Develop a ROM and Sell it??? - Android Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting

I am thinking about privately developing an Android ROM built from source for a particular market that I am
thinking of targeting... Like Amazon have done with their Kindle HD built on ICS sources.
Would It be illegal to sell that ROM?
Could I patent/copyright the ROM or parts of it?
Is there any thing I need to consider from a legal perspective?

owen1978 said:
I am thinking about privately developing an Android ROM built from source for a particular market that I am
thinking of targeting... Like Amazon have done with their Kindle HD built on ICS sources.
Would It be illegal to sell that ROM?
Could I patent/copyright the ROM or parts of it?
Is there any thing I need to consider from a legal perspective?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The difference between your case and the Kindle though is that they're selling the hardware, not the software per se. Seems like selling a ROM would be getting in lots of complicated legalese stuff. You know, opening a can of worms.
You can get more information here:
http://source.android.com/

You cant take something thats open source write your own code ontop of it and call it closed source... Google has made that code opensource for a reason and im sure there are tons of legal issues that go with that... And it being Google's proprietary code means you cant sell it unless you buy it off them Im sure...

I'm pretty sure you can't do that. I could be wrong but i think as stated above if your using any of the open sources and then trying to sell it yourself you might be facing some legal issues. Plus would it sell? Are other roms available for that phone if so then why would choose to buy a rom? (just some questions that i would ask myself) Does it make sense to sell it even if you could? I think all the hassle you might go through isn't worth it. Especially if you might face a ton of legal issues.

Ask your self is it right decision to sell something that is based on something that is free and open source.

owen1978 said:
I am thinking about privately developing an Android ROM built from source for a particular market that I am
thinking of targeting... Like Amazon have done with their Kindle HD built on ICS sources.
Would It be illegal to sell that ROM?
Could I patent/copyright the ROM or parts of it?
Is there any thing I need to consider from a legal perspective?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think that it would be illegal. (Although it probably would not sale.
You could patent/copyright parts of it as many OEMs have done this (Like Samsung and Motorola)
Pneuma1985 said:
You cant take something thats open source write your own code ontop of it and call it closed source... Google has made that code opensource for a reason and im sure there are tons of legal issues that go with that... And it being Google's proprietary code means you cant sell it unless you buy it off them Im sure...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
y0yerrj0sh said:
I'm pretty sure you can't do that. I could be wrong but i think as stated above if your using any of the open sources and then trying to sell it yourself you might be facing some legal issues. Plus would it sell? Are other roms available for that phone if so then why would choose to buy a rom? (just some questions that i would ask myself) Does it make sense to sell it even if you could? I think all the hassle you might go through isn't worth it. Especially if you might face a ton of legal issues.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Most, if not all, of the OEMs such as HTC, Samsung, Motorola, and LG incorporate thier own code into thier Android running on thier devices. While the Android code itself is under GPL and other open source classifications, much of the code OEMs put into thier builds is closed source (Sense, TouchWiz, Beats, etc.) and not subject to open source classifications. Therefore these companies DO NOT have to release that code.
The most important part though is that Apple has made a living suing Android OEMs for things they have patented that they claim Android infringes upon and have won some. THey do not attack Google, but the OEMs USING android. You may leave yourself open to legal implications with other companies like Apple.
However, I do not know your skill level, but given that you are asking the question, it seems as though you are just getting into this. Actally writing code and developing ROMs is pretty intense and I would think odds are you are getting much further ahead of yourself than you think.
Good luck to you, but most people on here do it for the fun/hobby and do not make any substantial money from thier efforts.
---------- Post added at 11:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 AM ----------
mv_style said:
Ask your self is it right decision to sell something that is based on something that is free and open source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Again, ALL THE OEMs making Android devices are doing this.

raptoro07 said:
I don't think that it would be illegal. (Although it probably would not sale.
You could patent/copyright parts of it as many OEMs have done this (Like Samsung and Motorola)
Most, if not all, of the OEMs such as HTC, Samsung, Motorola, and LG incorporate thier own code into thier Android running on thier devices. While the Android code itself is under GPL and other open source classifications, much of the code OEMs put into thier builds is closed source (Sense, TouchWiz, Beats, etc.) and not subject to open source classifications. Therefore these companies DO NOT have to release that code.
The most important part though is that Apple has made a living suing Android OEMs for things they have patented that they claim Android infringes upon and have won some. THey do not attack Google, but the OEMs USING android. You may leave yourself open to legal implications with other companies like Apple.
However, I do not know your skill level, but given that you are asking the question, it seems as though you are just getting into this. Actally writing code and developing ROMs is pretty intense and I would think odds are you are getting much further ahead of yourself than you think.
Good luck to you, but most people on here do it for the fun/hobby and do not make any substantial money from thier efforts.
---------- Post added at 11:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 AM ----------
Again, ALL THE OEMs making Android devices are doing this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But once again, most OEMs don't sell Android in itself, but the hardware, with their customized Android version. There's quite a leap between repackaging Android and selling it and selling hardware with your software, based on Android, on it.
You are right about certain parts being closed source though.

You shouldn't develop something that is free and sell it for money. You may run into legal issues and perhaps a cease and desist order from Google when they find out. There's a reason android is open source. If it wasn't for legal issues, I would happily buy it from you if the ROM pretty awesome.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

AW: Develop a ROM and Sell it???
As far as I know Android is published on Apache License 2.0. If I understood the license correctly, you can use / modify / distribute projects based on the code as long as you declare what you used and as long as you distribute the license with your project, too.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app

You can develop your own code into Android and sell it.
The problem is no one would buy it. You need much larger than a 1 man show to actually develop software. You may be able to write it yourself, but you can't possibly test it. Which is exactly why it won't sell. Any company who is in the market for a custom Android image would more than likely have their own in house team of coders, and the cost effictive way to move forward would be to have their own guys do it, even if they had to learn.
But self improvement is always great, I'd give it a shot anyway, just don't quit your job!

Google is a huge entity and not a force to be reckoned with.....
Sent from my Fire Kindling A-Pad

Related

Charging for Roms

Ok, I have a great plan (this might have been discussed already) but here's my suggestion:
All Rom developers should charge for their work. I'm thinking maybe 3-5 dollars. and if its still in Work in Progress we can still be charged but don't charge for upgrades. This way the out of work developers can get something for their hard work. I just create images and that takes time. I can't even imagine how much time is spent on the roms.
Believe me I would pay for all you guys roms. Donations are great but not enough to inspire to create more roms or even spend time on them. I don't know if this is possible but you guys deserve a lot more credit.
thats my feelings on this issue.
I agree with you in principle, but it kind of defeats the purpose of open source and XDA, doesn't it?
johnny quest said:
Ok, I have a great plan (this might have been discussed already) but here's my suggestion:
All Rom developers should charge for their work. I'm thinking maybe 3-5 dollars. and if its still in Work in Progress we can still be charged but don't charge for upgrades. This way the out of work developers can get something for their hard work. I just create images and that takes time. I can't even imagine how much time is spent on the roms.
Believe me I would pay for all you guys roms. Donations are great but not enough to inspire to create more roms or even spend time on them. I don't know if this is possible but you guys deserve a lot more credit.
thats my feelings on this issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's a flattering sentiment but does rather contradict the core principles behind open source in general. If not for its openness and freely available source I doubt you would see the level of progress there has been in the android community.
I'm sure the devs themselves will chime in. Just my two friendly cents
Sent from my CM7 Tazz using XDA App
its not Necessary but its a nice gesture i dont want anyone feeling obligated ,, times are hard for everyone ,, but thank you
i don't know if you've noticed but most devs have a 'buy me a beer' link where you can donate if you wish. i know if i had a job i'd be donating $20 at a time or so depending on how much i was getting paid. until then its nice to know that even though i can't pay, i can still get the best. Google > Apple. it's not always about the money.
ILikeBubbles said:
i don't know if you've noticed but most devs have a 'buy me a beer' link where you can donate if you wish. i know if i had a job i'd be donating $20 at a time or so depending on how much i was getting paid. until then its nice to know that even though i can't pay, i can still get the best. Google > Apple. it's not always about the money.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In most cases everything always comes down to money. Unless your living with your parents still or your younger then it's one thing but still at the end of the day most things come down to money.
I'll agree with you on Google > Apple
I own a Iphone4 and the Droid Eris and I still like the Eris hands down no matter what even though the Iphone4 runs everything very smooth the concept of android is far better than most apple users can ever be able to dream about.
Cheatman1 said:
In most cases everything always comes down to money. Unless your living with your parents still or your younger then it's one thing but still at the end of the day most things come down to money.
I'll agree with you on Google > Apple
I own a Iphone4 and the Droid Eris and I still like the Eris hands down no matter what even though the Iphone4 runs everything very smooth the concept of android is far better than most apple users can ever be able to dream about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
dear god that signature quote made my brain hurt just trying to read it.
Haha your signature is great. It made me laugh pretty hard.
And as for this discussion, I don't think they can MANDATE you pay for anything. Like it has been said, its open source and if people want to donate they will. I wish I had a job so I can donate, and as soon as I get one I know I will be. But for now I'm enjoying the work these guys are doing, and hope it continues.
I mean, we're getting Gingerbread on the Eris thanks to the devs here. That's two versions more than what the Eris was thought to get. That to me is incredible.
Oh yeah, I forgot about the open source. the donate link is nice to have and I am guilty of not using that to show appreciation. I will use it more frequently. The Eris is great but I'm stuck not able to load certain apps because it requires a higher than 2.1 version. I'm up for an update and looking into the Thunderbolt most likely. Hopefully there will be a thread on this phone for Roms in the future.
I agree, there should be a way for ROM makers to get paid for their time. Likely, its illegal or a breach of some sort of contract/agreement/gobbledygook somewhere.
The developer for my favorite Eris ROM's, Tazz is having back issues and can't work, so this very issue is very relevant. I make sure and send him donations whenever possible.
For now, just send your favorite ROM devs donations through the links provided.
It's nice idea that you guys want to give back but honestly if deving was a paid gig I don't think you would have as good as results. I do it myself cause I tinker by nature and like to help other people. You will get a better end product if you have a dev that does this cause he likes it and not just cause he want to make money. Look at the number of useless apps on the market cause people just want to make money. Nothing wrong with making money and I myself sell apps but roms are a different ballgame. Plus rom dev's rarely write code of their own except for the cyanogenmod team. We all use the source available to us or other peoples work. Plus if you got paid for your rom you wouldn't want competition so who would share their work. If work was not shared in this community then android would not be what it is....
GPL violation anyone?
You'd have to include the source code with said paid work, and post said paid work's source code publicly, not disallowing anyone from modifying it or redistributing it. Wouldn't last long.
Plus, if the devs charged, then the CM team would charge them, and the google would charge then......... it would end up being way more than 3-5 bucks.
jadesdan said:
Plus, if the devs charged, then the CM team would charge them, and the google would charge then......... it would end up being way more than 3-5 bucks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
We'd have to throw some cash at the Hero devs too lol, and pretty much everyone that helped them,and on and on
Sent from my GSBv1.2 using XDA App
Good intentions! I am glad some people still think of the devs.
I have donated in the past, and will continue to do so. We are running GB on an Eris now! Without the devs, we would all be on Cupcake and hating it.
I'd like to take a second to thank the devs and the COMMUNITY as well. I have received lots of help here from regular joe's like me that are just looking for the latest and greatest, as well as the devs that make the magic happen.
We should all thank our lucky stars that we have been provided a place to share ideas, get help and help Android and other platforms evolve into new, fascinating and useful apps/OS's.
Thanks to the WHOLE community! I would pay each and every one of you if I could!
If you like something like this enough, why not do it for free? Especially in this kind of work.
There is not a single thing in open source licenses which prohibits people from charging for services rendered; it is a complete misrepresentation - and frankly a disservice to the Open Source community - to state that open source means "no money involved".
