Database Users

Support Cyanogen and the cause, read further

(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

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.

regarding cyanogenmod and google gapps situation

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
Rationale: Distributors of open-source software have the right to make their own choices about their own software.
Yes, the GPL v2 and v3 are conformant with this requirement. Software linked with GPLed libraries only inherits the GPL if it forms a single work, not any software with which they are merely distributed.
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.
Rationale: This provision is aimed specifically at licenses which require an explicit gesture of assent in order to establish a contract between licensor and licensee. Provisions mandating so-called "click-wrap" may conflict with important methods of software distribution such as FTP download, CD-ROM anthologies, and web mirroring; such provisions may also hinder code re-use. Conformant licenses must allow for the possibility that (a) redistribution of the software will take place over non-Web channels that do not support click-wrapping of the download, and that (b) the covered code (or re-used portions of covered code) may run in a non-GUI environment that cannot support popup dialogues.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
-from the open source initiative's definition of open source
i think this sums up the fact that if android is open source, then gapps must be made available to all who want to use them. google should let gapps be distributed on all phones and roms without being a "google experience" device.

.................................................

lolololololol wanted to see how long it would take for the section trolls to come out from under their bridges

c'mon toast, move this... i dare you :}

How does this mean the gpapps be open source. In fact I believe this selection explicitly allow for gapps.
Section 10 doesn't apply to gapps since they are not licensed as open source.
Section 9 specifically allows for gapps to be shipped on a phone along with the open source software.

What the open is trying to say since android is open source anything installed on it is now opensource?

You are the worst poster.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App

zorack8000 said:
-from the open source initiative's definition of open source
i think this sums up the fact that if android is open source, then gapps must be made available to all who want to use them. google should let gapps be distributed on all phones and roms without being a "google experience" device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Boo this man... booooooo

zorack8000 said:
-from the open source initiative's definition of open source
i think this sums up the fact that if android is open source, then gapps must be made available to all who want to use them. google should let gapps be distributed on all phones and roms without being a "google experience" device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Gapps are availale to all who want to use them. What do you mean by "google experience" device? If you just mean an Android phone, than any other device that would use Gapps would have to be running Android. They wouldnt be compatible on any other OS. Open Source is the reason you can run Android on a WinMo phone or an iPhone.
Also, you mention Cyanogen in the thread title but dont mention any more in your OP. The whole CyanogenMod / Google fiasco was over a year ago so I'm not sure if you're just questioning why it has to be flashed separately or what.
I'm not flaming you, I'm just trying to understand the point you're trying to make.

Android To get A Dedicated Cydia-Like Store for Root Apps

Koushik Dutta, who is a prominent member of the team behind the CyanogenMod project, has been wrestling with the idea of producing an alternative Android app store for quite some time and believes that it’s the right time to put the idea into practice. The initial ‘vision’ of the idea would be to provide a home for root applications which can be downloaded and installed on devices which have been rooted. However Dutta has expressed a desire to also include applications which have been shut down ‘for no reason’, citing carrier intervention or due to some corporation not liking it.
The team behind CyanogenMod are toying with the idea of building the application store directly into their firmware replacement, independent of the current Android Market, which would then be installed on the device as part of the modification. The CyanogenMod project has grown extensively in size, with the number of unique and active user installs about to breach the one million mark, which causes a problem for the development team. As the project grows, requirements for servers and hardware also grows which brings with it a financial burden.
Dutta and his team are suggest an application store which acts in similar functionality to Cydia, hosting modifications and applications which are either free of charge or sold at a cost depending on the developer involved and the complexity. The suggestion which has been ran by the community via Dutta’s Google+ page is that a percentage of the sale goes toward funding the CyanogenMod and all of the server and hardware requirements that it brings.
Dutta is keen to point out that the applications banned by Google are things like the one-click root apps, emulators and applications which include visual voicemail. When coming up with this idea of an alternative app store, he has also been in contact with Amazon about bundling their Appstore into CM but was given the cold shoulder. He has also mentioned to the community that the app store would not be exclusively distributed as part of the CyanogenMod firmware, and could be bundled into any custom ROM for wider distribution.
The concept of having all rooted enhancements, tweaks and modifications in one place is something which I am sure will appeal massively to the community and will no doubt give some ‘legitimacy’ to the people involved in the same manner that Cydia has for iOS devices. One of the main challenges I can see would be policing this app store, and the method of allowing developers to host their work for sale or download. Regardless of any challenges the team may have, judging by the replies from the Android community, it looks as if an unofficial application store would be a most welcome addition.
Source:RedMondPie

That would be great to see. It's a great concept. I guess now, it's a race to see who comes up with the best rooted market. Now for a domain name...
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using xda premium

Petition for Samsung to be more open :)

Hi, a developer called pulser_g2 developer called codeworx made this petition for Samsung to be more open and be a lot more developer friendly, this petition is for all Samsung android devices, not just the s2. So I thought I would post it here in the hope a few of you may consider singing it please
http://www.change.org/petitions/sam...t-achieve-full-potential-of-purchased-devices
Thank you
Edit: Sorry I made a mistake, the developer Codeworx just heavily promoted the petition, pulser_g2 is the developer who made it, and thanks entropy512 for pointing the mistake out

danielsf said:
Hi, on the galaxy s2 forum, the cm9 developer called codeworx made this petition for Samsung to be more open and be a lot more developer friendly, this petition is for all Samsung android devices, not just the s2. So I thought I would post it here in the hope a few of you may consider singing it please
http://www.change.org/petitions/sam...t-achieve-full-potential-of-purchased-devices
Thank you
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually pulser_g2 created it - codeworkx is just pushing it hard. (he deserves to as he's the one maintaining CM9...)

