Do you have ultrasoft Money for Windows mobile Cracker?
Ahem:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=221545
11. No Piracy
We don't tolerate piracy facilitated through this board. What you do in your own time is your business, but this is a publicly used resource and we don't want to be threatened with legal action. Please, use common sense and respect the forum, its users, and those coders that write great code.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Warez is forbidden on this forum. Do not ask for it, do not post the links to it, do not post warez here. You only get one warning then ban.
We don't want to be threatened with legal action.
THEY will sue us, and come after YOU. YOU cannot escape THEM. THEY will find you, and take proper action.
KarhU said:
Warez is forbidden on this forum. Do not ask for it, do not post the links to it, do not post warez here. You only get one warning then ban.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OK thank you very much!!!
May I ask, does the cracking the ROM is allowed and permitted by the manufacturer? Or is this also another form of hacking... just askin...
Yagbadoodles said:
May I ask, does the cracking the ROM is allowed and permitted by the manufacturer? Or is this also another form of hacking... just askin...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you not read my post?
We don't want to be threatened with legal action.
THEY will sue us, and come after YOU. YOU cannot escape THEM. THEY will find you, and take proper action.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I read it, that is why I am asking because I saw some ROM modification topics hosted here.
mr_deimos said:
Ahem:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=221545
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I read it, that is why I am asking because I saw some ROM modification topics hosted here.
ROM modification is regarded as OK, because you can not buy the ROM in a shop or online (same goes for HTC software here), but cracking apps that are commercially available is a big no no here. Note that ROMs are not stored on this forum because of the possible legal actions too.
KarhU said:
ROM modification is regarded as OK, because you can not buy the ROM in a shop or online (same goes for HTC software here), but cracking apps that are commercially available is a big no no here. Note that ROMs are not stored on this forum because of the possible legal actions too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, ROM is not saved on this forum, becuase this is a forum and not a file hosting server e.g. rapidshare and mega upload. And Nielson admitted that modifying the ROM is not legal and it means unethical. But still the this forum is referencing the hosted ROM from the hosting server (RapidShare). And from the title itself of this thread "Development and Hacking", it pertains to hacking... just confused.
KarhU said:
ROM modification is regarded as OK, because you can not buy the ROM in a shop or online (same goes for HTC software here), but cracking apps that are commercially available is a big no no here. Note that ROMs are not stored on this forum because of the possible legal actions too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Question, does ROM modification is permitted by the manufacturer? Do they allow this and endorse this? If not, then it is not legal...
Question, does ROM modification is permitted by the manufacturer? Do they allow this and endorse this? If not, then it is not legal...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well yes and no. There has been an interesting conversation about warez in this thread.
Illegal or not ROM hacking does not damage sales of the device or OS manufacturer (as you buy the licence to OS by buying the device and OS itself is not commercially available) as opposed to warez. ROMs were hosted at this forum until M$ demanded them to be pulled last year. Legality or illegality of ROM hacking is a hard quaetion to answer - try to post your questions and objections to the thread I linked.
One reply for all from the abovementioned thread.
KarhU said:
Well yes and no. There has been an interesting conversation about warez in this thread.
Illegal or not ROM hacking does not damage sales of the device or OS manufacturer (as you buy the licence to OS by buying the device and OS itself is not commercially available) as opposed to warez. ROMs were hosted at this forum until M$ demanded them to be pulled last year. Legality or illegality of ROM hacking is a hard quaetion to answer - try to post your questions and objections to the thread I linked.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thnanks anyway....
Yagbadoodles said:
Thnanks anyway....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are welcome. Welcome to this forum. Observe the rules and you will find a lot of interesting stuff going on over here. Many great freeware pocket PC apps were created here on xda devs - S2U2, Battery Status Today plugin, FTouchFlo... I know it is not what you were looking for, but this place has lots to offer anyway.
Mga pinoy talaga pasaway!
Sorry for posting in our native language.. I just felt the need to say it. I'll just summarize:
ROMS are "not for sale". It's bundled with our devices. We just modify it to work better. No piracy.
Giving software that are "for sale" for free is piracy.
WAREZ = piracy.