Open Source licenses only prohibit distribution of derivative works without also providing source code. As an example, it would be completely legal for someone to set up a paid web site where there is a charge to download the Linux source trees. In this (ridiculous) example, what is being paid for is the service - the license is satisfied because you are providing the source code.
Having said all that, note that "all of android" is not open source; in particular, the Google Apps, (HTC Sense, Motoblur, etc) and certain hardware-specific libraries are proprietary goods - even so-called "Pure AOSP" dev ROMs contain a small number of vendor libraries, which are technically illegal to redistribute.
I suspect that the legitimate owners of those goods turn a blind eye to small amounts of infringement because they can not monetize their legal actions (no blood from a turnip, etc); but also note that when infringement achieves a certain scale (as it did with CM and Google), they will certainly step in - the issue there has little to do with money; it's more about a legal principle of loss of rights due to failure to defend those rights in the face of significant infringement.
Charging people when you are infringing is a pretty sure way to get the attention of the infringed party.
bftb0
I use KaosFroyo on my Eris; I appreciate all of the work that has gone into it, and I have kicked some $$ back to Kaos for his efforts. That said, officially charging for ROMs sounds like a big mess for a bunch of reasons.
First off, how do you actually enforce it? Are we gonna set up some kind of ecommerce website? Do billing and customer service? It'll generate a bunch of tedious work that has nothing to do with actual ROM development, and paying someone else to do it would probably soak up all of the money. And are you going to sue and go after people who pirate it? But if you don't enforce it, then you pretty much have what you have now.
There's also the different expectations for a paid product. Right now, if some newbie can't figure something out and keeps posting stupid questions without reading the FAQ, then people can tell him to STFU/read the FAQ/release the Kraken/etc because it's a free product being developed by guys in their spare time that doesn't earn them much money. Start charging for it and you change that whole equation around - you now have to hold the newbies' hands or they'll scream for a refund and cause all sorts of trouble if they don't get it. Not to mention the liability - we know every now and then phones get bricked and data gets lost doing this stuff. If it's a paid product, then there may be legal liability for that in some markets. Who's gonna sort that out? Expensive lawyers?
Plus the other objections brought up regarding copyright/licensing of the proprietary libraries that are being used to make these ROMs.
Put it all together, and the current system seems like it's the best solution, even though the devs may not be getting as much money as they really deserve. So throw a few more bucks in the bucket for your favorite ROM.
bftb0 said:
There is not a single thing in open source licenses which prohibits people from charging for services rendered; it is a complete misrepresentation - and frankly a disservice to the Open Source community - to state that open source means "no money involved".
Open Source licenses only prohibit distribution of derivative works without also providing source code. As an example, it would be completely legal for someone to set up a paid web site where there is a charge to download the Linux source trees. In this (ridiculous) example, what is being paid for is the service - the license is satisfied because you are providing the source code.
Having said all that, note that "all of android" is not open source; in particular, the Google Apps, (HTC Sense, Motoblur, etc) and certain hardware-specific libraries are proprietary goods - even so-called "Pure AOSP" dev ROMs contain a small number of vendor libraries, which are technically illegal to redistribute.
I suspect that the legitimate owners of those goods turn a blind eye to small amounts of infringement because they can not monetize their legal actions (no blood from a turnip, etc); but also note that when infringement achieves a certain scale (as it did with CM and Google), they will certainly step in - the issue there has little to do with money; it's more about a legal principle of loss of rights due to failure to defend those rights in the face of significant infringement.
Charging people when you are infringing is a pretty sure way to get the attention of the infringed party.
bftb0
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Conap said:
It's nice idea that you guys want to give back but honestly if deving was a paid gig I don't think you would have as good as results. I do it myself cause I tinker by nature and like to help other people. You will get a better end product if you have a dev that does this cause he likes it and not just cause he want to make money. Look at the number of useless apps on the market cause people just want to make money. Nothing wrong with making money and I myself sell apps but roms are a different ballgame. Plus rom dev's rarely write code of their own except for the cyanogenmod team. We all use the source available to us or other peoples work. Plus if you got paid for your rom you wouldn't want competition so who would share their work. If work was not shared in this community then android would not be what it is....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
IMHO, though there are many excellent views and points regarding all this posted in this thread, and the original intention was interesting, these two answers are the overall most complete and pertinent.
Way to go, guys!
ufmace said:
I use KaosFroyo on my Eris; I appreciate all of the work that has gone into it, and I have kicked some $$ back to Kaos for his efforts. That said, officially charging for ROMs sounds like a big mess for a bunch of reasons.
First off, how do you actually enforce it? Are we gonna set up some kind of ecommerce website? Do billing and customer service? It'll generate a bunch of tedious work that has nothing to do with actual ROM development, and paying someone else to do it would probably soak up all of the money. And are you going to sue and go after people who pirate it? But if you don't enforce it, then you pretty much have what you have now.
There's also the different expectations for a paid product. Right now, if some newbie can't figure something out and keeps posting stupid questions without reading the FAQ, then people can tell him to STFU/read the FAQ/release the Kraken/etc because it's a free product being developed by guys in their spare time that doesn't earn them much money. Start charging for it and you change that whole equation around - you now have to hold the newbies' hands or they'll scream for a refund and cause all sorts of trouble if they don't get it. Not to mention the liability - we know every now and then phones get bricked and data gets lost doing this stuff. If it's a paid product, then there may be legal liability for that in some markets. Who's gonna sort that out? Expensive lawyers?
Plus the other objections brought up regarding copyright/licensing of the proprietary libraries that are being used to make these ROMs.
Put it all together, and the current system seems like it's the best solution, even though the devs may not be getting as much money as they really deserve. So throw a few more bucks in the bucket for your favorite ROM.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This was a pretty damn good answer, too, if you don't mind me saying.