Also consider pestering them on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/#!/search/users/samsung

Signed
10char

Im hoping the lack of posts in this thread just means people arent commenting in this thread but have signed the petition
I submitted this as a tip for the portal page, hopefully it gets picked up, since being on the portal would generate more interest in this

DT3CH said:
Im hoping the lack of posts in this thread just means people arent commenting in this thread but have signed the petition
I submitted this as a tip for the portal page, hopefully it gets picked up, since being on the portal would generate more interest in this
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only reason it's not on the portal is because pulser forgot his portal password (He even said so elsewhere.)
(This petition was filed by one of our senior moderator team.)
I haven't signed yet, but that is because I plan on writing a fairly decent bit on why cooperating with developers will benefit Samsung in my "Reason" field and need a bit more time.

signed!
10char

signed
Signed.
10char

IMO, in this day when manufacturers are locking down devices and intentionally making it very difficult for any development, Samsung has really catered to this small community. Companies like Motorola go as far as sabotaging their products to prevent any type hacking, rooting etc.
Sure, Samsung's official software upgrades are slow but I give them a lot of credit for reaching out in ways such as offering some of our top developers free devices.

Entropy512 said:
Only reason it's not on the portal is because pulser forgot his portal password (He even said so elsewhere.)
(This petition was filed by one of our senior moderator team.)
I haven't signed yet, but that is because I plan on writing a fairly decent bit on why cooperating with developers will benefit Samsung in my "Reason" field and need a bit more time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL shows you what I know
Dont know any of the mods here

Joe T said:
IMO, in this day when manufacturers are locking down devices and intentionally making it very difficult for any development, Samsung has really catered to this small community. Companies like Motorola go as far as sabotaging their products to prevent any type hacking, rooting etc.
Sure, Samsung's official software upgrades are slow but I give them a lot of credit for reaching out in ways such as offering some of our top developers free devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The problem is they have, over time, become increasingly antagonistic to platform developers.
They are now failing to comply with the GPL with kernel source for many devices on a regular basis. The Infuse AT&T update took a month for source to show up, and Samsung ignored multiple requests for source in compliance with the GPL. The one time they answered, they claimed that they didn't have to provide source because they had stopped providing the update - that's bull****. If you provide a binary to someone, you MUST provide them the source - even if you are no longer providing binaries to other people.
They go out of their way to avoid releasing source whenever possible - see the AR6000 driver fiasco on the Tab 7 Plus.
The Galaxy S II hardware donation to the Cyanogenmod team was nothing but a PR stunt. If you follow the progress of CM9 on the I9100, you'll see that in addition to not providing any assistance to codeworkx and xplodwild, they are actively throwing barriers in the way. For example, secure containers (used by many apps) are disabled if a custom kernel is used in ICS.
Compare this to Sony, who provided technical assistance to the Cyanogenmod team leading to their entire 2011 lineup being well supported by CM, and also open-sourcing their sensor HALs when they didn't need to. They have also provided OFFICIAL ICS alphas and betas including source in compliance with the GPL, while everyone else just has leaks.
Unless Samsung changes their attitude - my next phone will be a Sony or a Nexus of some sort.

Entropy512 said:
The problem is they have, over time, become increasingly antagonistic to platform developers.....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, I didn't realize all of that. As a GNex owner, I suppose I'm looking at things through rose colored glasses. I thought they changed a lot since the Froyogate fiasco which they received a lot of bad press. Thanks for the info, petition signed!

Signed
Especially since I have 2 Samsung devices currently

Entropy512 said:
The problem is they have, over time, become increasingly antagonistic to platform developers.
They are now failing to comply with the GPL with kernel source for many devices on a regular basis. The Infuse AT&T update took a month for source to show up, and Samsung ignored multiple requests for source in compliance with the GPL. The one time they answered, they claimed that they didn't have to provide source because they had stopped providing the update - that's bull****. If you provide a binary to someone, you MUST provide them the source - even if you are no longer providing binaries to other people.
They go out of their way to avoid releasing source whenever possible - see the AR6000 driver fiasco on the Tab 7 Plus.
The Galaxy S II hardware donation to the Cyanogenmod team was nothing but a PR stunt. If you follow the progress of CM9 on the I9100, you'll see that in addition to not providing any assistance to codeworkx and xplodwild, they are actively throwing barriers in the way. For example, secure containers (used by many apps) are disabled if a custom kernel is used in ICS.
Compare this to Sony, who provided technical assistance to the Cyanogenmod team leading to their entire 2011 lineup being well supported by CM, and also open-sourcing their sensor HALs when they didn't need to. They have also provided OFFICIAL ICS alphas and betas including source in compliance with the GPL, while everyone else just has leaks.
Unless Samsung changes their attitude - my next phone will be a Sony or a Nexus of some sort.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
very well said

Done
Thanks for the info...
Everything to help the devs...
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium

signed.. hope this petition will do something

Joe T said:
IMO, in this day when manufacturers are locking down devices and intentionally making it very difficult for any development, Samsung has really catered to this small community. Companies like Motorola go as far as sabotaging their products to prevent any type hacking, rooting etc.
Sure, Samsung's official software upgrades are slow but I give them a lot of credit for reaching out in ways such as offering some of our top developers free devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I totally agree.I would like Sammy to be more open, like Sony, but I understand they are a company and they have certain policies which will increase their profits...Since my tab has unlocked bootloader and I can flash anything I want I'm ok.
sent from my nokia 3210

Signed.... suggest you do also...
Sent from my Inspire 4G using XDA

signed........let us know how it goes

Signed. Glad to see this.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk