Related
Is there an actual release date for the 2.2 source?
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Crankycoder said:
Is there an actual release date for the 2.2 source?
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No date. They have up to 60 days after they released the update to actually release the source code. They've been releasing source around 30 days or so usually for other builds
Awesome so its coming soon? Ish
Sent from Bionix powered vibrant! If I helped, hit the thanks button!
treyvaporizer said:
Awesome so its coming soon? Ish
Sent from Bionix powered vibrant! If I helped, hit the thanks button!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hm, hopefully.
Yea I wouldn't hold my breath.
theexel said:
Hm, hopefully.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well they're bound by the GPL to release it within 60 days after the update goes public (I believe)....but yeah I wouldn't recommend holding your breath that long either.
thegreatcity said:
Well they're bound by the GPL to release it within 60 days after the update goes public (I believe)....but yeah I wouldn't recommend holding your breath that long either.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol....I didn't know they had to.
fyi, March 23rd is 60 days.
That's not too bad... I can wait with miui
So is the source Eugene posted not the "official " source? ?
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
I think it wad T959D (captivate) but correct me if im wrong
Sent from Bionix powered vibrant! If I helped, hit the thanks button!
Theres no such thing as a 60 day limit with the gpl v 2. I'm not sure why this rumor exists.
The gpl is pretty explicit, if you get compiled code, you also get rights to the source. At most, you have to ask for it and you have to pay cost of media.
Google for gpl 2 license, and just read it. I can't seem to post a link.
I thought the delay was just samsung being slow, not that they were in violation of the license.
If you've installed a kernel and you didn't get a copy of the gpl license agreement, that's also a violation.
If you haven't yet made a request, go to opensource dot samsung dot com and put in a formal request for the android 2.2 kernel source for your vibrant.
Vic
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Crankycoder said:
Theres no such thing as a 60 day limit with the gpl v 2. I'm not sure why this rumor exists.
The gpl is pretty explicit, if you get compiled code, you also get rights to the source. At most, you have to ask for it and you have to pay cost of media.
Google for gpl 2 license, and just read it. I can't seem to post a link.
I thought the delay was just samsung being slow, not that they were in violation of the license.
If you've installed a kernel and you didn't get a copy of the gpl license agreement, that's also a violation.
If you haven't yet made a request, go to opensource dot samsung dot com and put in a formal request for the android 2.2 kernel source for your vibrant.
Vic
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Uhhhhh....I'm not going to say you're wrong since I don't know out for sure...
bionix 1.2.1 with adw launcher ex
Has anyone received an OTA update?
Praetorian011 said:
Has anyone received an OTA update?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They are talking about the source of froyo that the devs use to compile kernels and such (which samsung has not given us... yet). The OTA was released on january 21
Sent from Bionix powered vibrant! If I helped, hit the thanks button!
Got an email from samsung opensource today:
"We probably may relese the open source code of T959 in this week or next week. We will do our best to release the code as soon as possible. Please accept our apology. Thank you!"
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
"We probably may"
Lulz.
In lieu of all of these leaked ics roms from someone inside Samsung is this considered theft? And if we have this on our devices isn't there a chance we could potentially get in trouble if the right person were to find out?
With that said, xda does not support piracy because the software costs money and is given for free. The same goes with leaked roms that were stolen from samsung right? So xda mods, how can you support something like this and allow it on the forum? I'm neutral to this argument and would like your thoughts.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk
The "leaked ROMs" are technically made up of open source material, so there is no theft issue. As for the person leaking them, they may be subject to disciplinary action by their employer, but there is no illegality for having said ROM on your phone. Most of these supposed "leaked ROMs" are actually leaked on purpose by the manufacturer as a way to get the flashing community to do their R&D for free. We are only too willing to help them in that.
haha yeah, samsung is just letting xda devs do some of the work!
akira02rex said:
In lieu of all of these leaked ics roms from someone inside Samsung is this considered theft? And if we have this on our devices isn't there a chance we could potentially get in trouble if the right person were to find out?
With that said, xda does not support piracy because the software costs money and is given for free. The same goes with leaked roms that were stolen from samsung right? So xda mods, how can you support something like this and allow it on the forum? I'm neutral to this argument and would like your thoughts.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its not theft per say. These are roms (or software if you will) that is build from free source code provided by Google and is made FOR OUR PHONES. They have to build several roms to make sure all the bugs are out. They send out these "leaked" roms to testing to find all the hidden (or non-obvious) bugs so they can fix them before the rom is considered gold (or stable, official). You know as well as I do that once something hits the internet it spreads like wildfire, so thats how they get out in the masses.