[Q] Curious about HTC releases & GPL (I'm a bit confused)

So aside from everything that happened with one of the Kernel Devs, I noticed some interesting questions come up. One of the XDA rules is to observe the GPL, a decent policy to both protect the site and do their part to ensure the GPL is adhered to in the spirit of android. Many other developer sites take this stand as well.
My question is, specifically with the HTC stuff, what about sense? Is there an, for lack of a better word, allowance to use sense in ROMs because its integrated in the core of Android on our phones? Does GPL require them to allow developers to release rom updates utilizing sense (and closed-source hardware drivers)? I've done some reading but come across "maybe" and "could be" as the answer.
I'm assuming yes, that since they have a kernel release that's opensource (on HTC-dev) that we are given a license to release sense with an android rom but I'm not exactly sure and my searching hasn't proved fruitful.
I'm learning now, eventually I'd like to release ROMs. My projects tend to be more single-use geared. My old G1 served as a processor for a robotics project I did a couple years ago. My current project is turning an HTC Droid Incredible into a home automation server (small, cellular radio, completely programmable). These are the types of things I'd like to release to the general public but don't want to get mangled in a mess of complaints and/or legal threats.
Granted, my type of ROMs wouldn't have a huge demand and are geared more for the likes of hack-a-day, but these devices have HUGE potential to be more than just phones.
So I guess my question is, are we able to release sense-based roms without fear of legal issues? Or does it have to be ASOP only? I got plans for my 3D but without 3D, It defeats the purpose of a project I'm planning.
Edit: I realize this is a touchy subject, please don't bring flaming into this. I'm looking for more of an informed discussion than a flame war. If you don't agree with someone else, that's fine, but flaming is not for the content of this discussion.
HTC doesn't have a problem with it, then let's do it. They know of our community. (Referring to including sense in our roms)
Via My HTC Evo 3D On The Now Network From Sprint.
I'm no expert on the subject, but I think I remember reading a while back that HTC kinda doesn't mind because Sense came installed on our phones, and what they don't allow is it being ported to other manufacturer's devices, like Motorola and Samsung phones.
again, this is what I recall reading, and not necessarily the official HTC stance on the subject...
miguelfp1 said:
I'm no expert on the subject, but I think I remember reading a while back that HTC kinda doesn't mind because Sense came installed on our phones, and what they don't allow is it being ported to other manufacturer's devices, like Motorola and Samsung phones.
again, this is what I recall reading, and not necessarily the official HTC stance on the subject...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've seen similar references too. I'm wondering since sense is so integrated with android that it'd be allowed by GPL, however, I'm not sure since the source to sense itself is closed which would go against GPL if this is the case. Is it just a matter of them looking the other way? If that's the case, what prevents them from sending a bunch of lawyers one day?
However, if they were mad, they could have stopped Revolution in its steps. I'm wondering if its similar to what Tivo used to do in the early days, look away until their business model changes.
Edit: figured I'd see if they'd give a statement. I emailed them through their support, I doubt I'd hear anything but it'd be awesome to see if they have an official statement. I vaguely remember hearing they support the community, it'd be awesome if they say yes. However, I doubt I'll ever hear anything back once it reaches the tech support centers. Who knows...
Here's what I sent:
Greetings, I'm curious as to your stance on releasing of android ROMs containing HTC sense in the android community. Is this allowed under a limited license or developer agreement? Does this include closed-source drivers as well?
It all boils down to money, if we all have beats without getting the new phone then we won't but the new phone...
All HTC android phones have sense so that part they could care less about imo
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
ktrotter11 said:
It all boils down to money, if we all have bears without getting the new phone then we won't but the new phone...
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True. To me it seems they basically look the other way. It's no doubt that communities like this greatly increase the value of their phones. Look at HTC compared to Motorola in the respective development communities. I still believe official support would be a lot more beneficial to them from a sales standpoint.
Cabe24i said:
True. To me it seems they basically look the other way. It's no doubt that communities like this greatly increase the value of their phones. Look at HTC compared to Motorola in the respective development communities. I still believe official support would be a lot more beneficial to them from a sales standpoint.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In a dream world HTC could throw our devs a few bones so they didn't have to frankenstein stuff together just to make something simple work correctly, but........
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
Please use the Q&A Forum for questions Thanks
Moving to Q&A
D'oh! Sorry about that, thanks for moving the thread.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
Just an update, here is what I received back from HTC.
I understand you would like to know if HTC considers it acceptable for HTC Sense to be included in custom ROMs. I know how handy it is to customize your device and I will be happy to assist. We would be unable to comment directly on this matter, however please refer to the licensing information included with most of our devices. On Android devices, for instance, you can get this from Home>Menu>Settings>About Phone>Legal information.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Along the lines of what I expected. Doesn't really answer much, when I get some time I'll read through the agreement looking for defined answer but doubt I'll find one. I didn't last time I checked.
Cabe24i said:
So aside from everything that happened with one of the Kernel Devs, I noticed some interesting questions come up. One of the XDA rules is to observe the GPL, a decent policy to both protect the site and do their part to ensure the GPL is adhered to in the spirit of android. Many other developer sites take this stand as well.
My question is, specifically with the HTC stuff, what about sense? Is there an, for lack of a better word, allowance to use sense in ROMs because its integrated in the core of Android on our phones? Does GPL require them to allow developers to release rom updates utilizing sense (and closed-source hardware drivers)? I've done some reading but come across "maybe" and "could be" as the answer.
I'm assuming yes, that since they have a kernel release that's opensource (on HTC-dev) that we are given a license to release sense with an android rom but I'm not exactly sure and my searching hasn't proved fruitful.
I'm learning now, eventually I'd like to release ROMs. My projects tend to be more single-use geared. My old G1 served as a processor for a robotics project I did a couple years ago. My current project is turning an HTC Droid Incredible into a home automation server (small, cellular radio, completely programmable). These are the types of things I'd like to release to the general public but don't want to get mangled in a mess of complaints and/or legal threats.
Granted, my type of ROMs wouldn't have a huge demand and are geared more for the likes of hack-a-day, but these devices have HUGE potential to be more than just phones.
So I guess my question is, are we able to release sense-based roms without fear of legal issues? Or does it have to be ASOP only? I got plans for my 3D but without 3D, It defeats the purpose of a project I'm planning.
Edit: I realize this is a touchy subject, please don't bring flaming into this. I'm looking for more of an informed discussion than a flame war. If you don't agree with someone else, that's fine, but flaming is not for the content of this discussion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I skimmed through the thread and didn't see this mentioned. The Linux kernel is covered under the GPL license. Android-AOSP (Android Open Source Project) is covered under the Apache license which could be considered very different.
My limited understanding is the Apache license allows anybody to reuse their code AND gives them the option of NOT posting their source code while GPL requires anybody who uses it to post back what they used/changed/modified.
I'm sure somebody with a better understanding of software licenses could speak volumes to the matter and provide more accurate detail.
Hope that helps point in the right direction!

banned app store coming soon?

