Database Users

Feeyo banned?

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.

[Q] close xda

*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.

The GPL and the past 24 hours' events

[Mods: I felt that this thread is most appropriate in this section as it pertains specifically to Android development. If you feel this is not the case and should be moved, please do so.]
As many of us know, Eugene and TeamWhiskey both released completely working Froyo ROMs today, and they were able to do so with leaked code that both were asked not to divulge. There's been some infighting between developers, and the use of the leaked code is the major point of contention.
What interests me is how developers have been respecting the GPL. As a major free/open source supporter, the fact that how this license permits developers and users alike to use any source code has not been respected scares me. I certainly don't want to see development of our phones fall by the wayside because some developers have access to code that others don't, when that code [or at least, the source code of developed ROMs that use leaked code] is legally required to be released to the public. (source, and examples of the GPL's standing in an American court of law)
Based on the current events and major milestones in Android development, I'm interested to see if anyone else agrees with me. (Or perhaps I'm wrong entirely - but there's a sticky on the top of this forum reminding developers about abiding by the GPL, so I assume that any ROM or kernel we've seen is GPL-derived.) I realize that some aspects of the Samsung version of Android in particular is under a proprietary license (TouchWiz, RFS), and this little point gets touchy. But Android itself and kernels for Android are GPL - so shouldn't any source code used by any Android project be released?

honestly? I'm concerned about the GPL implications too but I'm 100% sure that I don't have enough information to try to form an opinion about what's right or wrong in this scenario. I'm sure there is a lot going on in the background the average user such as myself doesn't know of what's going on here. edit: trying to speculate here is just too hard to guess, and would invoke both drama and the answers are not backed by anyone.
If you're not sure, ask the FSF.
Eugene and Sombionix need to take up their issues privately (and have since), and that was their only mistake. The rest of the scenario is simply not appropriate to come up publicly.

Although, I agree with the fact that the GPL has to be followed, the GPL only applies to source code. From what I gather, neither of these parties have any source code. They are both in the possession of a leak ROM. The word source here is used to mean the ROM from which the files came from.
When it comes to leaks, files in leaks CAN be traced back to the leak in some cases which is why many times, leaks cannot and will not be shared.
On the other hand, if they have the source code and it has been modified, then they must abide by the GPL.

One thing to consider here is that to the best of my knowledge, nobody other than Samsung at this point has the source to the SGS FroYo builds. What I mean by that is; everything that went on regarding the leak, is based off of binary files taken from a working phone. No source code involved. Google has released the code to 2.2, which satisfies the GPL licensing; with which Samsung has added proprietary software on top of for use with their phones, but because what they have added is NOT GPL'd, are not obligated to provide the source for.
I might be mistaken here, but assuming Samsung didn't change any of the existing AOSP code, and only added their proprietary software on top, then the 'must provide source code' clause is in fact being satisfied by Google. All Samsung needs to do to cover their behinds is provide a link to Google's Android development pages.

if it was GPLv3 we wouldn't have this problem, but a lot of companies are unwilling to jump to GPLv3 instead of GPLv2.

To clarify the position XDA takes on GPL code (having worked on the GPL policy you see at the top of every forum), it is required to release kernel sources if you have access to them.
It seems likely that no source code was available here, and the use of leaks in ROMs has been standard practice for a long time on XDA, and on other sites. There's no issue with this, and it is a signal of trust from the leaker to the developer that the source file will not be made available. Thus you are unlikely to get access to such leaks as a user, though you can enjoy the fruits of them after established developers with contacts have got access to them.
If it were insisted that sources be provided for EVERYTHING, then releases like this would be in breach of the XDA GPL code, and thus would stifle development. Samsung has not provided them with the sources (as I understand), so they have no obligations as far as I can identify, beyond passing on any standard notices placed in the ROM by Samsung, offering source code.
If a custom kernel was compiled to use the ROM, then its sources would be required under the GPL. The actual ROM itself is not GPL'd as such, and treating it as such would be detrimental to users on XDA.
If GPL sources have been used, then they must be posted per the GPL. Otherwise, there are no further obligations per the XDA rules. This does not appear to be the case here.
Just to back up this point, I worked on and released some ROMs, and never touched a line of source code personally. It's possible to do a surprising amount to ROMs without actually editing sources (often they're not available either when working on HTC devices...). It's only within the last month or two that I've actually looked at source code properly with intent on making changes.
Finally, I'll move this into general with a redirect for just now, as it's not directly related to a ROM, though is "on topic".

