Related
(Note posting in this topic as to dev category for obvious reasons)
This whole incident has taken me by surprise with the actions of Google against Cyanogen. Now the actions from my understanding so far are likely the result of the early release of the Market app with his new Donut based releases. There is a valid argument for Google in which it is their own proprietary code in which they want to release on their terms I would assume, however I prefer to take the side of the community. The community around XDA has supported and nurtured the development of the Android OS and the devices based upon it, with the developers pushing the limits on what they can do and implementing smarter and better solutions. We the community in a sense become beta testers for the latest and greatest Android has to offer, how many applications do you think have already added support for 1.6 due to Cyanogen's mods and our feedback?
In summary, I believe while Google does have a valid argument against, but it would better serve them to not continue with this course of action. I invite you all to write and use all social networks available to you to spread the world, submit to every news site, raise awareness of the problem. Don't waste your time with petitions, just spread the word, go viral with it.
Digg search for cyanogen:
http://digg.com/search?s=cyanogen
Original article:
http://androidandme.com/2009/09/hacks/cyanogenmod-in-trouble/
Facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=144634407186&ref=nf
Send tweets to @google also, flood the information stream.
Email the people at Engadget, Slashdot, Gizmodo, all the major blogs just to keep focus upon it.
Someone should put it up on reddit too, get some visibility on wired.com!
Listen, this situation is really cut and dry. Cyanogen had NO LICENSE to distribute the CLOSED SOURCE APPS. The rest of it is perfectly fine.
The solution:
Develop the roms, DELETE the closed source apps, sign, publish. When someone installs the roms, let them install the closed source apps themselves -- i.e., *somebody* (who won't be linked back to cyanogen) will likely post a simple "closed-source-google-apps-for-cyanogenmod-4.xx.xx.xx.zip" which can be installed from recovery mode.
Problem solved.
wont that person then be "under-fire"?
gospeed.racer said:
wont that person then be "under-fire"?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only if the person gets caught.
tool to extract non free files and create a update image
If the binary files in a existing ROM can be used by cyanogenMod, what we need is a tool to reuse them in cyanogenMod. Am I wrong?
Or is it rebuild from source code ?
lbcoder said:
Listen, this situation is really cut and dry. Cyanogen had NO LICENSE to distribute the CLOSED SOURCE APPS. The rest of it is perfectly fine.
The solution:
Develop the roms, DELETE the closed source apps, sign, publish. When someone installs the roms, let them install the closed source apps themselves -- i.e., *somebody* (who won't be linked back to cyanogen) will likely post a simple "closed-source-google-apps-for-cyanogenmod-4.xx.xx.xx.zip" which can be installed from recovery mode.
Problem solved.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you a lawyer? no. So don't give your interpretation of what Cyanogen's license was and wasn't. You already started a thread about it and you're spamming the hell out of another. Don't mess with legal guesses, it's a bad bad idea. As I am someone who is studying law (and also a programmer/generally tech-smart), I am doing and suggesting to stay the hell away from that part when possible. Law -> politics -> flamewars -> ad hominem/bad posts. This is not tvtropes.
Meanwhile, can you even get past the start/initialization page without having the closed source apps, as they are market/gmail? This question is to actual modders.
Google has made a mess of thus, if they stop him from distributing with the apps it's only going to get *waaaay* messier.
You, are an IDIOT.
What happens when you *assume*? I'm sure that if you are, in fact, a law student (as you imply yourself to be, though you really only call yourself a "student" of the law, which could mean that you simply watch CNN from time to time), that this would have been answered on the first day of your first class.
Cyanogen's license *IS EXACTLY* the same as the license granted to *ALL OTHER USERS*. You want to read it? Its in your phone under About Phone --> Legal Information --> Google legal. Until you have read and understand *it all*, you should immediately cease offering your suggestions.
Edit: I just noticed your post count... 3.
Amazing, the audacity of some people. Whenever things start to get beyond the understanding of the average, all the chicken-littles come out from the woodwork and start crying about how evil the big company is. It is a direct function of a lack of understanding of the issues.
My advise: FORGET ABOUT IT. This has nothing to do with you and most likely won't have any (significant) impact on your life. At worst, you will have to add ONE SMALL STEP to the process of flashing the latest modrom.
Let me repeat: THIS IS NOT A BIG DEAL! IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER! Your phone is NOT about to catch on fire or start spying on you.
Oh, and for you information: regarding how I know what Cyanogen's license was....
1) the fact that it is included with the phone.
2) the fact that he received a c&d order (which they wouldn't send if he was licensed, or if they had, it would be the simplest matter to resolve).
3) the fact that he said so himself.
designerfx said:
Are you a lawyer? no. So don't give your interpretation of what Cyanogen's license was and wasn't. You already started a thread about it and you're spamming the hell out of another. Don't mess with legal guesses, it's a bad bad idea. As I am someone who is studying law (and also a programmer/generally tech-smart), I am doing and suggesting to stay the hell away from that part when possible. Law -> politics -> flamewars -> ad hominem/bad posts. This is not tvtropes.
Meanwhile, can you even get past the start/initialization page without having the closed source apps, as they are market/gmail? This question is to actual modders.
Google has made a mess of thus, if they stop him from distributing with the apps it's only going to get *waaaay* messier.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
gospeed.racer said:
wont that person then be "under-fire"?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
At this point we're talking warez, and though I won't advocate warez, when was the last time you saw Ahmed Ahmed Ahmed from Iran get persecuted for distributing warez?
Remember that the US government can't even find Bin Laden....
Or the apps can be pulled by the users from *legitimate* images, like ADP1. This, at least, is legal for owners of ADP1's for use on ADP1's.
Frankly, adding a step to complicate the process would probably go at least a little way in getting the super-noobs out of the game. They get *really* annoying.
Oh FYI: I got that board you sent me more-or-less cleaned up now, going to start mapping it out soon.
setupr said:
If the binary files in a existing ROM can be used by cyanogenMod, what we need is a tool to reuse them in cyanogenMod. Am I wrong?
Or is it rebuild from source code ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly. It is incredibly simple.
unzip (official-update.zip) /path/to/file1toextract /path/to/file2toextract ... /path/to/filentoextract
zip -g (mod-rom-update.zip) /path/to/file1extract /path/to/file2extract ... /path/to/filenextract
java -jar testsign.jar (mod-rom-update.zip)
Then just copy file to /sdcard/, recovery, flash, done.
Yeah, I know that us modders will continue to be doing the same thing and continue on, I know they aren't going after the entire community. It was for distributing the new Market app before its release as I understand currently. Hell, all I would do I an adb pull from a rom and push it into a new release. Just like I will be doing with the Market app if he can't put it in another release haha.
However the point of this thread was not to see if Google had the right to do that, they did. It is that simple. It is their proprietary code that was released early, by cyanogen, but I think it is unnecessary. The point of it was to support cyanogen for more ideological reasons, this community pushes the development at a rapid pace. My Dream would have been a nightmare without the likes of JF, haykuro, cyanogen, Dude, etc. With cyanogen releasing Donut in his builds, our community has been pushing developers to up their support to it and fix bugs relating to 1.6 before it is pushed as an update. The same thing with the Market app applies, how many of those apps have screenshots already? Why alienate the true heart of the device, we are basically beta testers for those of us running experimental roms. I understand the Google position, I just wish they would see that no harm, no foul.
And don't equate the amount someone posts to the boards to their understanding of a situation. There are quite a few people that just get the ROMs, run them and can use a search button if they have problems.
holy cow batman, flame much? Some people lurk for a long time before registering such as I.
I agree it's a small issue, and cyanogen is probably already working on it at least based off of his twitter. However, it doesn't matter what you or I feels about the licensing, nor even what the courts would interpret were it to get to that point.
It however, is very inappropriate to be ad hominem and/or bar threatening to people over this issue, basically getting worked up yourself. Honestly, playing seniority and insulting my schooling? I was not trying to be threatning to you, simply pointing out that you are not a spokesperson for interpreting a software license. Really, it's like you went into an emotional rage the minute cyanogen got the C&D.
Cyanogen in trouble
I can't believe Google is pulling this crap. I can only hope that Google is smart enough to work something out with Cyanogen so he may continue to share his awesome developments. I would expect some restrictions, but they need to work with him and let him do his thing. Otherwise, where's the incentive for anyone else following in his footsteps to make programs better for Google?
setupr said:
If the binary files in a existing ROM can be used by cyanogenMod, what we need is a tool to reuse them in cyanogenMod. Am I wrong?
Or is it rebuild from source code ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe this is the answer?
cyanogen : And regarding the keep-proprietary-apps-on-device-for-custom-rom install, with all the odexing and resource id mismatches... Ugh.http://twitter.com/cyanogen/status/4384352484
Apparently so, according to: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=7663719&postcount=802
Reading the post, it's extremely clear that the decision to ban was not based on the evidence that is presented...it's quite obvious that the decision was made way beforehand and the "evidence" used as justification. In real life, we would call this a kangaroo court or a show trial...and these have been used in military dictatorships or autocratic governments to squash opposition.
"Distributing warez", really? We might as well ban all the developers on this forum. How many of the independent developers here actually have licenses from HTC or Qualcomm to redistribute their proprietary frameworks and libraries?...don't think there are too many.
Seeing as I banned him, and I generally dont do any rom development, what opposition would I be squashing?
Edit: Thanks for posting in the right section
Edit Edit: Let me add on by saying that in regards to your previous statement about HTC and Qualcomm, when they give us take down notices we always comply with them and we take them as they come. Same goes for the holders of the GNU GPL, we received complaints, we sought to resolve it via multiple requests, did not get a resolution, so we took the needed action. This will not be limited to Feeyo, but as far as I know right now, other Android Kernel devs provide their sources or abide by the GNU GPL guidelines.
Stericson said:
Seeing as I banned him, and I generally dont do any rom development, what opposition would I be squashing?
Edit: Thanks for posting in the right section
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed.
Not sure if you actually read the whole post, but it does mention that the decision was made my MODS. Not developers.
So your claim that the ban had some ulterior motive behind it doesn't really make sense.
theSpam said:
Apparently so, according to: xxp://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=7663719&postcount=802
Reading the post, it's extremely clear that the decision to ban was not based on the evidence that is presented...it's quite obvious that the decision was made way beforehand and the "evidence" used as justification. In real life, we would call this a kangaroo courtor a show trial..and these have been used in military dictatorships or autocratic governments to squash opposition.
"Distributing warez", really? We might as well ban all the developers on this forum. How many of the independent developers here actually have licenses from HTC or Qualcomm to redistribute their proprietary frameworks and libraries?...don't think there are too many.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep I agree! And I will send an email to these companies regarding all the devs breaking these licenses distributing "warez" on this forum.
Mod edit: This was a sock puppet account of Feeyo's
theSpam said:
[snip]...
Reading the post, it's extremely clear that the decision to ban was not based on the evidence that is presented...it's quite obvious that the decision was made way beforehand and the "evidence" used as justification. ... [snip]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What is quite obvious is that the this poster hasn't read carefully the post he linked to.
I normally don't like supporting mods; (it's bad for my anarchistic image); but this time they have it exactly right. Well done for getting there at last.
0xlab said:
Yep I agree! And I will send an email to these companies regarding all the devs breaking these licenses distributing "warez" on this forum.
Mod edit: This was a sock puppet account of Feeyo's
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dude unban my account? I am not an alt of Feeyo!!!
Mod edit: Well then Oxlab of cronosprojects who chooses to leave a public note rather than to contact the site's admin, consider this this warning the last
And that was the end of good roms for Hero when Feeyo is gone that for shure.
stinger32 said:
And that was the end of good roms for Hero when Feeyo is gone that for shure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sad but true
Hope he will come back... I don´t get it, why did he close the entire Cronos Project?
stinger32 said:
And that was the end of good roms for Hero when Feeyo is gone that for shure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Humanoids said:
Sad but true
Hope he will come back... I don´t get it, why did he close the entire Cronos Project?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Read this thread. It explains in more detail what the issue is.
And please don't be so naive to believe Feeyo's rom's are the only "good" rom's. That is a subjective perspective which differs from individual to individual. To force your view upon others is down right rude IMHO.
We can only speculate as to why Feeyo has closed the project but it is a shame when these licensing issues happen. It is typically due to the nature of western economies forcing the traditional all-rights reserved copyright laws upon everyone through mainstream culture, instead of moving towards much more community based copyleft licenses which research has shown to improve creativity and improve the rate of progress. IMHO this is an incredible shame.
btdag said:
Read this thread. It explains in more detail what the issue is.
And please don't be so naive to believe Feeyo's rom's are the only "good" rom's. That is a subjective perspective which differs from individual to individual. To force your view upon others is down right rude IMHO.
We can only speculate as to why Feeyo has closed the project but it is a shame when these licensing issues happen. It is typically due to the nature of western economies forcing the traditional all-rights reserved copyright laws upon everyone through mainstream culture, instead of moving towards much more community based copyleft licenses which research has shown to improve creativity and improve the rate of progress. IMHO this is an incredible shame.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its funny you should mention that, this is EXACTLY what GPL is
Does anybody know why the Cronos Project site is offline?
mikeyd85 said:
Does anybody know why the Cronos Project site is offline?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Read http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=754401
12aon said:
Its funny you should mention that, this is EXACTLY what GPL is
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed - the android forums are a great example of the creativity. Maybe i'll do a research project on it... (my uni degree final project was on copyrights/copyleft theories )
btdag said:
Indeed - the android forums are a great example of the creativity
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
mwahahaha
Ya, our fixes on bugs (hex-code binary edits, framework resigns, bluetooth, etc...) are all completely legal. And everything is fine. We dont break any licenses of 3rd party companies. Ya... now... i got it. We take libcamera.so out of HTC builds and reinject them onto self-made roms.
mwahaha. cmon, this is ridiculous. We (in here) brake licenses (not all roms, but mosts), and there is nothing better to do than attacking a dev cause of a (gpl'ed) kernel* ?
I need a beer.
*which he shared with other ROM devs (as a binary !!!). The community was working, 2 other ROM's had a great kernel.
Andro1d said:
(...)
