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
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!
Now that the galnet att miui thread is closed where can we find updates? I am aware that we can go to the galnet site but I only see the I9100, correct me if I'm wrong but we will have problems if we try to flash this version. If we don't get our own version on galnet what needs to be modified from the I9100 version to be compatible with our device. Sorry if it's a dumb question or if it has been answered elsewhere.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using xda premium
Best bet would be to try and get galnet to add support for the att sgs2
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
Why are galnet roms not allowed on XDA?
Sent from my páhhōniē
according to the mod who locked the thread said galnet is not allowed on xda. did this group do something?
Lets jump on miui.us forums. Those roms have ota support. The dev seems new though.
Sent from my NookColor using xda premium
http://pastebin.com/kDkd0D0i
Here is something I found on it. Seems like they were asking for donations to get beta releases of their Roms and XDA did not approve...
Mod please reply
I for one would really appreciate a response from a moderator as to why, particularly given the conversation pasted in the above post, why it is that these threads were killed. On the surface, it seems arbitrary and without merit...
Went through other galnet threads that were closed and the reason is that they don't release their source for the rom.
yea they are shady. Good roms but they do not comply to gpl.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using XDA App
I just got a (pretty quick) response from zelendel:
Galnet has been banned from XDA for breaking mutiple rules.
Check here
http://www.galnetmiui.co.uk/landing...160-XDA-Developers?p=7923&viewfull=1#post7923
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my páhhōniē
what about the non-galnet miui? Is that one okay?
Sent from my Galaxy S II (i777)
quarlow said:
what about the non-galnet miui? Is that one okay?
Sent from my Galaxy S II (i777)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That one also got pulled, well for the AT&T version I know it did. I do believe it was something to do with Techn and not to do with MIUI.us
yoderk said:
http://pastebin.com/kDkd0D0i
Here is something I found on it. Seems like they were asking for donations to get beta releases of their Roms and XDA did not approve...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
JKAY does that....
dan_maran said:
That one also got pulled, well for the AT&T version I know it did. I do believe it was something to do with Techn and not to do with MIUI.us
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But did it get pulled because it was merged with the galnet version, or did it get pulled for other reasons?
Sent from my Galaxy S II (i777)
shoman94 said:
JKAY does that....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah I remember seeing a few devs doing that back in the cappy forum a while back..
Galnet is gone... I'm not sure if we'll see the whole story, but from what I can see, I can say I don't like their attitude. It also looks like this is something that has taken a LONG time to reach finality.
As to why vanilla MIUI might have been pulled - I don't know. I'm fairly certain vanilla MIUI for the I777 was kosher GPL-wise, unless there's another GPL component beyond the kernel in question.
Here, this may enlighten the situation a bit...
zelendel said:
It means that the android kernel is protected by GPL laws. Which means the source code has to be made available. MIUI breaks these laws and refuses to post the source. So all MIUI roms have to have a custom kernel not made by the MIUI team.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
zelendel said:
Please use the proper site to talk about this Rom. The galnet site is your best bet as this Rom is not supported on XDA due to GPL violations.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
zelendel said:
It is built off of CM. The source has been asked for a few times and they flat out refuse to release the kernel source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So long story short, they violated several rules and GPL laws. They are gone and not coming back.
It didn't get pulled I had the admin removed it because it was to much drama at the time but it looks like I shouldnt have even tho I don't know as much as some ad these other dev, I'll reopen the thread and anyone is more than welcome to Help out with the development of the rom/port.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using XDA App
Red5 said:
Here, this may enlighten the situation a bit...
Reference.
So long story short, they violated several rules and GPL laws. They are gone and not coming back.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you saying that as long as the miui rom is packaged with a open source available kernel it can be posted on xda ?
Sent from my sgs2 using Tapatalk.
shoman94 said:
So you saying that as long as the miui rom is packaged with a open source available kernel it can be posted on xda ?
Sent from my sgs2 using Tapatalk.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, opposite. As long as they are not including the stock MIUI kernel with the rom then they are not breaking any XDA rules. But if you do see a MIUI rom including the stock MIUI kernel, thats where they break rules. There is a stock MIUI kernel built off of CM. The source has been asked for a few times and they flat out refuse to release the kernel source... so the upper staff decided to can the whole thing.
This is a Google+ post asking Samsung to release the source code for the bluetooth/audio/MHL/dock/display devices in our phone. If you're not aware, this code is NOT in the open source kernel. They are modules that load separately. We need this source code to make our phone the PERFECT Android phone. Cyanogenmod Dev Team can do wonders with this code! Please +1 this post or even make your own. We need to Samsung to hear us! Not all of us are programmers (definitely not me), so we need to contribute in other ways!
Jim
OccupySamsung!
I would say that the requested code might have some (if not all) proprietary code and even some "secret" code when it comes to the NHL part for the hdmi encryption...