One of the advantages of owning an Android device is the ability to install a custom ROM and making your device perfect for your tastes. You can’t talk about custom ROMs without mentioning the king of them all, CyanogenMod, which has just surpassed 1 million downloads. Created by Steve “Cyanogen” Kondik, the CyanogenMod team offers up-to-date custom ROMs that extend a phone’s capabilities with added features and utilities. Additionally, CM team member Koushik Dutta has been dabbling into the idea of creating an app store exclusively for root apps. With carriers and Google continuing to police the Android Market, removing tether apps, one click root apps, and emulators, Koush has become increasingly frustrated and originally proposed the idea of a root app store to Amazon, however the company was not interested. The proposed store would be open-source and available to any custom ROM, not just CyanogenMod.
found this on a site. pretty interesting
foxsdaddy67 said:
One of the advantages of owning an Android device is the ability to install a custom ROM and making your device perfect for your tastes. You can’t talk about custom ROMs without mentioning the king of them all, CyanogenMod, which has just surpassed 1 million downloads. Created by Steve “Cyanogen” Kondik, the CyanogenMod team offers up-to-date custom ROMs that extend a phone’s capabilities with added features and utilities. Additionally, CM team member Koushik Dutta has been dabbling into the idea of creating an app store exclusively for root apps. With carriers and Google continuing to police the Android Market, removing tether apps, one click root apps, and emulators, Koush has become increasingly frustrated and originally proposed the idea of a root app store to Amazon, however the company was not interested. The proposed store would be open-source and available to any custom ROM, not just CyanogenMod.
found this on a site. pretty interesting
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Saw koush's post about this on Google+. The idea being that part of the cost of purchased apps go to support CM development. I think its a great way to show Google what they are doing wrong with theirs.
Sent from my MB855 using xda premium
Count me in!
Nice...hellz ya CM.
sent from my ICS'd Mopho
I say don't mess with the hornet's nest; keep it underground. If you're smart enough to root and sideload APKs, there's no need for a blackmarket. If you want to help out with CM financially, there are more direct routes.
bigbrown said:
I say don't mess with the hornet's nest; keep it underground. If you're smart enough to root and sideload APKs, there's no need for a blackmarket. If you want to help out with CM financially, there are more direct routes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What's the hornets nest?
applanet is back up you all know....../??
---------- Post added at 11:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:41 PM ----------
Kcarpenter said:
Saw koush's post about this on Google+. The idea being that part of the cost of purchased apps go to support CM development. I think its a great way to show Google what they are doing wrong with theirs.
Sent from my MB855 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree that google is doing a lot wrong, but they are doing a lot right too. Don't get me mistaken, I'll be the first to jump on a badmouth google train, something rubbed me wrong with them from the get go: back when they were founded, so I am very critical of them all the time. I also use almost all google services which says something as well, they provide a good product I just don't trust them.
The market has its flaws, but it is very very necessary. If windows distributed most of its software through a controlled repo, it would be nearly virus free like linux, as well as the repositorys system is amont the main things that keeps linux that way. If everyone started using indpedant repos, by human nature they would go the seediest most scandalous repos and add them as the main sources for software get their **** all bugged up and then come to the type of people who visit this site for help, constantly. They put a "use non-market apps" button in the settings menu, that's all they had to do. adding the functionality of that button is basically what jailbreaking an ipod is, and you see all the commotion over that, I give google credit for not having that even though with an open source OS it'd be hard not to, that's still less work we are all doing freeing our hands to use those resources to actually improving functionality of the devices, not just restore all the functionality they have.
But it could still help fund cyanogen. I see your point however, money is the name of the game.
Sent from my MB855 using xda premium
This concept sounds similar to the Homebrew community that was available when I had my Palm Pre.
Essentially it was a market that became available when you rooted your phone where you can find both free and for purchase apps.
BigMoose81 said:
This concept sounds similar to the Homebrew community that was available when I had my Palm Pre.
Essentially it was a market that became available when you rooted your phone where you can find both free and for purchase apps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well yeah, which is basically what Cydia is for the iphone, most jailbreaks automatically install cydia for you as most people who jailbreak their iphones don't really understand what it is they are doing and wouldn't have a clue what to do after they jailbreak their phone without cydia pointing them in the right direction.
And I certainly see your point craby, I watched Cydia go from basically what applanet is now to an actual financial force to be reckoned with and true competitor with the iStore that comes on iPhones. I think as we start to see dev teams get as organized regimented as the iphone ones this is certainly something that is an option, maybe that time is now. Not that android dev teams are any less talented, they face the same problems that deter many android app developers of portability. You can never be completely sure that something written for an android device will work right on all of them, especially if it isn't completely compartmentalized within dalvik VM or involves any use of native code and the NDK, because all android devices are different and have to comply with a standard. This is amplified by orders of magnitude when dealing with OS development as it is pretty much completely within the realms specified, as Java has to run inside it, although they implement java at such a low level most of android actually is java code. So even though android is open source, which is the very thing that both allows it to even really be hackable the way we do it, but also is purely the only reason that this many big companies can work in tandem without ripping each other to shreds in court so it is very hard to provide a uniform independent OS outside the vendor code and google code, and they aren't providing that code as a charity, they are providing it because they absolutely have to, they don't do anything to ease the process besides what they are obligated to generally. Remember companies in general are the enemy to you having full rights over your property, it's not enough for you to give them money they still want to partially own anything they sell you as well.
At least none of them seem to be as insanely paranoid about independent developer teams as Apple, who releases most of their ios updates simply to patch the exploits they find.
---------- Post added at 02:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:21 AM ----------
I have to add though that similar to apple's invention retail repositories, google has made a huge legacy of being the company that actually figured out how to make money with open source, and possibly saved the movement from dying under the weight of litigation, but it is a double edged sword as now they are kinda trying to run things and there is no way they are going to tell kernel.org people what is and isn't going in the linux kernel, they have been in charge of that stuff for way too long and can't be bought as they had no trouble maintaining the linux kernel before they were infused with all this new android and ubuntu money. We appreciate it google, but back off a little, you're getting yours.
I look forward to this, if it works out.
Would love to see this
Sent from my MB855 using xda premium

Anyone bugging HTC about releasing kernel source?