Since there is no price on the roms and they are built from free source code, XDA is not responsible for anything in this regard.
The Apache license is a grey area in this regard. Similarly, the ICS leaks technically ARE GPL violations in that kernel source hasn't been included - however again it's a grey area since technically we're not supposed to have the binaries in the first place.
Also, I believe most leaks are not obtained by "theft", but by using an undocumented firmware update mode that lets the leaks be downloaded directly from Samsung's Kies update servers.
Red5 said:
Its not theft per say. These are roms (or software if you will) that is build from free source code provided by Google and is made FOR OUR PHONES. They have to build several roms to make sure all the bugs are out. They send out these "leaked" roms to testing to find all the hidden (or non-obvious) bugs so they can fix them before the rom is considered gold (or stable, official). You know as well as I do that once something hits the internet it spreads like wildfire, so thats how they get out in the masses.
Since there is no price on the roms and they are built from free source code, XDA is not responsible for anything in this regard.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm it just seems like that argument wouldn't hold up in a court of law? Its being taken no matter how you slice it. It was built using source but where's the intent to distribute? If there's no intent (yet) then they aren't obligated to release it based on gpl.
Thoughts?
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1420996
Bam. Legal, official ROM. DONE.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
Entropy512 said:
The Apache license is a grey area in this regard. Similarly, the ICS leaks technically ARE GPL violations in that kernel source hasn't been included - however again it's a grey area since technically we're not supposed to have the binaries in the first place.
Also, I believe most leaks are not obtained by "theft", but by using an undocumented firmware update mode that lets the leaks be downloaded directly from Samsung's Kies update servers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
akira02rex said:
Hmm it just seems like that argument wouldn't hold up in a court of law? Its being taken no matter how you slice it. It was built using source but where's the intent to distribute? If there's no intent (yet) then they aren't obligated to release it based on gpl.
Thoughts?
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As Entropy said, its a grey area. I guess technically it is a violation of GPL due to source not being released with the leak, but then the leak isnt being documented as gold or official, so since its still in its "testing" phase, it dosent count (which is why all leaked roms are required to say that they are leaked testing roms, not official and to flash at your own risk... official dropped roms will say official). Now if somebody took a leaked build with no source and distributed it as gold or official, then yes that would not hold up and would be in direct violation and could be held accountable.
autonomous-inc said:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1420996
Bam. Legal, official ROM. DONE.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, not official, still a leak. The poster should not have used "Official" to describe a leak that happened to have a signed kernel.
Red5 said:
As Entropy said, its a grey area. I guess technically it is a violation of GPL due to source not being released with the leak, but then the leak isnt being documented as gold or official, so since its still in its "testing" phase, it dosent count (which is why all leaked roms are required to say that they are leaked testing roms, not official and to flash at your own risk... official dropped roms will say official). Now if somebody took a leaked build with no source and distributed it as gold or official, then yes that would not hold up and would be in direct violation and could be held accountable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Declaring that something is a test version does not permit you to withhold source code.
The main thing is that if you read the license, if you give the binary to someone, you are supposed to provide source. If you received a binary from someone with a written offer for source, you must pass on that written offer.
The problem is that Samsung is "providing" test versions to their testers - some people on XDA have just managed how to intercept this method of providing builds by polling Samsung's update servers, but NOT the method for intercepting the source or the source offer.
Entropy512 said:
No, not official, still a leak. The poster should not have used "Official" to describe a leak that happened to have a signed kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Buzzkill.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
Entropy512 said:
No, not official, still a leak. The poster should not have used "Official" to describe a leak that happened to have a signed kernel.
Declaring that something is a test version does not permit you to withhold source code.
The main thing is that if you read the license, if you give the binary to someone, you are supposed to provide source. If you received a binary from someone with a written offer for source, you must pass on that written offer.
The problem is that Samsung is "providing" test versions to their testers - some people on XDA have just managed how to intercept this method of providing builds by polling Samsung's update servers, but NOT the method for intercepting the source or the source offer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I should have been more clear. I didnt mean that it permitted anyone to have without source code... but merely that Samsung does not have to provide it yet since it isnt official. By Samsung giving out a test build to test for bugs, they do not have to give out source code yet (mainly why they kept testing in house so its blanketed under the same company because the company does in fact have the source code from Google) until they release it outside the company.