DaVince said:
Mga pinoy talaga pasaway!
Sorry for posting in our native language.. I just felt the need to say it. I'll just summarize:
ROMS are "not for sale". It's bundled with our devices. We just modify it to work better. No piracy.
Giving software that are "for sale" for free is piracy.
WAREZ = piracy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But, does ROM can be treat as Open Source? If yes, we don't have issues; but re-engineering the software like ROM is prohibited as per manufacturer's EULA. Yes it is free and if the goal if for goodness, does it compensate the violation of EULA Terms and Conditions? Still it is un-ethical.
It is not just as simple as "Not For Sale" means no Piracy.
Let's just call it a grey legal area, and be grateful that MS and the various hardware manufacturers don't attempt to crack down on it.
*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.
Hello
3.2 is lagy and boring with out root ,so which custom Rom is the fastest and most stable for the a500 that support the HDMI, TETHER ROOT , ARABIC LANGUG ,GPS ,USB STUFF , 3G DONGLE , etc
Check this thread
wlk0 said:
Check this thread
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 / regards
wlk0 said:
Check this thread
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks
But what about the HDMI is it working and the rotation lock
There is a rom called Thor did anyone try it
http://www.tegraowners.com/?cat=7
gab182 said:
thanks
But what about the HDMI is it working and the rotation lock
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why wouldn't that work ?
gab182 said:
There is a rom called Thor did anyone try it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
is breaking GPL, and not allowed here, so no one here tried it and made positive comments on it unless they agree with breaking GPL.
breaking GPL means stealing other peoples work and takes creds for it.
Once again, the usual about the GPL. The end user really doesn't care about this debate, you know. The matter is far from settled, what you said is just the position of the XDA admins. And I can understand the forum policy of not allowing a link to Thor's site for that reason, it is their forum and their rules.
If you don't want to use Thor's mods, by all means, don't use them. If you think that linking to his site is against the rules, go ahead and report the post to the mods. But don't go on around accusing people of being thieves or pirates simply because they disagree with you on such a trivial matter.
Biologos said:
Once again, the usual about the GPL. The end user really doesn't care about this debate, you know. The matter is far from settled, what you said is just the position of the XDA admins. And I can understand the forum policy of not allowing a link to Thor's site for that reason, it is their forum and their rules.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The more valid version is its a "pireted" kernel.. seems silly since all that is needed to make it not pireted is making the code avalible to those that download it.
I can't stop the average user from using it.. Just like I can't stop you from downloading a movie.. You may think of the changes under fair use, I don't know (GPL does not remove any rights under fair use). But I hope the understanding that its distributed in a way not desired by the creators (of at least most of the code) is understoo.. And that linux could not be what it is without this code sharing.
Since no one is asking for money just a simple access to the source code that github will host for free.. I don't get why you want to simply accept such a pirited kernel if alternatives exist. Also as the open source dev I must strive to promote / create such alternatives.
Well, as you say, Thor's kernel may or may not fall under fair use policy. I too don't know. And I am not advocating its use, or abstaining from using it. What I do object to is calling people pirate or thief , just because they use a free mod for a free operational system. GPL or no GPL, calling someone a thief (just like you accused me of downloading movies, without any cause or basis) is just bad manners.
Biologos said:
Well, as you say, Thor's kernel may or may not fall under fair use policy. I too don't know. And I am not advocating its use, or abstaining from using it. What I do object to is calling people pirate or thief , just because they use a free mod for a free operational system. GPL or no GPL, calling someone a thief (just like you accused me of downloading movies, without any cause or basis) is just bad manners.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thor is using the licence outside its licence (unless it is to be considered fair use); this is the deffinition of a software pirate like it or not.. (This is unless source code is released to those that request)
You are not a thief unless you distribute the kerel and are requested for the code: GPL says nothing about you needing the code as an end user, unless you request it, and if you have not requested and Thor has given you permission to use the kernel you are *Not* a pirate.
As for theif... Its the *AA's that call software pirate's thifs.. and much more for their own ends than people on XDA wany to discurage GPL code not released under terms of the licence.
Anyone confused about licences ought to read some..