the same thing but charging such an exorbitant price all for a sdcard.
@NuroSlam Unofficial Android builds for the Nook are NOT under the GPL, they may contain GPL'd components, but the full software is not under the GPL. Canonical HAS permission to redistribute what Debian parts they do use in Ubuntu.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True android itself falls under the apache software licence, again there is no mention of not selling a service using the product.
"4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions:"
"The result is a license that is supposed to be compatible with other open source licenses, while remaining true to the original goals of the Apache Group and supportive of collaborative development across both nonprofit and commercial organizations. The Apache Software Foundation is still trying to determine if this version of the Apache License is compatible with the GPL."
and from the FAQ
"Describing legal documents in non-legalese is fraught with potential for misinterpretation. Notwithstanding the text that follows, the actual text of the license itself is legally binding and authoritative.
That said, here's what the Apache license says in layman's terms:
It allows you to:
* freely download and use Apache software, in whole or in part, for personal, company internal, or commercial purposes;
* use Apache software in packages or distributions that you create.
It forbids you to:
* redistribute any piece of Apache-originated software without proper attribution;
* use any marks owned by The Apache Software Foundation in any way that might state or imply that the Foundation endorses your distribution;
* use any marks owned by The Apache Software Foundation in any way that might state or imply that you created the Apache software in question."
Best Buy is a retail store and they are in the direct distribution channel for Microsoft product. They provide a legal service for people unable to install the operating system they bought legally. I do not even run Windows so the price doesn't bother me, their OS monopolization does though which is a whole other discussion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just had to start a thread on this issue because I think it's surprising more people aren't angry at Google for taking an 'open', GPL licensed (at the very least the kernel) set of code (Honeycomb) and not releasing it to the public in the form of source code. Not only is it completely NOT in the spirit of open source, but in fact may even be illegal (although I have not done quite enough research to say exactly what is and isn't GPL, I know the kernel IS GPL, the OS itself I am GUESSING is GPL as they have claimed it to be open source). I understand that certain APPLICATIONS are not open source (market, youtube, gmail, etc) but if the operating system is supposed to be open source (and/or GPL) why are more people not outraged that they will not release it?
I understand they want to prevent every fly-by-night operation from building garbage tablets that "cheapen" the name of android tablets, but for better or worse that's what android is, and it's what makes android great. If you just want to get your feet wet, you should be able to take a cheap nook color and load up honeycomb. If you're not happy with the performance, you can go buy a nice xoom or transformer.
I know we all love android, and its open source nature, but just because we hate apple/M$ doesn't mean we have to love every action google takes.
compuw22c said:
If you just want to get your feet wet, you should be able to take a cheap nook color and load up honeycomb.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the nook has honeycomb.
austin420 said:
the nook has honeycomb.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Based on the sdk.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
lynyrd65 said:
Based on the sdk.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, prerelease sdk too. Personally, I think this may be what pushed Google to do what they did. That or Motorola freaking out saying "You PROMISED we'd be first, we invested time and energy here you better do something about this". Android was supposed to be "The People's OS". Unfortunately things seem to be changing hands and its becoming more about keeping carriers and manufacturers happy. Not necessary I say. Pandora's box has been opened, no matter what google does, carriers and manufacturers will still use Android. To stop carrying android phones would be suicide on their part. Give us all root access as part of stock android and be done with it!
Sent from my pocket rocket
compuw22c said:
I just had to start a thread on this issue because I think it's surprising more people aren't angry at Google for taking an 'open', GPL licensed (at the very least the kernel) set of code (Honeycomb) and not releasing it to the public in the form of source code.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are quite a few folks who are unhappy with Google for their decision not to release Honeycomb platform sources, and there's a good debate there. However, there's nothing unlawful about Google's actions.
First, the majority of Android source code isn't GPL licensed, but rather Apache License v2.0, which does not require publication of modified sources. This is why Samsung hasn't (fully) released sources for the Epic's Android platform code, which is much more problematic for us.
Second, AOSP is the sole copyright owner of much of the Android platform code. This enables them to release and relicense that source code however they wish, even if the code were nominally GPL licensed (although it's Apache).
Third, the portions of Honeycomb that are GPL licensed, to which AOSP is not the sole copyright owner, have been publically released. However, this code is mostly comprised of the Linux kernel and a few underyling libraries. In other words, it isn't the interesting/useful part of Honeycomb.
Furthermore, just to clarify, the GPL does not require source code to be published publicly, just that it be made available to those who legitimately acquite the binary code, i.e., who actually purchase Honeycomb tablets. That said, public publication of that code is often the easiest/most efficient method of making it available to tablet owners.
Edit: The copyright of much of the Android sources are claimed by "The Android Open Source Project", which is the "overseeing" organization Google established. I'm not sure what the policies of code licensing are among Google and other AOSP partners, but the point is that AOSP as the copyright owner is not bound by the existing license for that code.
mkasick said:
First, the majority of Android source code isn't GPL licensed, but rather Apache License v2.0, which does not require publication of modified sources.
Third, the portions of Honeycomb that are GPL licensed, to which AOSP is not the sole copyright owner, have been publically released.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Beat me to it, but I figured I'd re-quote you with a shortened version in bold.
It's been long known. Android is OPEN SOURCE (Apache). It is not FREE SOURCE (GPL).
Further, I think the author misunderstands what the linux kernel is. You can't really do much with it alone, but it is a powerful piece. On a train, it's like the transmission that connects the engine to the wheels of the train, but you still need the body and the train tracks to go anywhere (Android).
jnadke said:
Beat me to it, but I figured I'd re-quote you with a shortened version in bold.
It's been long known. Android is OPEN SOURCE (Apache). It is not FREE SOURCE (GPL).
Further, I think the author misunderstands what the linux kernel is. You can't really do much with it alone, but it is a powerful piece. On a train, it's like the transmission that connects the engine to the wheels of the train, but you still need the body and the train tracks to go anywhere (Android).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, I do understand what a kernel is and what it does (small main-brain controller of hardware, usually with a few modules built into it). I've recompiled mine on my media server a few times. I do see your point though, you're right, not much you can do with it all by itself for sure.
I also understand that they aren't breaking the law, I guess I just thought part of the gpl was that to use gpl software in a project, that project must also comply (which I now understand is false). Always assumed that to be the reason Apple uses a UNIX kernel rather than a LINUX kernel for osx.
So I guess they do have a right to do what they're doing, but the idealist in me still wishes they'd do the right thing...
Anyone wanna make a Ubuntu port to phones...complete with dialer, launcher, dalvik vm (for running android apps)? j/k
Sent from my pocket rocket
mkasick said:
There are quite a few folks who are unhappy with Google for their decision not to release Honeycomb platform sources, and there's a good debate there. However, there's nothing unlawful about Google's actions.
First, the majority of Android source code isn't GPL licensed, but rather Apache License v2.0, which does not require publication of modified sources. This is why Samsung hasn't (fully) released sources for the Epic's Android platform code, which is much more problematic for us.
Second, AOSP is the sole copyright owner of much of the Android platform code. This enables them to release and relicense that source code however they wish, even if the code were nominally GPL licensed (although it's Apache).
Third, the portions of Honeycomb that are GPL licensed, to which AOSP is not the sole copyright owner, have been publically released. However, this code is mostly comprised of the Linux kernel and a few underyling libraries. In other words, it isn't the interesting/useful part of Honeycomb.
Furthermore, just to clarify, the GPL does not require source code to be published publicly, just that it be made available to those who legitimately acquite the binary code, i.e., who actually purchase Honeycomb tablets. That said, public publication of that code is often the easiest/most efficient method of making it available to tablet owners.
Edit: The copyright of much of the Android sources are claimed by "The Android Open Source Project", which is the "overseeing" organization Google established. I'm not sure what the policies of code licensing are among Google and other AOSP partners, but the point is that AOSP as the copyright owner is not bound by the existing license for that code.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well said...
Help support autism awareness,it only takes 2 seconds to help make a difference...
http://picketfenceblogs.com/vote/3616
I don't understand how if Android is Opensource and borrows code from Linux kernel and other OpenSource projects, how Google can legally hold back the honeycomb sourcecode?
I'm not really interested in Honeycomb source myself, nor the OS dev scene, but what I DO care about, is that some of my favorite apps are broken on my Tablet, and the developers all point the finger at Google, saying the flash API changed in Honeycomb, and they need the source to get it working.
The biggest broken apps for me are:
Opera Mobile 11
BBC iPlayer App
Opera even come out and tell us why Flash does not work on Opera Mobile 11 on Honeycomb:
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.opera.browser&feature=search_result
(What's New Tab)
"Flash not supported on Android 3.x due to Google not releasing necessary platform code"
"Open source" doesn't mean what you think it means.