I need a beer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 or make it two Been quite a day
Andro1d said:
mwahahaha
Ya, our fixes on bugs (hex-code binary edits, framework resigns, bluetooth, etc...) are all completely legal. And everything is fine. We dont break any licenses of 3rd party companies. Ya... now... i got it. We take libcamera.so out of HTC builds and reinject them onto self-made roms.
mwahaha. cmon, this is ridiculous. We (in here) brake licenses (not all roms, but mosts), and there is nothing better to do than attacking a dev cause of a (gpl'ed) kernel* ?
I need a beer.
*which he shared with other ROM devs (as a binary !!!). The community was working, 2 other ROM's had a great kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The GPL requires kernels be distributed as sources, and not merely as binaries. Hence the distribution was unlawful, and XDA acted upon request from GPL users.
If HTC, the holders of the copyright to the other things you mentioned, were to issue a C&D against the site, it would be dealt with properly, as any other site would deal with it.
But I would point to a discussion I had with some of Cronos' developers today on their IRC channel, where I (and they) discussed how the lack of sources now meant they are unable to continue to work on this ROM. This lock-in, relying on one person to permit them to enjoy GPL code is what is absolutely prohibited in the GPL, and hence the requirement for the sources to be made available.
This doesn't benefit users, who are now left to pick an alternative ROM if they wish to continue to receive updates, and it doesn't benefit other developers who could have continued with any work in progress that feeyo has left behind.
pulser_g2 said:
The GPL requires kernels be distributed as sources, and not merely as binaries. Hence the distribution was unlawful, and XDA acted upon request from GPL users.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know the GPL.
pulser_g2 said:
But I would point to a discussion I had with some of Cronos' developers today on their IRC channel, where I (and they) discussed how the lack of sources now meant they are unable to continue to work on this ROM. This lock-in, relying on one person to permit them to enjoy GPL code is what is absolutely prohibited in the GPL, and hence the requirement for the sources to be made available.
This doesn't benefit users, who are now left to pick an alternative ROM if they wish to continue to receive updates, and it doesn't benefit other developers who could have continued with any work in progress that feeyo has left behind.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ack that. I dont wanna defend Feeyo,...
but if the MOD's start to force the GPL and credits, they should do it right. From NOW on... and for ALL ROMs ! If not... this (whole mess) was just 90% against Feeyo, and only 10% against a license.
Andro1d said:
I know the GPL.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Apparently not, or you wouldn't be saying "BBBBUT HE DID SHARE THE BINARY!!!!!111oneeleven" as if that excuses it somehow.
pulser_g2 said:
The GPL requires kernels be distributed as sources, and not merely as binaries. Hence the distribution was unlawful, and XDA acted upon request from GPL users.
{...}
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just tried to find the Kernel-Sources for Villain-ROM at the Site in your Signature ( {placeholderforworldwideweb}.villainrom.co.uk ). Please can you give me a hint where to search? (Without to Donate!)
Thanks,
Albert
Andro1d said:
but if the MOD's start to force the GPL and credits, they should do it right. From NOW on... and for ALL ROMs ! If not... this (whole mess) was just 90% against Feeyo, and only 10% against a license.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In a gesture of good faith towards the Hero xda-developers community, a mod audit of all actively distributed ROMs (akin to what is seen here) needs to be conducted in order to discover which are non-GPL compliant. This would show the community that the preceding events were not initiated by particular individuals/dev teams (with moderator support) against Feeyo and Cronos Droid for issues not encompassing the GPL.
*LOL*
You can close every single 1.5 and 2.1 SENSE release here on xda, when you ban Feeyo for that point 6 and point 9.
Or has ANY dev the permission of htc using THEIR sense or office-suite?
Come on, close xda-android except the real aosps:
6. Do not post warez.
If a piece of software requires you to pay to use it, either pay or find your cracks and serials somewhere else. We do not accept warez nor do we permit any member to promote or describe ways in which Warez, cracks, serial codes or other means of avoiding payment, can be obtained.
9. Don't get us in trouble.
Don't post copyrighted materials or do other things that will obviously lead to legal trouble. If you wouldn't do it on your own homepage, you probably don't want to do it here either. This does not mean we agree with everything the software piracy lobby try to impose on us, it simply means you cannot break any laws here, since we'll end up dealing with legal hassle caused by you. Please use common sense: respect the forum, its users, and those that write great code.
I can't believe someone would post a thread like this after what has happened... Facepalm...
dont know said:
*LOL*
You can close every single 1.5 and 2.1 SENSE release here on xda, when you ban Feeyo for that point 6 and point 9.
Or has ANY dev the permission of htc using THEIR sense or office-suite?
Come on, close xda-android except the real aosps:
6. Do not post warez.
If a piece of software requires you to pay to use it, either pay or find your cracks and serials somewhere else. We do not accept warez nor do we permit any member to promote or describe ways in which Warez, cracks, serial codes or other means of avoiding payment, can be obtained.
9. Don't get us in trouble.
Don't post copyrighted materials or do other things that will obviously lead to legal trouble. If you wouldn't do it on your own homepage, you probably don't want to do it here either. This does not mean we agree with everything the software piracy lobby try to impose on us, it simply means you cannot break any laws here, since we'll end up dealing with legal hassle caused by you. Please use common sense: respect the forum, its users, and those that write great code.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice try except Sense isn't warez. Anyone using a phone made by HTC has a license to use Sense. The -only- dubious ROMs are ROMs for phones that contain sense when the phones never had sense released on them by HTC, such as the Nexus One. In which case you raise a good point and instead of attempting to incite -another- flame war in regards to Feeyo, you should report those rom posts to the moderators.
I'm personally surprised and pleased XDA have started to take a harder stance on adherence to licenses. You have to look at it from their perspective too, XDA is a popular site and they don't need various license owners breathing down their necks from a legal standpoint, with XDA being a large distribution node for software.
Feeyo could have easily avoided all this. I actually thought the staff had closed the issue with a slapped wrist. All he had to do, was uphold agreements he made in regards to licensing when he chose to use software under the GPL. He didn't and thus only has himself to blame. I understand you being somewhat blinded by your fanboy spectacles, but try and see it in a bigger picture. If ever developer took Feeyo's attitude to redistributing GPL source code back into the community, we'd all still be sat on some crappy HTC ROM with an ancient and buggy kernel. Cyanogenmod project certainly wouldn't exist and projects like Feeyo's would never have gotten off the ground in the first place.
He was happy to take the benefits of the GPL. He should have been happy to give back as a result of taking those benefits. He wasn't, he didn't now he's banned.
He has been a walking GPL violation since day one. Not -once- has he offered or posted sources to GPL code that he uses. Not -once- has he even bothered to mention the GPL license to any of his users, which he is also required to do, so that they're aware that they're protected by the GPL. Look at the page/wiki for his Linux distribution. Not a single mention of the GPL and not a single link to the source code despite practically every package being protected under the GPL.
If you cannot understand why it is imperative for the GPL to be adhered to in order for it to work and for EVERYONE to benefit from it, if your vision stops at "me have awesome ROM on phone" and goes no further, well then you shouldn't really be posting on the subject in the first place.
Feeyo was so abusive of the community aspect to Android development, he even used a shadow account to ask questions of other developers, before releasing his "wonderful and all his own work" as Feeyo and not once did he credit anyone who helped him out.