And yes, just because some members intercept the leaked test builds, they were not handed to by Samsung which is why they do not have the source code in the first place. People here distribute it to other members but it is not attached here on XDA, they upload it to a share site and simply post the links here at XDA.
I work for the FBI and it is illegal. This is a bust and you're all under arrest. Post your addresses so we can come and arrest you. kthxbai
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
Red5 said:
I should have been more clear. I didnt mean that it permitted anyone to have without source code... but merely that Samsung does not have to provide it yet since it isnt official. By Samsung giving out a test build to test for bugs, they do not have to give out source code yet (mainly why they kept testing in house so its blanketed under the same company because the company does in fact have the source code from Google) until they release it outside the company.
And yes, just because some members intercept the leaked test builds, they were not handed to by Samsung which is why they do not have the source code in the first place. People here distribute it to other members but it is not attached here on XDA, they upload it to a share site and simply post the links here at XDA.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup - that's basically it. The people whom Samsung is actually "providing" these builds to most likely have source code access.
We don't have source because they didn't really "provide" us the leak.
How u do dat
wonner said:
I work for the FBI and it is illegal. This is a bust and you're all under arrest. Post your addresses so we can come and arrest you. kthxbai
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk
I agree what a wasteful buzz kill post
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
rboone18 said:
I agree what a wasteful buzz kill post
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nobody asked you.
Who are you even responding too? What a wasteful post.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk
OK guys this has gone on long enough. To respond to the OP. OEM have long allowed early builds to be leaked to XDA for bugging hunting and troubleshooting. Should do a little research before you start a thread like this.
Thread closed.
zelendel said:
OK guys this has gone on long enough. To respond to the OP. OEM have long allowed early builds to be leaked to XDA for bugging hunting and troubleshooting. Should do a little research before you start a thread like this.
Thread closed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Buzzkill...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk
Red5 said:
Buzzkill...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup
I came across a developer on here who is asking 10 euro for a download of his rom. He asks your email and states he'll only send a link if you share your opinions on the update to stock he created....Then he offers the full Rom for ten euros!
The full Rom is completely stock based with languages added...which is find BUT 10 euro for a rom?
Is this normal?
Is this right?
I thought devs shared work they enjoy doing and allow us users to pay if we feel it's deserved or if we like it enough....at least we get to try it first but to charge 10 euro before we know how it runs....seems wrong.
What do you guys think about it?
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
This is actually against xda rules and wrong. Report it
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
It's their right to charge for their original work, or any work that derived from work that's properly licensed. It's not something I'd pay for, but as long as he's not selling other people's works, he's within his rights.
It's not something that I would do. My very, very few original contributions are free for anyone to use, and the rest of my stuff is just adaptations or straight up ripoffs of other open source stuff that will remain that way.
---------- Post added at 09:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 AM ----------
kintwofan said:
This is actually against xda rules and wrong. Report it
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As far as I know, that only applies to GPL/copyleft licensed stuff. Apache and BSD style licenses don't have the same restrictions from a legal standpoint.
shrike1978 said:
It's their right to charge for their original work, or any work that derived from work that's properly licensed. It's not something I'd pay for, but as long as he's not selling other people's works, he's within his rights.
It's not something that I would do. My very, very few original contributions are free for anyone to use, and the rest of my stuff is just adaptations or straight up ripoffs of other open source stuff that will remain that way.
---------- Post added at 09:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 AM ----------
As far as I know, that only applies to GPL/copyleft licensed stuff. Apache and BSD style licenses don't have the same restrictions from a legal standpoint.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're probably right. I was thinking of when this had happened with AOSP ROMs, but those do fall under GPL. I still think it's a little shady and wouldn't pay for it either. Also to be fair if it's sock based it is using someone else's work (the manufacturer).
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
Yeah I wouldn't mind paying as much if it were say something like. ..miui or avatar rom something but not a stock based Rom that has Languages added
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
Yea. AOSP itself is under the Google License which is a modified Apache License. That's how the manufacturers get away with close sourcing their versions of it. I think CM publishes its additions under the GPL though, which means close sourcing anything derived from them is a no-no. TW/Sense/Blur/Optimus/etc based ROMs are already a legal grey area that I wouldn't want to legally test by asking for money on a ROM.
ahjee said:
Yeah I wouldn't mind paying as much if it were say something like. ..miui or avatar rom something but not a stock based Rom that has Languages added
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't get conned into paying for that garbage. Use someone's rom for free here and donate to the dev. better use of your money
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
Let's just hope it's not a scam because it's an unfortunate common occurrence in this world. That's a lot of moolah for a zip rom.