Ah - so the leaked code used to finish both Eugene's and Team Whiskey's was not code, but binaries (i.e., a leaked ROM?) This makes a lot more sense to me. Thanks for clarification.
I suppose this point becomes moot when froyo finally drops officially, but it's still important.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App

Well said Pulser_g2
Pulser.......Well said. The important thing people need to remember is not to "create" drama where it is not. The Dev's do work in concert and do produce amazing results contrary to the public chatter.
It is a blessing that there are so many good developers working on the Vibrant vs, say ...(you insert phone of choice). ......now off to flash............

As I mentioned in one of the Froyo threads, I feel like the GPL doesn't really apply in the case of leaked ROMs, since 1) nobody has the source anyway and 2) they're chock full of closed source Samsung bits. The leaked ROMS, and any ROM derived from it in some way, is already questionable to redistribute since Samsung hasn't granted permission to do so.
On the other hand, I do wish people would release source to any modifications of the Linux kernel and any other GPL software that's acquired through legitimate channels. I can understand that the source might be released slightly later than the binary, but most kernels at this point haven't had any source accompany them, ever. This really isn't in the spirit of the GPL, and as a long time Linux user it came as a surprise to me that this is the way things seem to work here.
The bottom line is that, like it or not, people actually don't have the *right* to not release source eventually. I hope they start doing so sooner rather than later.

Looks like a lot of people don't understand the GPL, even senior moderators.
We ARE talking about the GPL, not LGPL, right?

Samsung hasn't made any of the stuff they have posted official... Why would samsung release anything for something that is not yet official...
How would the devs of xda be able to give you the source they don't have?
If you want to fight a losing battle email htc about the mytouch slide..
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App

First, I'm not trying to start a web battle here, just stating the facts.
1. The files that I received from our source gave me consent via email to build a rom and release it. Unfortunately, after the fact the rom was built and released, the source has been claiming that he did not want the files released, which was not at all what was discussed originally. Had he clearly stated that he did not want them released, I would not have done so. He specifically asked me to build a rom, but that he did not want his identity released, which I did not do.
2. You information regarding GPL is very wrong. We were not working from souce because source for the Vibrant 2.2 has not yet been released. The only Galaxy S device that has had source officially released has been the I9000. Had we been working from source, we would have gladly posted our edited source code with accordance with GPL law.

sombionix said:
2. You information regarding GPL is very wrong. We were not working from souce because source for the Vibrant 2.2 has not yet been released. The only Galaxy S device that has had source officially released has been the I9000. Had we been working from source, we would have gladly posted our edited source code with accordance with GPL law.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, this was my mistake. I was under the impression that you were working from source, not just a ROM, as was previously pointed out. So I guess it's a moot point.