But I could be completely wrong about that...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
Its possible, but any code drop would help. And the encryption you're thinking of would be HDCP and that should be handled by the chipset not the software.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using XDA App
Just sent Samsung mobile USA a message on Facebook about the source code, hope they respond.
Please people, let's get Samsung to recognize us! We need this source to make our phones the best. I know I say that every couple of posts. I just hope that the guy above this post gets lots of 'likes' on his Facebook post to Sammy. Help him out guys/gals!
Jim
I actually once managed to get a message from a guy at Samsung Support telling me to reach out to SamsungJohn for developer needs...
I sent him a pretty nasty message back, going into post-by-post detail of SamsungJohn's complete failure to provide any help whatsoever to the developer community.
I'm seriously thinking that my next device will be a Sony - As much as I hate Sony in general, SE went above and beyond in terms of supporting the Cyanogenmod team, leading to their entire 2011 lineup being almost fully supported by CM. Meanwhile, Samsung sends a few CM team members devices as a publicity stunt and doesn't bother at all to provide any followup support.
Entropy512 said:
I actually once managed to get a message from a guy at Samsung Support telling me to reach out to SamsungJohn for developer needs...
I sent him a pretty nasty message back, going into post-by-post detail of SamsungJohn's complete failure to provide any help whatsoever to the developer community.
I'm seriously thinking that my next device will be a Sony - As much as I hate Sony in general, SE went above and beyond in terms of supporting the Cyanogenmod team, leading to their entire 2011 lineup being almost fully supported by CM. Meanwhile, Samsung sends a few CM team members devices as a publicity stunt and doesn't bother at all to provide any followup support.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I saw the post you are talking about. And I sent a Twitter to SamsungJohn and never heard back. I know I keep talking about this, but something has to be changed. I'm on UnNamedROM right now, and while it's good, it's not CM. Maybe if Sammy releases ICS for the I9100/I777 then they'll release some more code for our phones. Probably don't want CM to show them up on releases. But either way, we need to make Samsung aware of our demands. And Entropy, thank you VERY much for your efforts with NFC, and WiFi tether. It's much appreciated!
Code was already released for S2 international version...see zedomax website.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
SII 2 Envy said:
Code was already released for S2 international version...see zedomax website.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And the significance of that for our i777 would be....?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
SII 2 Envy said:
Code was already released for S2 international version...see zedomax website.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe I missed it. I did a search and came up with nothing.
Kadin said:
And the significance of that for our i777 would be....?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It might help us start to port it to our own device
Sent from my Inspire 4G using XDA App
SII 2 Envy said:
Code was already released for S2 international version...see zedomax website.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, it hasn't been released (except for the GPL kernel source) - nothing ICS-related, none of the audio libraries or anything like that have source code.
zedomax.com has nothing but pages and pages of stupid Top Five posts.
Entropy512 said:
No, it hasn't been released (except for the GPL kernel source) - nothing ICS-related, none of the audio libraries or anything like that have source code.
zedomax.com has nothing but pages and pages of stupid Top Five posts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
galaxys2root.com and YouTube
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
I tried reaching out to samsungjohn, too. Obviously no response.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using XDA App
If only they would...I'm sure they're planning some event around it.
lol we can only hope.
I just went to check whether an update is released (I was bored) and It said "an update is available for your phone, but the servers are busy." What do you guys think this means? There's a thread on this for the skyrocket too...
I think it was ****ed up that Willy Wonka made Charlie think he didn't win the contest.....
I SAID GOOD DAY SIR!!!........
Sent from my HD2 using XDA
And Red should be in to break his foot off in your ass shortly.
Sent from my HD2 using XDA
tylerdurdin said:
I think it was ****ed up that Willy Wonka made Charlie think he didn't win the contest.....
I SAID GOOD DAY SIR!!!........
Sent from my HD2 using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the unhelpful and denegrating response.
shadowskorch said:
Thanks for the unhelpful and denegrating response.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's xda... thats 50% of the content.
It's the hidden law that people have to magically know that for the AT&T GS2 forum that you must only post in this thread right here.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1554561
Just amazing...
Sent from my SGH-I777 using xda premium
I updated my phone yesterday its lighting fast now and there is this new unicorn wallpaper that is really amazing...
sent on my hacked telly from interspace...
threads like this are useless. For two reasons. A) we already have fully functional ics releases. With less bloat than the official ics will have. And b) use Google search. U can check the status of ics for our device yourself. And grab news about possible release dates.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
yahoowizard said:
It's the hidden law that people have to magically know that for the AT&T GS2 forum that you must only post in this thread right here.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1554561
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you, I didn't know about that 'hidden law'. Sorry everybody
Phalanx7621 said:
threads like this are useless. For two reasons. A) we already have fully functional ics releases. With less bloat than the official ics will have. And b) use Google search. U can check the status of ics for our device yourself. And grab news about possible release dates.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This thread is useful for two reasons.
1. Samsung hasn't officially released a date yet and there really hasn't been a word on a Google search as to whether or not ICS has been released for the AT&T Galaxy S2.