I emailed HTC support (and the contact form on htcdev.com) several times about releasing the source code. Whenever I contact customer support directly, they always say the same thing: "If you feel like it's important, please submit the request through htcdev.com and we will listen to it if we get enough requests" (that's the concise version).
So I know with ICS coming out, the current kernel source will be useless soon, but if people continue to request it, they'll be more likely to respond to it. I'm not holding my breath, but it's possible that eventually they will if they see enough people complaining about it.
Anyone been bugging HTC about it?
GPL requires that source be released for the modified binary (kernel), but because the modules are and can be compiled outside the kernel, they are not required to be open sourced. You can go get the kernel source right now. The chipset manufacturer might have an agreement with HTC that requires them to not publish their proprietary drivers, it might be completely out of HTC's control. Since you never specified that you wanted kernel module source code, but just "source code" in general, I'm guessing you didn't realize that they aren't required to give this. Also, don't encourage people to bug them to release something that isn't required.
Yes I have.. to no avail
Someone just started a thread in regards to them not allowing s-off and their response, I got the same response but they also responded to my kernel questions saying there are "proprietary" factors involved. I responded that it was dumb and they're losing the nerds to Samsung, the nerds who tell their friends what phones to buy. They said they'd take it into consideration. Ha.
Sent from my HTC_Amaze_4G using XDA App
I understand there may be proprietary factors involved, and completely get it.
However, it seems strange and off-putting that their kernel source page does not list the Amaze (unless I am missing something, in which case it's totally my bad). At the same time I see almost every other phone HTC has made in recent memory...
I'm not trying to be ridiculous, but HTC does claim to be dev-friendly, and this phone clearly is not. It's also been out a while, and will probably be replaced as the top-end phone very soon, so who knows.
I don't mean to stir the pot or do things that are instigatory but on the other hand if HTC doesn't know there's a demand for something, they'll never do it (why would they?)
It's listed as "HTC Amaze 4G (TMOUS ) - GBCRC - 2.6.35 kernel source code" here:
http://dl4.htc.com/RomCode/Source_and_Binaries/ruby_GB-crc-2.6.35_19a3d1a.tar.gz
eliasadrian said:
I responded that it was dumb and they're losing the nerds to Samsung, the nerds who tell their friends what phones to buy. They said they'd take it into consideration. Ha.
Sent from my HTC_Amaze_4G using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hahahaha, +1
eliasadrian said:
Someone just started a thread in regards to them not allowing s-off and their response, I got the same response but they also responded to my kernel questions saying there are "proprietary" factors involved. I responded that it was dumb and they're losing the nerds to Samsung, the nerds who tell their friends what phones to buy. They said they'd take it into consideration. Ha.
Sent from my HTC_Amaze_4G using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
haha +2, this is funny, maybe I should give them a call too!!! I bet if we started a thread for all the amaze owners to call HTC and complain they would get fed up and do something...but then again perhaps not!!!
Or we can just continue this thread...Please everyone call HTC and start bugging them!! tell them they can't compete agains the galaxy S II and they are losing a lot of customers to samsung for crippling development on this phone. they need to release the full kernel source and wifi drivers and give us S-off... Just a suggestion, you guys do whatever you want
oryan_dunn said:
It's listed as "HTC Amaze 4G (TMOUS ) - GBCRC - 2.6.35 kernel source code" here:
http://dl4.htc.com/RomCode/Source_and_Binaries/ruby_GB-crc-2.6.35_19a3d1a.tar.gz
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hm I didn't notice that, weird. Thanks though I'll check it out. I'd like to get into the kernel game.
According to Binary, there are about 30 partitions and they've only released the source to 5 of those, and one of them is partial boot.img that's why you cannot flash kernel via CWM.
This is what binary has said:
"The Android Open Source is available and the HTC Source Code is available but that only applies to the partitions that we have access to. Boot, data, system, cache. There are over 30 partitions and we don't even know what over half of them are! Many would be used to control the overall function of the device."
So we don't have the full source.
I don't think HTC has ever release full source for any device. They've release kernel source, sans any proprietary drivers. I doubt they'd ever release bootloader source, sense source, etc.
oryan_dunn said:
I don't think HTC has ever release full source for any device. They've release kernel source, sans any proprietary drivers. I doubt they'd ever release bootloader source, sense source, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ya but kernel source would be huge if they did. so much for android open source. google should make it a rule that any company that releases an android phone must release full source to public...or else it is not a true android phone. lol
seansk said:
ya but kernel source would be huge if they did. so much for android open source. google should make it a rule that any company that releases an android phone must release full source to public...or else it is not a true android phone. lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I don't think you understand. A company can release a proprietary app on top of an open-source OS. Proprietary kernel modules are a gray area, as to whether or not it's a derived work of the kernel. They have to, by GPL, release any modified kernel source, which is what they give us. Granted, it's not everything, but at least it's something.
And Android is still open-sourced. Sense, is not.
Experience with HTC
So a few days ago I sent a comment to HTC about their lack of source for the necessary drivers, how that affects the user community, and arguably less important, the lack of S-OFF.
I got an email response that completely ignored the concern with drivers and focused entirely on how to unlock the device (which I had acknowledged in my previous email).
They asked for feedback on how I felt my issue was resolved and I responded that I was dissatisfied.
Today, someone called to follow up on the issue and I explained in greater detail my concerns and thoughts that being even more open would only help HTC. She told me that HTC takes these issues seriously, but there was a process to follow for HTC to recognize they need to make changes, and encouraged me to keep letting HTC know how I feel about things - So I would suggest that getting everyone on this forum to contact HTC might not be a bad thing, or perhaps a group petition outlining what is needed and why.
Also I did make another suggestion which she seemed to think was a very good idea, which is to have HTC formalize an open community development effort much like IBM did several years ago. What IBM did and I would like to see HTC do is set up a portal (of course XDA could be used right now for this) where software that is acknowledged to be in alpha or beta stages of development is made available to everyone who wants it, with the understanding there are no warranties about the usability or quality. The portal has issue tracking and direct interaction with the dev team that puts out the software. The idea is the people who use the software are the early adopter crowd and tend to be both knowledgeable, pretty intensive testers, and often are developers. HTC could get feed back, ideas, and likely even some development for no real cost and early adopters can get the latest and greatest software and a direct line of communication to the developers. If you think that is a good idea, I would also encourage you to let HTC know.
-Tony

What are your thoughts on the "Anti Piracy Support" being implemented into their ROMS