PLEASE READ THIS !!! -The New Addition to Sharing Policy on XDA-Developers

To All Developers, Themers, Kangers and members read this it will help us all......
From the News from the Portal of XDA.
http://www.xda-developers.com/announ...da-developers/
Posted August 22, 2012 at 6:00 pm by egzthunder1
We are going to deviate a bit from our regularly scheduled programming to let you know about an upcoming change in the rules in the XDA forums. As time has gone by, our site has grown by leaps and bounds from what it was a couple of years ago. With a membership base of over 4.5 million registered users and an average of 35-40 thousand people active at any given time, we need to ensure that this place can offer the best possible environment for all people, both experienced developers and people who come here looking to learn about mobile devices. Because of this reason, the rules of our site need to be amended from time to time to accommodate the needs and wants of such a large user base, but without losing our principles and forgetting what XDA was founded on in the first place.
Just a bit of background: XDA was a website founded by hackers and developers for hackers and developers. People coming here shared one common goal, which was to get more and more out of their expensive toys and they did so by reverse engineering, creating new code to expand the device’s capabilities, and doing things with hardware that most people cannot do (mainly due to lack of knowledge or technical ability). The site prospered to what it is today because these very same people knew that their collective ideas and efforts would yield more results if they collaborated by sharing what they knew with others. More often than not, this resulted in fantastic feats such as the original XDA online kitchen, the very first port of WM5 to the mythical HTC Blue Angel, and many more accomplishments that are stored in the depths of XDA’s forums.
XDA-Developers has always been a place for sharing knowledge. People spend countless hours on their projects and give back to the community in several different forms, either by releasing the complete work to the community, or by sharing its source and methods by which the work was conceived. The latter allows others to pick up the work and tweak it to improve it (think of the Linux kernel for this to make sense). XDA’s own foundation is much like that as well. However, often times, this concept of the sharing of knowledge gets confused with the concept of sharing everything. If you frequent our site, you will have undoubtedly come across a few threads were discussions about sharing are on going. Essentially, some people demand for work to be released or even think that they can take as they please without following rules already present on our site. Likewise, people sharing their work sometimes have rather bizarre ways of doing so, which has a bad tendency to develop in what we like to call “dev wars”.
We (administrators and moderators of this site) truly believe that intellectual property (IP) is a very important part of what is done on xda-developers. As such, we cannot and will not support any kind of action which forces a developer to share their work with others if the developer does not wish to do so. A developer of anything has rights over their work and as such he/she can choose to do with it as he/she pleases (give it away, share the source, burn it, give it to an orphanage, or eat it for breakfast). We support whatever decision is taken by its developer. Having said that, over the years people have found what can only be categorized as a loophole in our current sharing policy, and thus people are forced to do things in exchange for permissions to use certain pieces of work by others.
After a long deliberation with the entire moderator and administrator staff, we are implementing the following addition to our sharing rule (Rule 12) – revisions are in bold:
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.
As an addition, developers have the right to hold exclusivity over their work for as long as it is deemed necessary by the dev or freely share it. However, if the work is claimed as exclusive, it must remain as such. No selective sharing will be allowed (ie allowing certain people to use it and not others). Should the dev decide to start sharing the work with others, the work automatically becomes fair game for all to use.
In regards to permissions, same rules remain for this but if permission was already given, unless there is a very valid reason, it cannot be revoked (same applies to major updates on the work). Under that same premise, permissions cannot be denied unless the work is exclusive or under severe circumstances.
In plain English: If you want to keep your work exclusive, go for it. However, if you are going to share your work, do it fairly.
These rules apply to all software posted on XDA (including but not limited to ROMs, RUUs, apps, games, kernels, themes, icons, etc) unless that software comes with a license that waives these rules.
The problem with the aforementioned permissions is that the rule never really stated anything regarding continuity or longevity of said permission. On top of that, selective sharing creates a massive problem on our site as it tends to give place to kanging (unauthorized copying and/or redistribution of work), fights between devs (so called “dev wars”), and tons of time wasted on investigations, which normally involves a large number of people from our staff. This needed to stop as it was reaching critical mass and high levels of anxiety were generated for no apparent reason on something that should be a hobby.
So, if you are a developer on this site and would like to keep your work as something exclusive, we encourage you to do it. If you would like to freely give it out so that others can use it and make it better, we encourage you to do it as well. However, we will no longer accept claims from anyone who picks and chooses who gets what. As stated in the rule, you either share or keep, but if you do share, do it fairly. Favoritism has created a great divide in our site and our community and it is only hurting development as a whole. People focus more on pointing fingers than they do on trying to create original work.
Permissions should still be sought as a matter of common courtesy, much like the original rule stipulated. However, unless a valid reason is provided, a simple “no, you cannot have it” will not suffice, especially if the work is being shared with others and permissions are denied out of spite.
Lets all work towards a new, rejuvenated XDA that is based on the core principles placed by the site’s founding fathers. Sharing of knowledge is what brought many of us together on this site and we should strive as a community to keep it that way. Please share your thoughts on this.
Thank you for reading.
Sincerely,
XDA-Developers Administration Team

Completely agree with this... I've seen several cases where some people shares something with selected developers but not with others... It sounds stupid but it's true... Android its open source... And what ever derivates from it.. Should be the same..
Sent from my GT-P7500 using Tapatalk 2

msedek said:
Completely agree with this... I've seen several cases where some people shares something with selected developers but not with others... It sounds stupid but it's true... Android its open source... And what ever derivates from it.. Should be the same..
Sent from my GT-P7500 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree if your going to share then let everyone share. For example all my files for linuxonandroid are freely available to all via source forge.
That is apart from the apps source which is shared with no one.
However people have the right to keep there hard work closed to just them if they wish after all its their hard work and far to many people take work and give no credit
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda premium

What is this crap. Either create a Creative Commons License, or fully copyright and lock it down. Simple.

totally agree

bigstarrynight said:
What is this crap. Either create a Creative Commons License, or fully copyright and lock it down. Simple.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah let's become an apple like community!
BTW I was being sarcastic
Enviado desde mi LG-P990 usando Tapatalk 2

msedek said:
Yeah let's become an apple like community!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No thanks. Biggest bunch of egotistical know-nothings
msedek said:
BTW I was being sarcastic
Enviado desde mi LG-P990 usando Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It suits you!

Calling all htc one owners PLEASE READ

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

Sent from my Black HTC ONE

Response -
Sent from my Black HTC ONE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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