EDIT: LOL 'Completely stock based.' Who the hell pays for a completely stock based rom? There's options like that for free here.
Android is open source. If some idiot is charging for it, clearly they don't understand the concept of "open source" and should be dragged out into the streets and shot
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda app-developers app
YoursTrulySarcastic said:
Android is open source. If some idiot is charging for it, clearly they don't understand the concept of "open source" and should be dragged out into the streets and shot
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Research the term open source a bit more. Not all open source is created equal. The Linux kernel is licensed under the GPL which means all derivatives of it have to remain open source. AOSP is not GPL. It is licensed under a variant of the Apache License, which like the BSD license allows for some redistribution as closed source. TouchWiz is mostly closed source (adapted from AOSP), and creating TouchWiz-based ROMs is a legal grey area that Samsung could actually shut down if they wanted to, but don't.
ahjee said:
I came across a developer on here who is asking 10 euro for a download of his rom. He asks your email and states he'll only send a link if you share your opinions on the update to stock he created....Then he offers the full Rom for ten euros!
The full Rom is completely stock based with languages added...which is find BUT 10 euro for a rom?
Is this normal?
Is this right?
I thought devs shared work they enjoy doing and allow us users to pay if we feel it's deserved or if we like it enough....at least we get to try it first but to charge 10 euro before we know how it runs....seems wrong.
What do you guys think about it?
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hate it when that happens, some people are only in it for the money.
However I have a solution for you, if you send me $20.00 I can make them stop.
chakra said:
I hate it when that happens, some people are only in it for the money.
However I have a solution for you, if you send me $20.00 I can make them stop.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just LOL'D so loud haha
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
shrike1978 said:
Research the term open source a bit more. Not all open source is created equal. The Linux kernel is licensed under the GPL which means all derivatives of it have to remain open source. AOSP is not GPL. It is licensed under a variant of the Apache License, which like the BSD license allows for some redistribution as closed source. TouchWiz is mostly closed source (adapted from AOSP), and creating TouchWiz-based ROMs is a legal grey area that Samsung could actually shut down if they wanted to, but don't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Allow me to correct you. Not all parts of AOSP are Apache (more than the kernel is gpl) and therefore if he is charging, he must provide the gpl portions for free upon request.
It is VERY much against XDA Rules! Please report that thread! Read Rules 11 and 13 for those that thought it was OK.
Hi everybody!! I have a question regarding MIUI lincensing. Is it open source or closed souce?? Because you can find the source code available to download at github, but in other sites it's said it is closed source. Maybe it is mixed source. What do you think?? I want to promote the freedom of Android, but I also love (really, I'm in love) MIUI.
anitadiamond22 said:
Hi everybody!! I have a question regarding MIUI lincensing. Is it open source or closed souce?? Because you can find the source code available to download at github, but in other sites it's said it is closed source. Maybe it is mixed source. What do you think?? I want to promote the freedom of Android, but I also love (really, I'm in love) MIUI.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AFAIK its open source. It used to be closed source though.
Thanks for your fast response!! Any other thoughts??
Sent from my GT-I9300 using MIUI V5 via xda app-developers app
MIUI is closed sourced and in violation of the GPL laws. They have open sourced some apps partly but never fully. They are known for taking the work of others and not giving back to the dev community. Add in some real security issues.
Wayne Tech S-III
So MIUI's source is not actually in github, just some apps of it??
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app
anitadiamond22 said:
So MIUI's source is not actually in github, just some apps of it??
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right. And not even the full source. That is why they are not respected around here. They took most of their coding from CM and then made it closed sourced.
Wayne Tech S-III
Mmm I don't like that. It's a shame since MIUI is by far my favourite rom out there. Do you think there's anything like it but open source. And please, don't tell me about OpenMIUI, it's ugly as hell.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app
anitadiamond22 said:
Mmm I don't like that. It's a shame since MIUI is by far my favourite rom out there. Do you think there's anything like it but open source. And please, don't tell me about OpenMIUI, it's ugly as hell.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Depends on what you mean by "anything like it" There are people working on taking MIUI and reverse enginering it and then gonna release the source but that is still some time away. MIUI doesnt do anything that most CM based roms dont do.
It violates gpl its a closed source.
It's one of the reasons why xda doesn't officialy support miui
Sent from my GT-S5302 using Tapatalk 2
Hit Thanx Button if i helped you!