What are your thoughts on the "Anti Piracy Support" being implemented into their ROMS
ROM Developers are now starting to implement this "Anti Piracy Support" . Many of them do and some of them don't.
So what is AntiPiracySupport?
Meaning, this will block the installation of pirated apps, malware and patchers.
For you, is it good or bad?
Roms that have AntiPiracySupport builtin:
+ ACIP:
Commits in Github: YES
+resurrectionremix
Commits in Github: YES
+ Exodus:
Commits in Github: YES
+ BrokenOS
Commits in Github: YES
+ My Rom Builds(if no other info is added):
Commits in Github: YES
Roms that don't have AntiPiracySupport builtin now:
+ AOSPA
Commit in Gerrit: NO
+ Official OmniRom:
Commit in Gerrit: NO
For me it is very bad. Because in my country many of the apps I need are blocked and some of it wasnt compatible with mi3. So big no to Anti Piracy Support for me. Sorry developers.
Bitti09 said:
Roms that have AntiPiracySupport builtin:...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This might help guys :thumbup:
Any it should be AICP not ACIP hahaha!
Sent from my MI 3W using XDA Free mobile app
Here's my take on this blacklist idea.
At least 40% of the reason I bought my first Android after years of iPhones was for ad blocking. I just don't get the reason for clumsily trying to turn a custom rom into iOS. So I did a little digging and found a discussion about this blacklist from an Exodus dev who wrote "The only real reason not to support this is if you support piracy and stealing from developers."
Maybe someone can tell me whether it's a joke or Dave doesn't understand the issues. It takes little brainpower to deduce that app names can be trivially changed, as we've already seen and can even be seen in the blacklist code. So blacklisting apps by name and hardcoding that in your rom is a losing proposition from the start, right?
To stay up to date somebody would need to track package names and add them manually and hope everyone conveniently forgets the past 3+ decades of battles between malware writers and AV guys, eg when viruses started creating their own pseudo-random names to avoid the crummier scanners which Exodus is trying to emulate. We've already seen this simplistic blacklist approach can't possibly scale. Check the google+ link and you see that Kessler is trying to crowdsource a list of app names to blacklist. What happens when somebody maliciously or mistakenly adds a commonly used, objectively benign app? Who is the final arbiter of which apps get the boot? Quid custodiet ipsos custodes?
Factor in Exodus blocking my fave ad service disabler (probably an Irish app ) and debating whether to block Xposed and you have a powerful user motivation to bypass or completely avoid the blacklist and stop it from removing/disabling legit functionality. It seem likely that roms with Exodus' Anti-Adblock anti-feature will be forked if they're worth using. Not to mention, this blacklist only works if the blocked apps play along & their package names never change, and if the user has no motivation to bypass the blacklist. Extra bonus: v2 of the blacklist will be more like real malware, with obfuscated & closed source libraries.
Dave's false dichotomy is basically saying if you don't want spam or ads or closed source crapware clogging your device then you support piracy. I think Dave should've added, another reason not to support this endeavor is because poorly conceived code that goes against user wishes should ALWAYS be turfed.
tl;dr Why would anybody let this guy decide which apps are ok and which aren't, and using an old-school blacklist too? SMH.
XDA fully supports this. IF you cant pay for an app then you dont need it.
zelendel said:
XDA fully supports this. IF you cant pay for an app then you dont need it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What if you want to use app but first want to check the quality of app or you don't have money for every app?
Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk
ashish289 said:
What if you want to use app but first want to check the quality of app or you don't have money for every app?
Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well then you wait to have the money or use a free version. If there is no free version then you save up the money
Is this gonna be a requirement for rom developers?
I'm not against it. But I think it should be something optional. If the rom developer wants to implement it, that's ok. But I think the consumers should have a right to decide whether the rom supports this or not. I mean, like a democracy, the consumers vote, that's something fair...
zelendel said:
XDA fully supports this. IF you cant pay for an app then you dont need it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can you speak for the whole XDA community? hehehe Anyways you've got a point there.
But I don't see the point of doing apps developer's job. If they want anti-piracy security for their apps they'll get it (built in), unless it's an offline app. So I wouldn't bother trying to prevent the inevitable...
ChazyTheBest said:
Is this gonna be a requirement for rom developers?
I'm not against it. But I think it should be something optional. If the rom developer wants to implement it, that's ok. But I think the consumers should have a right to decide whether the rom supports this or not. I mean, like a democracy, the consumers vote, that's something fair...
Can you speak for the whole XDA community? hehehe Anyways you've got a point there.
But I don't see the point of doing apps developer's job. If they want anti-piracy security for their apps they'll get it (built in), unless it's an offline app. So I wouldn't bother trying to prevent the inevitable...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well your first mistake was thinking you are a consumer. Not in the least. Nor do users have a say in what rom devs put in their roms. Roms are built by people for personal use and then shared to be nice. If you dont like it then you are more then welcome to build your own rom.
Second mistake was thinking it is a democracy. Its not. Users really dont have a say in what rom devs put in their roms.
All I can say is that XDA stands behind this and anything that is used to get around it is banned from the site for good.
zelendel said:
Well your first mistake was thinking you are a consumer. Not in the least. Nor do users have a say in what rom devs put in their roms. Roms are built by people for personal use and then shared to be nice. If you dont like it then you are more then welcome to build your own rom.
Second mistake was thinking it is a democracy. Its not. Users really dont have a say in what rom devs put in their roms.
All I can say is that XDA stands behind this and anything that is used to get around it is banned from the site for good.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry for the misunderstood, but I said it because I read rom developers ask for features and bugfixing. So I'll take it as it depends on the developer... some devs are like you said and some others "really care" about what users need/want.
ChazyTheBest said:
Sorry for the misunderstood, but I said it because I read rom developers ask for features and bugfixing. So I'll take it as it depends on the developer... some devs are like you said and some others "really care" about what users need/want.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have you really ever seen Real developers ask this? No. The only ones that do are the ones that do nothing more really then cherry pick other roms commits. There are very few real developer teams around. The rest are what we like to call winzip wizards or compile wizards.
The ones that "really care" As you say are only really doing it for donations. I know it is hard to understand in this forum as there are none of the big teams here as none of them are willing to touch Xiaomi Devices. Heck I know I am not even allowed to use one due to my job.
In the end it is up to the dev to add this if they wish but ill let you in on a secret. Most devs are working closely with each other to make this better. There is even a commit that blocks xposed frameworks.
As XDA stand completely behind it and against warez most of the things that this targets are already banned on the site. Things like lucky patcher and freedom. Both are forever banned on the site.
zelendel said:
Have you really ever seen Real developers ask this? No. The only ones that do are the ones that do nothing more really then cherry pick other roms commits. There are very few real developer teams around. The rest are what we like to call winzip wizards or compile wizards.
The ones that "really care" As you say are only really doing it for donations. I know it is hard to understand in this forum as there are none of the big teams here as none of them are willing to touch Xiaomi Devices. Heck I know I am not even allowed to use one due to my job.
In the end it is up to the dev to add this if they wish but ill let you in on a secret. Most devs are working closely with each other to make this better. There is even a commit that blocks xposed frameworks.
As XDA stand completely behind it and against warez most of the things that this targets are already banned on the site. Things like lucky patcher and freedom. Both are forever banned on the site.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very good explanation. Now I see it from that point of view, you are right.