Regardless of his development talent, he was still a bad seed and ultimately bad for the community.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=716916
Hi, don't know thank you for posting in the wrong section.
If we get complaints from HTC about those, you better believe that we will. I guess you must have missed the meaning of General Public License there, you must have spotted the word public in there, which means we have to take complaints serious. We did, this will ultimately create a healthier development environment, but I guess you'd rather have a new build then one thats fair. Feeyo is welcome to post his ROMs once more 30 days from now, if he would share the sources as required by GPL.
XDA operates a non-invasive policy with regard to such matters. To quote from HTC
"While HTC tries to take a hands off [approach] about the modder / ROM chef community, this site's sole purpose [is] to make HTC's content available for download from a source other than HTC. That content is not just the open source parts and kernels of Android but all of the software that HTC itself has developed. This is a clear violation of our copyrights and HTC needs to defend itself in these cases."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This was in response to ShippedROMs being asked to stop hosting RUUs of unreleased ROMs.
It is XDA policy to act swiftly in response to any take-down or C&D request directed to the site from a company such as HTC. As HTC make good money out of selling their phones, they are not bothered about a few people making ROMs for each other to use, as it drives up sales of phones.
Moved out of development as irrelevant. No more random threads like this please guys, this is a warning as I'm not going to spend the day moving posts about.
Damn! Don't even know what to believe now... I wish I had been following this from the start...
Maybe someone can send a PM to me with a short resume even I can understand? xD
C0mpu13rFr34k said:
Damn! Don't even know what to believe now... I wish I had been following this from the start...
Maybe someone can send a PM to me with a short resume even I can understand? xD
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think any PM is needed here. Read the info posted by stericson, as that is a full explanation of what's happened.
pulser_g2 said:
I don't think any PM is needed here. Read the info posted by stericson, as that is a full explanation of what's happened.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's just that that post is very hard for me to understand I get really confused reading it...
Guys, why even bother?
A decision made is a decision made.. and only the involved people should take steps to work it out.
Peace,
Bryanarby
C0mpu13rFr34k said:
It's just that that post is very hard for me to understand I get really confused reading it...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then don't worry about it. Feeyo did a bad thing and continued to do a bad thing. Bad thing thoroughly investigated and now rectified, Feeyo given vacation for his trouble.
Hacre said:
Then don't worry about it. Feeyo did a bad thing and continued to do a bad thing. Bad thing thoroughly investigated and now rectified, Feeyo given vacation for his trouble.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not saying I'm agreeing with you but I guess I'm going to start using both your ROMs Your both great developers
pulser_g2 said:
It is XDA policy to act swiftly in response to any take-down or C&D request directed to the site from a company such as HTC. As HTC make good money out of selling their phones, they are not bothered about a few people making ROMs for each other to use, as it drives up sales of phones.
Moved out of development as irrelevant. No more random threads like this please guys, this is a warning as I'm not going to spend the day moving posts about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry for choosing dev and not general
hmm - Froyd119 does have an office-view integrated...
passionqickoffice.apk was never delivered with htc hero.
OK, EVERYONE at xda does cook ROMS out of others...
But it's ridiculous to ban feeyo out from these two points.
GPL - OK (discussion when someone has to publish the code - immediatly, or after 2 weeks) , but not quote THIS points when banning a dev, cause ALL devs has to be banned - which is death to xda
dont know said:
Sorry for choosing dev and not general
hmm - Froyd119 does have an office-view integrated...
passionqickoffice.apk was never delivered with htc hero.
OK, EVERYONE at xda does cook ROMS out of others...
But it's ridiculous to ban feeyo out from these two points.
GPL - OK (discussion when someone has to publish the code - immediatly, or after 2 weeks) , but not quote THIS points when banning a dev, cause ALL devs has to be banned - which is death to xda
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know what Hero you're using but I had Quick Office on my phone when it came from Orange.
EDIT: In fact, from the official HTC 1.5 RUU:
Code:
[email protected] ~/downloads/apps/phone/roms/official/RUU/app $ ls | grep -i quickoffice
Quickoffice_HTC_1.0.1.apk
This would be Quickoffice, themed to match HTC Sense. In Android 1.5. This file was never deleted in the subsequent OTAs:
Code:
[email protected] ~/downloads/apps/phone/roms/official $ find . -iname *office*
./evo/system/app/Quickoffice.apk
./RUU/system/app/Quickoffice_HTC_1.0.1.apk
./RUU/app/Quickoffice_HTC_1.0.1.apk
./postpatch/system/app/Quickoffice.apk
QuickOffice is a licensed Google application. HTC have a google app license. Therefore people using HTC phones have a Google app license to use Google apps on their phones. QED.
Google's Cease and Desist against Cyanogenmod fell down on these very grounds.
You're becoming more ridiculous by the post.
It IS interesting how we only get to see the "bad" side of Feeyo.
It's just.. I know Feeyo's side aswell, so it looks really weird to have (all) people saying he didn't release it.
I'm not familiar with the GPL so correct me if I am wrong.
I would say that the coder has the freedom to atleast clean his code pre-releasing?
Don't get me wrong.. the code should be released and was in a way.
Declining that the code was released..
The essential parts are there?
btw, Warez?
6. Do not post warez.
If a piece of software requires you to pay to use it,-> nope
either pay or find your cracks-> nope
and serials somewhere else.-> nope
We do not accept warez nor do we permit any member to promote or describe ways in which Warez, -> nope
cracks, -> nope
serial codes -> nope
or other means of avoiding payment, -> nope
can be obtained.
So, unless this rule is bigger then that.. I do not agree with the Warez branding.
Bryanarby said:
It IS interesting how we only get to see the "bad" side of Feeyo.
It's just.. I know Feeyo's side aswell, so it looks really weird to have (all) people saying he didn't release it.
I'm not familiar with the GPL so correct me if I am wrong.
I would say that the coder has the freedom to atleast clean his code pre-releasing?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Incorrect. If you provide me with software licensed by the GPL I am entitled to the EXACT SOURCE CODE USED to compile that piece of software. It's why the GPL has made so many in roads in the security community because the code can be vetted upon request. Once the code is "cleaned up" then it isn't the same code as used to provide the binary release and therefore, a breach in GPL.
Bryanarby said:
Don't get me wrong.. the code should be released and was in a way.
Declining that the code was released..
The essential parts are there?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No it wasn't and no they aren't. Every "source code" release Feeyo ever provided either didn't work or wasn't the source code that was asked for. You don't do partial releases of source code, or "here's most of it, work the rest out for yourself". That only works if you provide a complete diff patch of the original source to the source used which in essence will provide the original source code used. Feeyo didn't do this either.
Bryanarby said:
btw, Warez?
6. Do not post warez.
If a piece of software requires you to pay to use it,-> nope
either pay or find your cracks-> nope
and serials somewhere else.-> nope
We do not accept warez nor do we permit any member to promote or describe ways in which Warez, -> nope
cracks, -> nope
serial codes -> nope
or other means of avoiding payment, -> nope
can be obtained.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes warez. In the broader sense, Warez is the distribution/use of software for which you do not have a valid license. In most cases, yes, this is because it's paid software being distributed for free, however it boils down to the same legal issue, no valid license.