The Linux kernel source is available under the GPLv2, this mean that is you ship a product you must provide the source, hence its the device manufacturers responsibility to give us the kernel source because it's them we buy the product from.
The Android framework and the Dalvik virtual machine are all available under an Apache licence, this allows anyone to take the source code and make a closed proprietary product and/or addition (Like Blur/Sense/Touchwiz) without this Android would not have caught on anywhere near as fast, but it also means that there is no requirement for future derivative products to have source code released. Even if the person doing that is Google.
All the API's that people _should_ be using are documented, the problem is that the products you mention are trying to mimic the native browser and use internal only method calls, if you step out of the approved API box then you have problems like this.
Why BBC iPlayer needs flash I don't know, all 3.1 tablets can play the flashhigh and flashhd (h.264) iPlayer streams natively I use get-iplayer and transfer the files to my Transformer for viewing and it works beautifully. I guess the Android app team are just lazy (or iPhone developers who don't know Android very well)
SilentMobius said:
The Android framework and the Dalvik virtual machine are all available under an Apache licence, this allows anyone to take the source code and make a closed proprietary product and/or addition (Like Blur/Sense/Touchwiz) without this Android would not have caught on anywhere near as fast, but it also means that there is no requirement for future derivative products to have source code released. Even if the person doing that is Google.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While this is true, it is not the real reason why Google can hold back the souce code. Google owns the copyright to DalVik and the Android platform. All contributions checked into the Android tree in the end have their copyright assigned to Google, regardless of who wrote them.
Because they own the copyright, they can do whatever the heck they want with the code, whenever they want. A copyright owner can not violate their own license, the license is only applicable for other people (who have no copyright to the code) to use it in their projects.
It's a subtle but very important distinction, because even if Android was all GPL they still would not have to be releasing any changes, because they own it.
The only part of the code Google is obligated to release, is their kernel changes (because it is Linux, which is GPL and they don't have the full copyright to) - and they do release these, always.
brunes said:
While this is true, it is not the real reason why Google can hold back the souce code. Google owns the copyright to DalVik and the Android platform. All contributions checked into the Android tree in the end have their copyright assigned to Google, regardless of who wrote them.
Because they own the copyright, they can do whatever the heck they want with the code, whenever they want. A copyright owner can not violate their own license, the license is only applicable for other people (who have no copyright to the code) to use it in their projects.
It's a subtle but very important distinction, because even if Android was all GPL they still would not have to be releasing any changes, because they own it.
The only part of the code Google is obligated to release, is their kernel changes (because it is Linux, which is GPL and they don't have the full copyright to) - and they do release these, always.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually no, just because they hold the rights doesn't mean they don't have to obey the license. It's just that Android is released under the Apache license which states that source must be released, but doesn't say WHEN the source has to be released, so they can hold it back as long as they deem fit.
seshmaru said:
Actually no, just because they hold the rights doesn't mean they don't have to obey the license. It's just that Android is released under the Apache license which states that source must be released, but doesn't say WHEN the source has to be released, so they can hold it back as long as they deem fit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, no!
The ASL is not a copy left licence, so if Google so wish they do not have to release the source code for Honeycomb ever. In much the same way, I can download Android code from AOSP, create my own unique version, and I don't have to contribute my code back to AOSP, nor do I need to supply it to anyone on demand (with the exception of GPL'd kernel code of course).
Regards,
Dave
foxmeister said:
Actually, no!
The ASL is not a copy left licence, so if Google so wish they do not have to release the source code for Honeycomb ever. In much the same way, I can download Android code from AOSP, create my own unique version, and I don't have to contribute my code back to AOSP, nor do I need to supply it to anyone on demand (with the exception of GPL'd kernel code of course).
Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's correct that it is not copyleft, and I was aware of this. All android releases however are released under the Apache license, which means the source for android itself has to be there, but any further modifications can use whatever they want. So yes google has to make Honeycomb open source eventually since it was released under the Apache license. Any derivatives of honeycomb wouldn't need to provide the source though.
seshmaru said:
So yes google has to make Honeycomb open source eventually since it was released under the Apache license. Any derivatives of honeycomb wouldn't need to provide the source though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No they don't! That is the *whole* point. Honeycomb, at this point in time, is *not* an open source project because no source has been released, and the license of its antecedents is not a copyleft licence.
Honeycomb is, broadly speaking, a derivative of an earlier Android build (Froyo/Gingerbread whatever), and in this respect it is no different to say HTC's Sense builds which are also not open source.
Regards,
Dave
Hey ice cream will be open sourced. I don't think they want honeycomb plopped onto phones so they won't push it to aosp. Ice Cream will be a hybrid.
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA Premium App
Have also wondered this myself.. but reading all of this has made me more confused than I was before.. who's right? :S
It's correct that Google hold the copyright for the bulk of the android framework, and as the copyright owners they are not subject to license terms, so they don't need to release anything but that only works for Google products. If the licence had been GPL then manufacturers would need to supply source with their products, not Google but ASUS/Samsung/HTC/etc/etc.
Short version: Google don't need to release anything, app developers shouldn't use internal APIs and rely on having platform source to make things work.
That said I want to change some of the browser behaviour and plumb back in handling for the .mkv file extension (because the container parsing is already in there) So I'd love to get my hands on the HC source, no matter how messy.
david279 said:
Hey ice cream will be open sourced. I don't think they want honeycomb plopped onto phones so they won't push it to aosp. Ice Cream will be a hybrid.
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And yet, it didn't seem to worry them when the first flurry of tablets came out with a phone (Froyo/GB) OS. Sorry, but to me, that excuse doesn't fly.
Divine_Madcat said:
And yet, it didn't seem to worry them when the first flurry of tablets came out with a phone (Froyo/GB) OS. Sorry, but to me, that excuse doesn't fly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually they did worry, that's exactly why they made honeycomb you derptard and exactly the reason they aren't releasing the source to honeycomb.
And yes they don't want manufacturers shoehorning a tablet OS into a phone just so they can say OH OUR PHONE HAS ANDROID 3.0 INSTEAD OF 2.3.
Derptard... certainly a new one for the books. haha
There won't be ports to say, the Motorola Xoom or the HP TouchPad. Let me explain:
1. In it's current state, Windows 8 doesn't support ARM architecture, although it will later, so I suppose this is only a semi-valid point.
2. and 3. Windows 8 isn't open source, so any ports would be illegal and without source, it's basically impossible.
Please don't fill this subsection with questions concerning if it'll ever come to your tablet/phone/etc., because it won't.
your right,I almost forgot about legal stuff! +1 for pointing this out!
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4811/windows-8-tablets-running-on-ti-qualcomm-nvidia-amd-intel-silicon
???????
i guess we can be confident that 1. will happen
NikolaiT said:
There won't be ports to say, the Motorola Xoom or the HP TouchPad. Let me explain:
1. In it's current state, Windows 8 doesn't support ARM architecture, although it will later, so I suppose this is only a semi-valid point.
2. and 3. Windows 8 isn't open source, so any ports would be illegal and without source, it's basically impossible.
Please don't fill this subsection with questions concerning if it'll ever come to your tablet/phone/etc., because it won't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Microsoft does have Windows 8 running on ARM, the only thing they haven't done is release a dev build. We'll either get it at a later date or we'll have to wait for the beta.
NikolaiT said:
There won't be ports to say, the Motorola Xoom or the HP TouchPad. Let me explain:
1. In it's current state, Windows 8 doesn't support ARM architecture, although it will later, so I suppose this is only a semi-valid point.
2. and 3. Windows 8 isn't open source, so any ports would be illegal and without source, it's basically impossible.
Please don't fill this subsection with questions concerning if it'll ever come to your tablet/phone/etc., because it won't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not being open source didn't stop the HTC HD2 from recieving Windows Phone 7
Saljen said:
Not being open source didn't stop the HTC HD2 from recieving Windows Phone 7
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mobile OSes are less work than a full fledged operating system, plus, you need to consider legality.
Nitro_123 said:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4811/windows-8-tablets-running-on-ti-qualcomm-nvidia-amd-intel-silicon
???????
i guess we can be confident that 1. will happen
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While it will support ARM, I'd say it's doubtful that it would be released on a disk that you could just load onto your existing device, it will probably only come preloaded on devices by OEMs.
Saljen said:
Not being open source didn't stop the HTC HD2 from recieving Windows Phone 7
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Traditionally MS haven't been worried about piracy of their mobile OS's. Their mobile OS efforts have mainly been about keeping people in the Windows eco-system, and to a much lesser degree selling licenses for CE to OEMs making embedded devices. In most cases of mobile OS roms being posted, they've just been updated/enhanced roms for existing Windows mobile devices and so haven't really cost sales and have possibly enhanced the ecosystem.
They're generally much much more concerned about piracy of their main OS. It remains to be seen how they will react to people trying port the ARM version of Windows 8, but they could easily react as strongly as they would for a normal x86 windows.
NikolaiT said:
Mobile OSes are less work than a full fledged operating system, plus, you need to consider legality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's never stopped developers from porting anything before...
I think at this point the largest hurdle is getting a build from an ARM dump. And drivers...can't forget about drivers.
NikolaiT said:
Mobile OSes are less work than a full fledged operating system, plus, you need to consider legality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why would the legality be an issue? As long as you have a valid licence and key, when it officially becomes for sale, wouldn't it be ok?
dhiral.v said:
Why would the legality be an issue? As long as you have a valid licence and key, when it officially becomes for sale, wouldn't it be ok?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It most likely won't.
ugothakd said:
It most likely won't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why not?
If you've paid for the license, I am free to put it on which ever device I own be it my laptop, desktop or tablet.
dhiral.v said:
Why not?
If you've paid for the license, I am free to put it on which ever device I own be it my laptop, desktop or tablet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I mean the arm copy...it'll most likely never be sold as a seperate product. Just built in
1. WinMo wasn’t open source either. Unlike WinMo, Windows licenses can be purchased.
2. Considering the fact that Intel and Google are now working together, the likelihood of cross compatible hardware specs are high for both Arm and Intel chips
3. This OS if it stays in close to current form will be a sort of hybrid of mobile/desktop OS. The mobile side will create a need for sideloaded apps, tweaks, reg hacks etc.
4. It is almost certain that Windows Phone will converge with this os down the line and I would argue that this forum has potential to be the most used forum of the site so the earlier the devs get started the better!
TechJunkiesCA said:
4. It is almost certain that Windows Phone will converge with this os down the line and I would argue that this forum has potential to be the most used forum of the site so the earlier the devs get started the better!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This porting work will indeed happen. Just not on this forum aparently/unfortunately. Discussions about illegal software is a far cry from hosting illegal software. Developers often experiment with breaking laws for learning about a system. exe - tutorials about changing esn # with specific notes that you should not do it. It's just an experiment.
My question is it against the rules to discuss or link to other sites that house these ports? It used to be at least overlooked. See example below and there are countless others in the older stuff.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=362344&page=3
In the past XDA was much more loose about this type of stuff and was my first place to look for the dream goal of putting a desktop class OS on a PDA.
ugothakd said:
It most likely won't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But do you honestly think anyone will care much about it?
Take Mac OS X for instance. It clearly states in the EULA that installing the software on unapproved/non-Mac hardware are illegal, and yet there are tons of people with dedicated forums hacking away at it to make it run on various PC hardwares, and still ongoing for years.
eXecuter.bin said:
But do you honestly think anyone will care much about it?
Take Mac OS X for instance. It clearly states in the EULA that installing the software on unapproved/non-Mac hardware are illegal, and yet there are tons of people with dedicated forums hacking away at it to make it run on various PC hardwares, and still ongoing for years.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good point...people will try. But the bootloaders are most likely different. Maybe devices with hacked bootloaders (captivate) would be possible.
sent from my epic 4g. with the key skips.
You are 100% right NikolaiT...
If you own a valid license it can't be illegal anyways be it ARM version or not.
We'll see how microsoft releases the product and how many different versions there are in what form.
Indeed, i think we need to leave the legalities aside, and use the assumption of....
You have your Legal and valid licence key, this is how you can get it working on x y and Z
Of course, if it is only Sold as OEM then legally you dont have leg to stand on, OEM copies are for the sole use on the hardware in which is was purchased with, i think the licence says it allows a number of hardware upgrades but you are not intitled to rip it off one PC and dump it on another one. (assuming its the same as a Win 7 Licence), yes people do do it, but that doesnt make it legal or condonable, so if thats the case the XDA couldnt allow anything to do with it
But lets say it can be brought as a retail package, then there is nothing to stop us from attempting to install it on anything we like, infact it may even be easier than we think given that MS usually gives a shed load of drivers, the tricky bit will be getting the bootloaders to allow it.
eXecuter.bin said:
But do you honestly think anyone will care much about it?
Take Mac OS X for instance. It clearly states in the EULA that installing the software on unapproved/non-Mac hardware are illegal, and yet there are tons of people with dedicated forums hacking away at it to make it run on various PC hardwares, and still ongoing for years.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Forbidden, not illegal. The EULA doesn't really have any legal basis whatsoever. Apple can deny you support on your product if you break the EULA though.