2. Not everyone prefers the modified versions of the ROM, and though there is bloat on the AT&T versions, not everyone's incredibly satisfied with the custom ROM's (I am personally, but yeah, not everyone's down for the custom ROM's).
3. If the official ICS did come out, it can provide something or another to make the current custom ROM's better, such as the ability to get Google Wallet (or ISIS) working, for example.
I appreciate that this is a forum for developers, but that still doesn't allow us to flame every new thread that comes on here that's not created by one of the elite or something or another >.>
yahoowizard said:
I appreciate that this is a forum for developers, but that still doesn't allow us to flame every new thread that comes on here that's not created by one of the elite or something or another >.>
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh where to start on how wrong you are
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2 Beta-5
Nick281051 said:
Oh where to start on how wrong you are
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2 Beta-5
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Haha, okay, okay, I've seen that one post about how there's only developers here and whatnot. But yeah, this thread in particular does help developers somewhat, so yeah.
shadowskorch said:
Thanks for the unhelpful and denegrating response.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You'll face a lot of people like that here lol.
yahoowizard said:
This thread is useful for two reasons.
1. Samsung hasn't officially released a date yet and there really hasn't been a word on a Google search as to whether or not ICS has been released for the AT&T Galaxy S2.
2. Not everyone prefers the modified versions of the ROM, and though there is bloat on the AT&T versions, not everyone's incredibly satisfied with the custom ROM's (I am personally, but yeah, not everyone's down for the custom ROM's).
3. If the official ICS did come out, it can provide something or another to make the current custom ROM's better, such as the ability to get Google Wallet (or ISIS) working, for example.
I appreciate that this is a forum for developers, but that still doesn't allow us to flame every new thread that comes on here that's not created by one of the elite or something or another >.>
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Um that's 3 reasons?
Sent from my SGH-I777 using XDA
ChefAnt said:
Um that's 3 reasons?
Sent from my SGH-I777 using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And now would be a bad time to tell you that I'm currently studying math in college >.>
But yeah, I was going to counter his two with my two, then I added one later on as I thought of it. Never bothered to change the initial sentence though
Dude. When ICS hits it hits. And if u can't find anything on Google about ics release dates or possible release dates u aren't searching right. Either way when it does drop u go right ahead and flash that buggy bloated OS. I'll stick with my AOKP.
Edit: I sound like a douche in this post. So no more arguing. Hope we get official ics too sometime soon. But odds are I won't flash it anyway ;-p
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
yahoowizard said:
Haha, okay, okay, I've seen that one post about how there's only developers here and whatnot. But yeah, this thread in particular does help developers somewhat, so yeah.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh you're right about this being a developers forum but you're completely wrong about the assumptions that only "elite" members can post. You're about as wrong as humanly possible. We only yell at people for threads like these because it does NOT help any developer in any way and this question gets asked over and over again all in separate threads which bog down the forums an leave less room for the more legitimate questions/ posts. And once you've been on here a while you usually know when you should post a thread or when you shouldn't. I've created a total of 2 threads and only one of them was a thread asking a question (the other was for a pair of cm7 themes) and I made sure it hadn't been asked before. Understand a little better?
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2 Beta-5
yahoowizard said:
This thread is useful for two reasons.
1. Samsung hasn't officially released a date yet and there really hasn't been a word on a Google search as to whether or not ICS has been released for the AT&T Galaxy S2.
2. Not everyone prefers the modified versions of the ROM, and though there is bloat on the AT&T versions, not everyone's incredibly satisfied with the custom ROM's (I am personally, but yeah, not everyone's down for the custom ROM's).
3. If the official ICS did come out, it can provide something or another to make the current custom ROM's better, such as the ability to get Google Wallet (or ISIS) working, for example.
I appreciate that this is a forum for developers, but that still doesn't allow us to flame every new thread that comes on here that's not created by one of the elite or something or another >.>
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am with you on how this i777 should behave and tone down but you list 3 reasons that I think useless, or should I say "non-productive", here's why
1. If you google/search and find nothing, you MUST think, I mean automatically think, that it is either NOT NOW or NEVER happen. Just like when you search a word and it isn't in the dictionary, you should automatically know that the word is not exist or not being defined yet.
2. custom ROM is for who love to flash, if ones don't want to flash, why would they come here in first place? Moreover, if AT&T decide to release their OFFICIAL ICS for this i777, the owners would get the update automatically, right? Then why stop here anyway
3. If the official ICS did come out? if so, then search/google in step one already yield some results.
Phalanx7621 said:
threads like this are useless. For two reasons. A) we already have fully functional ics releases. With less bloat than the official ics will have. And b) use Google search. U can check the status of ics for our device yourself. And grab news about possible release dates.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not everyone roots/roms. I'm waiting on the official update. From past experiences there are people within the industry on this sitewho have information that isn't yet released to the public.
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.