So warez applies to Feeyo's kernels. He does not have a valid license to distribute them because he does not have a valid GPL license, because he refuses to provide:
A copy of the GPL with his releases or an easily accessible copy of the GPL at distribution point. There's a reason I keep a link to my kernel source in my signature, you're only a click away from your copy of the GPL as well as a click away from your copy of the source code, including easy to read, detailed, changelogs.
AND
A written offer to provide the source code upon request
OR an archive of the source code used to build the binary release at the point of distribution
OR an archive of the source provided upon request.
Failure to match this criteria breaches GPL and once you have breached GPL you no longer have a license to distribute the GPL software in question.
No license + distribution = illegal distribution = Warez.
Bryanarby said:
So, unless this rule is bigger then that.. I do not agree with the Warez branding.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well then I hope I've cleared that up for you.
Furthermore, looking at the Cronos Linux distribution, which Feeyo advertises in his forum signature, that's an even bigger GPL breach than his ROMs are. It's a walking, talking, urination all over the GPL. Not a single mention of the GPL on the site or in the wiki, not a single link to the source code anywhere that I can find.
Ok, I agree, Feeyo should abide by the GPL..
Although the aggressive level of demanding was rediculously high, leading to the defensive stance against releasing.
It is/was still not finished and the issues that it brought could not be fixed, as such the rollback.
Bryanarby said:
Ok, I agree, Feeyo should abide by the GPL..
Although the aggressive level of demanding was rediculously high, leading to the defensive stance against releasing.
It is/was still not finished and the issues that it brought could not be fixed, as such the rollback.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My initial request was very polite. The aggressiveness came when he refused.
It was finished enough to include in a ROM release. You don't seem to understand how the GPL and open source development works. Once he released that "2.6.32" kernel to the wild, he was obligated to provide the source code he used to build it. Not when he felt like it, not after he'd changed it again, but as it was when that kernel was built.
Myself and others are working on a 2.6.34 port for the Hero. The source code we are working on doesn't work properly as yet, however the source code is STILL PUBLICLY AVAILABLE so that other developers can contribute to it and improve upon it and who knows, even help us get it finished faster.
I wasn't going to do this, however given that Feeyo has outright lied again here to his OWN COMMUNITY, I'm going to.
Feeyo didn't port 2.6.32 to the Hero. Feeyo changed the version string in the Makefile. Do I have proof of this? Not a jot but I'd bet my house on it. There's some incredibly talented devs working on the 2.6.3x port for the Hero and there's more than one of them. Feeyo got it working in under a week or so he claims. He refused to release the source and pulled the distribution because he was rumbled and he knows it.
Either you're in on it with him, or he's got you completely fooled as well. Or you and he are the same person. After all the deceit from the Cronos group, stemming from way back when he claimed to have goldfish sources for the hero and ended up posting a git snapshot that had nothing at all to do with the Hero up until recently, who the hell knows what's going on.
But I draw the line at GPL breach and lying to a community which Feeyo has done on numerous occasions. Thankfully, XDA seem to agree with me, which at the end of the day, is the opinion that counts.
His actions were contemptuous and the attempted defense/excusing of his actions by the likes of you and your ilk are equally contemptuous.
Hacre said:
QuickOffice is a licensed Google application. HTC have a google app license. Therefore people using HTC phones have a Google app license to use Google apps on their phones. QED.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's an interpretation of a "law" - OK (we all use the passion.apk)
but accuse feeyo of warez because not IMMIDIATLY public the code is also an interpration of a "law"
http://www.cronosproject.org/kernelSources.tar.bz2
Hacre said:
You're becoming more ridiculous by the post.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
perhaps
But for me the whole war is so ridiculous that my posts are peanuts
Hacre said:
I wasn't going to do this, however given that Feeyo has outright lied again here to his OWN COMMUNITY, I'm going to.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, as you started there aswell.. let's keep it at one place or it would get too chaotic to follow for anyone. As Feeyo can atleast speak on the other forum, I will halt following this topic.
Hacre said:
Either you're in on it with him, or he's got you completely fooled as well. Or you and he are the same person.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I only hear bits and pieces of both sides, that's why I changed standing point after gathering more info.
I, myself(not Feeyo), have no access to any sources.
Really, really, really not imposing on anyone:
Is this how issues should be solved? Handing one side free speech and silencing the other side?
God, how I hated that about my ex (good thing she doesn't know my internet identity/doesn't look for it.)
I get the impression that a lot of people are really looking at the GPL the wrong way, not really able to shake off a capitalist mindset from it. The fact of the matter is, if someone develops something and releases it under GPL it means it's free to distribute and edit all you like ON THE CONDITION THAT THE GPL REMAINS. You *CANNOT* take some code, edit it and then claim "welllllll, it's really my code so I'll release it when I'm good and ready". No, that's not the GPL - go and write something from scratch if you want to do that.
The ethos behind the GPL is to promote development, holding sources back until you're happy with them is fine, but then you can't release the ROM. That's far too much like wanting some limelight for yourself before you allow others to carry on. Again - Feeyo did not own the code that he was withholding, he did not author it from scratch and as such he was OBLIGED to make the source available the nanosecond he made a compiled ROM available. I think it's absolutely fair and just that he gets banned for this breach as it's such a fundamental "f**k you" to the GPL, hopefully he'll see what he was doing wrong and remedy it. After all, the more developers working on an open source project the better.
Bryanarby said:
I only hear bits and pieces of both sides, that's why I changed standing point after gathering more info.
I, myself(not Feeyo), have no access to any sources.
Really, really, really not imposing on anyone:
Is this how issues should be solved? Handing one side free speech and silencing the other side?
God, how I hated that about my ex (good thing she doesn't know my internet identity/doesn't look for it.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As far as I'm concerned, there are no *sides* on this. I'm not a huge follower of XDA, so I'm not involved in all the politics but I have a reasonable understanding of the GPL after living with a total Linux nerd/open source zealot at Uni. The facts are that Feeyo did not make the proper sources available as soon as he released a compiled ROM - that's not how the GPL works. It seems he persistently resisted and as such, was banned. Totally fair enough.
Viewsonic Gtablet Specific Binaries & Drivers
For everyone who may have been waiting for this I present to you the proper Proprietary Viewsonic Gtablet Binaries & Drivers according to Cyanogen Mods Tutorial of Compiling Gingerbread Rom which also discusses how to pull the Proprietary Drivers and Binaries from a Malata smb_a1002 Device which is a Viewsonic Gtablet specifically.
To all who want to test with these Binaries and Drivers before testing with these please understand that these are the Binaries and Drivers the Viewsonic Gtablet Stock ROM uses. When using these specific Binaries and Drivers understand that these files may already exist and that replacing just one of these can disrupt the way a current ROM may be running. This can be caused for a number of reasons...
1. When replacing the libraries and binaries with these understand the alot of these specific files are tied together to make the Gtablet work the way it does, so in essence replacing one of these libraries or binaries with one on another ROM can cause the ROM itself to look for the other libraries and binary files that are specifically in this package.