@zelendel:
I certainly have supported and I am prepared to support more app developers who provide me free software (free as in freedom not free beer), and I'm not interested in buying closed source apps from the playstore, so I'm not really affected by this issue, but seriously? Preventing users from running the software they want on their phone? These opinions are grossing me out. Thankfully (and this might have been one of the most important advances in whole history) the creators of the software that most of our Android world is based on, have shown more wisdom and created the GPL, that forces everyone who wants to be part of this world to open source and to free their own variations of it, so thankfully people will always be able to remove components that restrict the user.
This is not a stance to enable privacy. This is a stance to oppose everybody who wants to place technical faculties in my OS that are able to prevent me from running whatever code I want (because at that precise moment, I do no longer own a personal universal computer). If enabling piracy is a side effect of preserving the freedom of an OS, then it's a small price to pay to preserve freedom. Thankfully again, it will always be possible to remove components from GPL software, even for "compiling wizards".
TinkoB said:
@zelendel:
I certainly have supported and I am prepared to support more app developers who provide me free software (with free as in freedom not free beer), and I'm not interested in buying closed source apps from the playstore, so I'm not really affected by this issue, but seriously? Preventing users from running the software they want on their phone? These opinions are grossing me out. Thankfully (and this might have been one of the most important advances in whole history) the creators of the software that most of our Android world is based on, have shown more wisdom and created the GPL, that forces everyone who wants to be part of this world to open source and to free their own variations of it, so thankfully people will always be able to remove components that restrict the user.
This is not a stance to enable privacy. This is a stance to oppose everybody who wants to place technical faculties in my OS that are able to prevent me from running whatever code I want (because at that precise moment, I do no longer own a personal universal computer). If enabling piracy is a side effect of preserving the freedom of an OS, then it's a small price to pay to preserve freedom. Thankfully again, it will always be possible to remove components from GPL software, even for "compiling wizards".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
See you are missing one thing. The fact that android is not licensed under the GPL. Only the Android kernel is under the GPL. The rest is apache, which means they can close source any part of the os they want. This is why things like Sense, Touch wiz, Zen, miui and all the others are closed sourced.
Guys whenever you create something with so much hardwork then you expect something in return of it. But if someone stealing those things then obviously you will oppose rather than allow it.
Open source has its own benefit and disadvantages. We have to decide in what way we have to use these things. Developers are protecting their hardwork. And its their right. We can't tell them what to do and what not to do.
zelendel said:
See you are missing one thing. The fact that android is not licensed under the GPL. Only the Android kernel is under the GPL. The rest is apache, which means they can close source any part of the os they want. This is why things like Sense, Touch wiz, Zen, miui and all the others are closed sourced.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah with "most" i was referring to the Linux Kernel, which I consider the most important part, as an environment to run APKs could theoretically be substituted. But even the Apache Licence for the Android project is OK for the purpose of retaining the user freedom, although the GPL would obviously be preferable. The most problematic part as far as I can see is the proprietary framework, but at least there are people willing to tackle that issue, like the μg Project..
@vishal24387:
It's well known, that someone who is giving larger contributions to an important free software project will get hired pretty fast. Please tell me of any disadvantage of Open Source (or more importantly of free/libre software, OpenSource without free licences is problematic of course).
Developers are free to think of ways to protect their software. That must not include having OS developers place restrictions on users who aren't even interested in their software.
A developer who believes that's the right way to protect his software can include those restrictions in his own binaries and use some of the Google API features to identify his paying users. In that case the issue of restricting the users freedom only affects those users who run that kind of non-free software.
TinkoB said:
Yeah with "most" i was referring to the Linux Kernel, which I consider the most important part, as an environment to run APKs could theoretically be substituted. But even the Apache Licence for the Android project is OK for the purpose of retaining the user freedom, although the GPL would obviously be preferable. The most problematic part as far as I can see is the proprietary framework, but at least there are people willing to tackle that issue, like the μg Project..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not sure how you see that. The license states that they can do anything they want to the source and completely close it off like the privacy guard. They are making it closed sourced and there are many devs working on it to make it even stronger.
If you agree wit it or not really doesnt matter a whole lot. XDA is against warez and will support anything and everything to prevent the use of it. Like the module that disables the privacy guard which is now banned on XDA.
Not sure how you see that. The license states that they can do anything they want to the source and completely close it off like the privacy guard. They are making it closed sourced and there are many devs working on it to make it even stronger.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The only Privacy Guard I'm aware of is a free software encryption tool, what component are you referring to specifically?
As long as the Free Software part of Android stays usable, closed source components are not an issue and can be removed. I don't care how many devs are making a closed source component stronger, as long as I can remove it from my system.
As soon as that's no longer an option, there'll definitely be forks to continue to be able to have projects like replicant.
If you agree wit it or not really doesnt matter a whole lot. XDA is against warez and will support anything and everything to prevent the use of it. Like the module that disables the privacy guard which is now banned on XDA.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Anything and everything? If it's at the cost of the users freedom I'll regret my former donation to XDA and have to hope for it's downfall in the long run, but I'm pretty sure not everybody at XDA shares those drastic opinions.
For the most important and tedious parts, like fixes in drivers that are part of the GPL licenced kernel any work on XDA can be used by those who don't want to use certain other components even if all of XDA would endorse them (and I do not believe that's the case).
TinkoB said:
The only Privacy Guard I'm aware of is a free software encryption tool, what component are you referring to specifically?
As long as the Free Software part of Android stays usable, closed source components are not an issue and can be removed. I don't care how many devs are making a closed source component stronger, as long as I can remove it from my system.
As soon as that's no longer an option, there'll definitely be forks to continue to be able to have projects like replicant.
Anything and everything? If it's at the cost of the users freedom I'll regret my former donation to XDA and have to hope for it's downfall in the long run, but I'm pretty sure not everybody at XDA shares those drastic opinions.
For the most important and tedious parts, like fixes in drivers that are part of the GPL licenced kernel any work on XDA can be used by those who don't want to use certain other components even if all of XDA would endorse them (and I do not believe that's the case).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then what your missing is the new privacy guard which is coded into the base OS which prevents things like freedom, lucky patcher and every warez market known at the time with more being added every day.
Maybe not everyone. Most users in China and India (Where warez are common place) dont really agree with it but all the mods have talked about it and agree Warez is not something XDA has now or ever will support.
This is not kernel based. That is what you are missing. This is coded into the base OS. The part that is not covered by the GPL.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/3eo8sj/antipiracy_measures_on_android_custom_roms/
Also remember that we are a developer forum. Made for and by developers. So we will back any and everything that rips them off of their rights to protect their software from being pirated.

Categories

Resources