2. You may get away with mixing and mingling these files but it's a hard and time consuming process to debug which ones can and can't work with other vendors binaries and libraries but this is how the work must be done
3. If there is a file missing do not blame me this is what I know according to Cyanogen MODs Wiki. If you wan to view there tutorial go to there website, and look through there WIKI.
Proprietary Android Binaries & Drivers: http://linuxboxsolution.com/linux-b...t-Proprietary-Android-Binaries--and--Drivers/
Issues have seemed to be resolved with submission to github.
That zip file would've been slightly more useful had it contained the original paths of those proprietary files.
Issues have seemed to be resolved with submission to github.
** deleted **
Thanks for the work LBS
mmenzie said:
can a MODERATOR please step in on this??? the above comments do NOTHING to further the development of this or any other thing!!! i'm not a developer or anything... i am just a tester testing all the wonderful things all the Devs let us test. are you a developer??? are you a programmer??? are you even using the products of this developer??? i am guessing the answer is NO to all questions. if thats the case please just sit back and read and do not interact with this thread or any other thread where your business is to knock the product. unless you are a developer, a programmer, or a tester willing to add CONSTRUCTIVE CRITISIM or "thank yous" there is no need for you to post anything at all in this or any other thread.
CONSTRUCTIVE CRITISIM and helpful hints and positive feedback are the only things that further development and we should all consider this before making a post.
i will now climb down from my soap box and let thgis get back on topic (hopefully)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Critisism and words of caution are equally as important as praise.
Be wary of of folks trumpetting the quality of their product to increase profit while doing nothing to provide evidence to support those claims.
That said, what TnT build do these files come from and are they different than what is used in CM7 or some of the AOSP based projects ?
nunjabusiness said:
What exactly does this group of files bring to the table?
If it is simply the extracted stuff from the original TapNCrap that it came with, the only thing I can think of that we are really missing now in the HC ROMs is camera support.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In my eyes the only major issues with HC are:
1 camera support (possibly fixed with these files)
2 hardware acceleration (probaly not fixed with these files)
So, one of the two major HC drawbacks might be fixed. IMO camera support isn't as importent as hardware acceleration, but it's still on my 'must have' list. Who cares if camera support came from TapNCrap, as long as it works?
All of the HC ROMS are on par with each other (pre-packaged apps and launchers aside) so if one HC ROM gets camera working then that would be the better ROM IMO.
ramerco said:
That said, what TnT build do these files come from and are they different than what is used in CM7 or some of the AOSP based projects ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Excellent question, I'd like to know the answer too. Does it come from a ROM with keyboard/mouse support, for example?
macbroom said:
Another attempt to drive your site traffic up for profit using open source material.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I went to his site and I saw no ads, no banners, no links for a donation or links to other products. MAybe those links were there but they were not prominent, so it hardly looks like an ad scheme, it's not like thousands of people will flock to his site to download files and be drawn into his tangled web of crafty salesmanship. How many people are developing ROMs for the gTab?
Why does it matter if it's his site vs another site?
edirector said:
His behavior is like cyber bullying because he is following this developer from forum to forum to post often-times character assassinating stuff. He might want to consider someone pulling his ip address and seeing who he really is and if he is affecting the developers income, be sued.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you have very little knowledge of the law in general and zero about civil law as it relates to defamation.
Regardless of provocation, please do not threaten legal action against someone (albeit groundless) as that is just as heinous a violation of forum rules.
Here they are for your edification (I particularly like #8 and #12):
Forum & Marketplace Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FORUM RULES
1. Search before posting.
Use one of our search functions before posting, whether you have a question or something new to share, it's very likely someone already asked that question or shared that news.
2. Member conduct.
2.1 Language: XDA is a worldwide community. As a result what is ‘ok’ to say in your part of the world may not be ok in someone else’s part of the world. Please think about who is reading what you write. Keep in mind that what you think of as acceptable use of language may not be acceptable to others. Conversely, while reading member posts, remember that word you find offensive may not be to the writer. Tolerance is a two way street.
2.2 Nudity: XDA is used by people of all ages, including minors. It's not acceptable to post nude/pornographic imagery, which includes exposure of the male or female genitalia or of female breasts.
2.3 Flaming: XDA was founded as a group of people sharing information about certain mobile phones. Sharing does not involve virtual yelling (flaming) it does involve working together to solve problems in an environment of mutual respect and understanding. Losing your temper and flaming another member, or group of members, is not acceptable behavior.
2.4 Personal attacks, racial, political and/or religious discussions: XDA is a discussion forum about certain mobile phones. Mobile phones are not racial, political, religious or personally offensive, therefore none of these types of discussions are permitted on XDA.
2.5 New Members: Treat new members the way you would have liked to have been treated when you were a new member. Provide the new members with guidance, advice and instruction always with respect and courtesy.
2.6 All members are expected to read and adhere to the XDA rules.
3. Post only using a clear subject and message.
You're most likely to receive a helpful answer to your question if you use a short subject title that describes your problem and a message that explains in detail what your problem is and what you've tried to solve it.
4. Use the English language.
We understand that with all the different nationalities not everyone speaks English well, but please try. If you're really unable to post in English use an online translator, You're free to include your original message in your own language below the English translation.
5. Post a message only once.
As a large forum we don't need unnecessary clutter, You're free to edit your message as you like, so if you do not receive an answer revisit your message and see if you can describe your problem better. Not everyone is online at the same time, it might take a while before you receive an answer.
6. Do not post warez.
If a piece of software requires you to pay to use it, either pay or find your cracks and serials somewhere else. We do not accept warez nor do we permit any member to promote or describe ways in which Warez, cracks, serial codes or other means of avoiding payment, can be obtained.
7. Do not spam.
If you wish to advertise a product, contact us we provide ads. But do not post it in the forums, it will be removed and you're likely to receive a ban.
You are however allowed to sell used goods like your own device, parts of your device or accessories for your device in the marketplace forum, please read the rules there before posting. (This rule includes signatures, if you use a signature it will appear in your post)
8. Donations.
We appreciate all donations to xda-developers.com, it keeps our forum online and well maintained. As a user you're allowed to ask for donations in your signature as a thank you for your hard work. However donations up front are not allowed, this forum is about sharing, not about getting paid to do something, that's what your job is for.
9. Don't get us in trouble.
Don't post copyrighted materials or do other things that will obviously lead to legal trouble. If you wouldn't do it on your own homepage, you probably don't want to do it here either. This does not mean we agree with everything the software piracy lobby try to impose on us, it simply means you cannot break any laws here, since we'll end up dealing with legal hassle caused by you. Please use common sense: respect the forum, its users, and those that write great code.
10. Help others if you can.
If you see posts from others where you can help out, please do. This place exists because people are helping each other, and even if you are relatively new to the matter, there's probably already quite a few people newer than you that would benefit from what you've learned. Don't be shy.
11. Don’t post with the intention of selling something.
•Don’t use XDA to advertise your product or service. Proprietors of for-pay products or services, may use XDA to get feedback, provide beta access, or a free version of their product for XDA users and offer support, but not to post with the intention of selling. This includes promoting sites similar/substantially similar to XDA-Developers.com.
•Do not post press releases, announcements, links to trial software, or commercial services. unless you’re posting an exclusive release for XDA-Developers.com.
•Encouraging members to participate in forum activities on other phone related sites is prohibited.
•Off-site downloads are permitted if the site is non-commercial and does not require registration.
•Off-site downloads from sites requiring registration are NOT encouraged but may be permitted if the following conditions are met:
A) the site belongs to a member of XDA-Developers with at least 1500 posts and 2 years membership who actively maintains XDA-Developers' support thread(s) / posts, related to the download,
B) the site is a relatively small personal website without commercial advertising/links (i.e. not a competitor forum-based site with purposes and aims similar to those of XDA-Developers.com.)
12. Using the work of others.
If you are developing something that is based on the work of another Member, you MUST first seek their permission, and you must give credit to the member whose work you used. If a dispute occurs about who developed / created a piece of work, first try to settle the matter by private message and NOT in open forum. If this fails then you may contact a moderator with clear evidence that the work was created by you.
Convincing evidence will result in copied work being removed. If there is no clear evidence you created the work then in the spirit of sharing all work will remain posted on the forums.
These rules apply to all software posted on XDA unless that software comes with a license that waives these rules.
What if macbroom and LBS are the same person. He created an alter ego just to stir interest and attention to himself because he loves it. Twist!
Directed by M. Night Shamwamthankyoumam
nunjabusiness said:
...
Here they are for your edification (I particularly like #8 and #12):
...
8. Donations.
We appreciate all donations to xda-developers.com, it keeps our forum online and well maintained. As a user you're allowed to ask for donations in your signature as a thank you for your hard work. However donations up front are not allowed, this forum is about sharing, not about getting paid to do something, that's what your job is for.
12. Using the work of others.
If you are developing something that is based on the work of another Member, you MUST first seek their permission, and you must give credit to the member whose work you used. If a dispute occurs about who developed / created a piece of work, first try to settle the matter by private message and NOT in open forum. If this fails then you may contact a moderator with clear evidence that the work was created by you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well said.
The vast majority of the responses in this thread are pretty shameful. And I think the most a moderator could do is edit some of these comments (which, imo, they should).
Some advise - on occasion I've lost my cool and written things I later regretted. I suggest that some of you use the edit button, clean up the hateful comments and maybe drop in a "I apologize" retraction while you're at it.
And @LBS, keep in mind that most people do appreciate what you do (myself included). I know how hard it is to make ROM's, and support them, but there will always be a few bad apples. I have pulled back from here (and Slatedroid and TR) this summer as I decompress a bit, so I'm not sure if there's some history outside of this thread which created this tension. But from my vantage point, all LBS is doing is using his own web site to better control how he disseminates information. How is that any different than what goodintentions is doing, for example? Isn't the end goal to help users make the most of their GTAB?
bebopblues said:
What if macbroom and LBS are the same person. He created an alter ego just to stir interest and attention to himself because he loves it. Twist!
Directed by M. Night Shamwamthankyoumam
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol! WHAT A TWIST! Well done on the robot chicken reference
roebeet said:
The vast majority of the responses in this thread are pretty shameful. And I think the most a moderator could do is edit some of these comments (which, imo, they should).
Some advise - on occasion I've lost my cool and written things I later regretted. I suggest that some of you use the edit button, clean up the hateful comments and maybe drop in a "I apologize" retraction while you're at it.
And @LBS, keep in mind that most people do appreciate what you do (myself included). I know how hard it is to make ROM's, and support them, but there will always be a few bad apples. I have pulled back from here (and Slatedroid and TR) this summer as I decompress a bit, so I'm not sure if there's some history outside of this thread which created this tension. But from my vantage point, all LBS is doing is using his own web site to better control how he disseminates information. How is that any different than what goodintentions is doing, for example? Isn't the end goal to help users make the most of their GTAB?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you, Roebeet I have been tirelessly supporting LBS's effort. It was starting to feel like a full time job. I am glad you jumped in. It is bad when conversation is not about the rom but gets more personal in nature. People were coming at me because I expressed my like of his work which is pretty darn good at that. But you know I am a fan of your work too. You pioneered the HC rom industry for G Tab, so you know we appreciate you. I trbardelljr I hope I got his name right of Flashback is doing an incredible job as well even though I haven't tried his rom yet. My problem is I got hooked on illuminate because it is that good.
I noticed some have gotten into the dual rom running and I might try that so I can check out different roms at the same time, too.
Enjoy your down time. We look forward to your return.
roebeet said:
The vast majority of the responses in this thread are pretty shameful. And I think the most a moderator could do is edit some of these comments (which, imo, they should).
Some advise - on occasion I've lost my cool and written things I later regretted. I suggest that some of you use the edit button, clean up the hateful comments and maybe drop in a "I apologize" retraction while you're at it.
And @LBS, keep in mind that most people do appreciate what you do (myself included). I know how hard it is to make ROM's, and support them, but there will always be a few bad apples. I have pulled back from here (and Slatedroid and TR) this summer as I decompress a bit, so I'm not sure if there's some history outside of this thread which created this tension. But from my vantage point, all LBS is doing is using his own web site to better control how he disseminates information. How is that any different than what goodintentions is doing, for example? Isn't the end goal to help users make the most of their GTAB?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have edited some of my posts in the interest of cleaning up some of the residual mess in this thread. I also suggest that some others do the same so we can get back on track.
I hope that you are enjoying your break and time with your family and we all hope that you will return in the near future. You were the main reason that I purchased my Gtab.
P.S. You may also want to edit your last post after catching up on the other threads.
macbroom said:
I have edited some of my posts in the interest of cleaning up some of the residual mess in this thread. I also suggest that some others do the same so we can get back on track.
I hope that you are enjoying your break and time with your family and we all hope that you will return in the near future. You were the main reason that I purchased my Gtab.
P.S. You may also want to edit your last post after catching up on the other threads.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just went back and re-read the posts I have made in the past couple of weeks here and stand behind every one 100%.
Now ... on the OTHER forum I (and others) may have gotten a little bit too zealous in some posts but ultimately, the mods agreed with us and locked the threads.
To be completely fair though, none of those posts got really combative until "autistic" started it.
Hey,
Folks, there is a new version of illuminate that was released yesterday that is outstanding... to spin off on from the fact we are on LBS's thread. While many of us may not know how to use these "binaries and drivers" but LBS and other devs do and they are more then likely included somewhere in his updated rom. It is a pretty incredible HC rom.
The speed on it is astounding with no hick-ups. I spent last night driving it hard just to see what it could do and matching the differences in his previous releases. It is pretty incredible. Loads multimedia files...pics, videos and music like they are text.
Update from the LBS kernel thread
jerdog said:
Kernel source needs provided as per GPL. All this looks like is a rebranding of someone else's kernel - to dispel that belief please provide source and changes or else this will be removed as it would be in violation of the rules.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmmm, deja vu anyone?
macbroom said:
I have edited some of my posts in the interest of cleaning up some of the residual mess in this thread. I also suggest that some others do the same so we can get back on track.
I hope that you are enjoying your break and time with your family and we all hope that you will return in the near future. You were the main reason that I purchased my Gtab.
P.S. You may also want to edit your last post after catching up on the other threads.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I had mentioned that I wasn't sure if there was a history, but I suspected that there might be as these things usually are a slow boil. Since I've been out-of-the-loop, if there were other threads I hadn't seen them, at least not yet.
Honestly, I haven't delved into these other HC ROMs recently, so I don't know what's in them. So I can't base an opinion unless I ripped them apart -- the last one I did open up was Flashback, so I know that tlbardelljr had some unique stuff in the framework.
The point was that people need to be careful as these things can be taken out of context if they don't know the history (if there is a history). I know this from personal experience, unfortunately.
Am I the only on who is starting to get seriously p*ssed off at thor2002ro's lack of GPL compliance.
@thor2002ro Will you honour the GPL and release the source code to your kernel?
birkoffsjunk said:
Am I the only on who is starting to get seriously p*ssed off at thor2002ro's lack of GPL compliance.
@thor2002ro Will you honour the GPL and release the source code to your kernel?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1.
My biggest gripe about lack of compliance, is that it severely inhibits collaboration.
While thor2002ro may be a good Kernel developer, he/she may not necessarily have a perfect kernel.
ShadowXVII said:
+1.
My biggest gripe about lack of compliance, is that it severely inhibits collaboration.
While thor2002ro may be a good Kernel developer, he/she may not necessarily have a perfect kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's all starting to look a bit juvenile tbh... it would take all of 2 mins to upload, even just as tar/zip.
I've also seen that the Iconia CWM source hasn't been released either, granted I don't believe it's required under the Apache license but add it to the kernel and it starts to paint a picture someone who wants to be in 'control' rather than 'collaborate'.
I'd love to be proven wrong, but with each passing day it gets less and less likely.
birkoffsjunk said:
It's all starting to look a bit juvenile tbh
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
birkoffsjunk said:
I've also seen that the Iconia CWM source hasn't been released either, granted I don't believe it's required under the Apache license but add it to the kernel and it starts to paint a picture someone who wants to be in 'control' rather than 'collaborate'.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
TBH, the branding over CWM is also annoying. My HTC Desire doesn't have any branding, nor does any other CWM Recovery that I've seen previously. I was excited above this device getting attention by Kernel developers, but it seems most will possibly be discouraged with the lack of source.
A kernel that abides by the right licence gets my vote.
I personally could care less either way. Nobody is forcing you to use his work.
But if you are itching for controversy maybe you should check this out http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
n1nj4dude said:
I personally could care less either way. Nobody is forcing you to use his work.
But if you are itching for controversy maybe you should check this out http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's just inconvenient for collaboration. I want what's best for the device and it's community, really.
Everyone else releases their source, so what makes thor2002ro so special that he isn't able to? As the OP said, it wouldn't take long.
Is thor2002ro embarrassed to show his source code or something?
"It will come when it's done"
now he is developing off site for his own satisfaction, so cant say anything about xda/android gpl violation
those who want to use just use, and we cant force him to release..
first of all, concerning compliance, GPL does not require to publish any source as long as it is not released, and even then it only obliges you to make it available to whom ever requets it and in whatever form including on paper.
second CWM could be published even under apache licence, since it is not part of the kernel.
third since ACER has not published the source of the 3.1 Kernel, how can you ask thor to publish his Kernel for 3.1. If he completely rewrote the Kernel, then he can use any licence he want, if not it's only libraries.
however if you go to his site, and you ask, you will probably get the source of what he is doing, as per GPL.
The only thing I don't like is that he excludes functions from the original ACER kernel, "like encryption", but that is due to the fact he does not have the ACER sources.
zoubidou said:
first of all, concerning compliance, GPL does not require to publish any source as long as it is not released, and even then it only obliges you to make it available to whom ever requets it and in whatever form including on paper.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's released on his site?
zoubidou said:
second CWM could be published even under apache licence, since it is not part of the kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It'd still be appreciated by the community if it was published. I'm aware it's not part of the kernel.
zoubidou said:
third since ACER has not published the source of the 3.1 Kernel, how can you ask thor to publish his Kernel for 3.1. If he completely rewrote the Kernel, then he can use any licence he want, if not it's only libraries. however if you go to his site, and you ask, you will probably get the source of what he is doing, as per GPL.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Acer has a better track record at this point; http://support.acer.com/us/en/product/default.aspx?tab=4&modelId=3851
zoubidou said:
The only thing I don't like is that he excludes functions from the original ACER kernel, "like encryption", but that is due to the fact he does not have the ACER sources.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
An example of where multiple-developer minds could help bring features to the community faster?
sure i agree, but don't hide behind GPL licensing, it has nothing to do with that. I would just suggest that you make it a common rule to be respected maybe with some exceptions if they are reasonably submitted to the admin's.
Maybe thor has some reasons not to follow this rule, if he says so and it's reasonable, let it be, may be not, in which case he should get knocked off, and I mean completely, not just saying you are not allowed to and in fact he is still here and publishing his work without any sources just on a different site, but he has links to it. In fact this would possibly wether make him go away, or come back and comply, because of the audience.
That's what I think but I agree that other ideas are also possible.
As far as CWM is concerned apache license doesn't require the release for the source, but would help the community maintain CWM rather than 1 person.
The kernel is another matter, the GPL is quite clear if you publish, and it has been, your required to make available the source.
Any attempt to change the license is a breach of the GPL.
I have asked repeatedly for said sources.
A user may not completely understand the importance of this, but developers do, and as a developer can thor please release his source code.
zoubidou said:
but don't hide behind GPL licensing, it has nothing to do with that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not hiding behind anything It's a GPL violation. It's a binary release without source.
zoubidou said:
Maybe thor has some reasons not to follow this rule, if he says so and it's reasonable, let it be, may be not, in which case he should get knocked off, and I mean completely, not just saying you are not allowed to and in fact he is still here and publishing his work without any sources just on a different site, but he has links to it. In fact this would possibly wether make him go away, or come back and comply, because of the audience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not wanting to argue, especially not over reasons as to "why" or "why not" it might be released. In the end, it's not released.
I'd really appreciate it if it was. I'm sure others would too.
i agree with you, especially it could possibly help to make things work which don't work. It could also help tu share the work between experts, each is taking care of a different subject.
What I want to point out is, don't hide behind any licences, just make it the rules.
zoubidou said:
i agree with you, especially it could possibly help to make things work which don't work. It could also help tu share the work between experts, each is taking care of a different subject.
What I want to point out is, don't hide behind any licences, just make it the rules.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The only person hiding is thor :|
Please also remember the Kernel has been developing for decades by thousands of indviduals and companies worldwide, and they all comply with the GPL, why can't thor?
Sorry if I sound like a broken record, it's just the frustration in dealing with this.
Again... i bring up this link http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
If you truely believe he is violating then this ^^ is all you can do...
I sense jealousy here... Oh no! The romanian wizard that helped so many people must be crucified!
Johnny0906 said:
I sense jealousy here... Oh no! The romanian wizard that helped so many people must be crucified!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol this ^^
@n1nj4dude yes brilliant if you know his/her real name etc, but we don't...
@Johnny0906 lol grow up
I wonder how long it will take for most to complain once their favourite ROM is removed from xda due to the Kernel violating the GPL
Whatever birkajerkoff