I read in a forum that the open source rules that HTC has 90 day to release the source code for the kernel for this latest release of ICS. Is that true? If so why would HTC wait and not release it immediately? What do they have to gain? I want to overclock my rooted -deoxed ICS TBlolt HTC!!!
HTC has a lot of proprietary code in the kernel source for this phone that they like to wait as long as possible to release.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
They act like the competition isn't already right there with them anyway...I understand protecting their work, but at the same time the other companies aren't complete buffoons either, it's not like HTC source code will give them some huge boost when they already have their own ways of doing the same things...
Sorry, I really hope that made sense lol...had knee surgery today, drugs still wearing off
Sent from my ADR6400L using xda app-developers app
Most likely just policy that is blindly executed. Makes sense for a brand new phone, but come on, this is like the 5th update for the TB, so its not like the skirt has not already been hiked.
This is one of only two phones that has svdo capabilities. I think HTC is trying to keep it under wraps skin that the competition doesn't try using it for their benefit. The rezound has it and they always end up waiting for 90 days to get their sources too.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
There's no "90 day grace period." The GPLv2 (which covers Linux) is clear.
Anyone who doesn't make source code available simultaneously with a public distribution of the Linux kernel is playing with fire. Any contributor to the Linux kernel could sue for copyright violation, and HTC could lose ALL rights to distribute Linux, forever. ("Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. ") So, by not making source code available at the same time as the software, they're taking a very considerable risk with a large part of their business. Good luck trying to sell Android phones if you don't have a license for Linux.
Well that's what they have been doing for around 3 years with this phone and they still do it. Everyone knows they are violating the gpl but it is obvious that Google or whoever regulates the gpl doesn't even care. Send htc an email about what you just posted and then post the response you get. They are kind of funny.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
No one "regulates" the GPL. It's up to a kernel contributor (who would hold copyright on his/her contributions to the kernel) to sue for copyright infringement, since HTC is violating the terms of the GPL. There are probably hundreds of people who could sue, if they wanted.
Someone has to regulate it or the whole gpl process is bogus. What would be the point of implementing it in the first place if there isn't an organization or federal body that governs the gpl? Anyway, I reported them to the gnu public licensing organization. I'll post up the response. I think because htc holds copyrights on some of the software they can wait a period of time before releasing source.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
disconnecktie said:
Someone has to regulate it or the whole gpl process is bogus.... Anyway, I reported them to the gnu public licensing organization.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just....wow. You really don't understand how it works, at all. No, it's not "bogus." There is no "gnu public licensing organization." Did you mean the Free Software Foundation, which wrote the GPL? They have nothing to do with enforcing Linux licenses. As I said, that's strictly up to those who contributed to, and therefore hold copyright on, the Linux kernel.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
Have fun, only people who currently own copyright on the source can sue or enforce in any way.
If you really want to do something about HTC, do the little check list there and turn them in for no source, incomplete source, no written offer of source, no copy of the GPL distributed with every update (at least that I can find).
Turn that information into the FSF (free software foundation) or anyone else you know owns partial copyright for the linux source.
After all that is done, you will realize that nothing will happen because while technically they are breaking the GPL, they also are providing more benefit to the the community as a whole by releasing phones with android (linux) on them and adding their own custom software which in turn becomes more open source software for the community.
*TLDR*
Deal with it.
How can I check to see if they have released the source code for this ICS release for the tbolt?
Sent from my. ADR6400L using xda app-developers app
Go to htcdev and look under kernel source.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
So like here?
http://www.htcdev.com/DevCenter/downloads
Yea just select the thunderbolt under the devices tab.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
Related
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!
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
is it legal that companies don't release source code for kernels of certains phones here in the US?
anyone
yuckycool said:
is it legal that companies don't release source code for kernels of certains phones here in the US?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
anyone knows about this?
Is it a criminal offense? No.
Is it something they could conceivably be sued for? Maybe, but unlikely. Most companies do technically meet the letter of the GPL, even if they abusively stomp all over its intent. Strictly speaking, GPL2 and Apache licenses require the release of source, but impose no duty to ensure that it's nice and buildable. HTC is in murkier water, because they compile their kernels as monolithic binary blobs, then just rip out the source to anything proprietary (which IS a clear GPL violation, and half the reason why loadable kernel modules were invented to begin with).
As far as HTC goes, their behavior is pretty much a blatant violation... but that still doesn't mean it would be an easy lawsuit. In order to sue for a GPL violation, you have to have "standing". In the US, that means you're one of the copyright holders (as in, Linus has committed code you personally wrote into the kernel) AND you can demonstrate to the court that you have personally suffered real harm that can be quantified in dollars.
Put another way, the GPL is a form of contract. In the US, you can't sue somebody just because they breached a term of a contract. You have to show that their breach somehow caused real harm and had real consequences that made you lose money.
In theory, somebody with standing to sue for breach of the GPL2 with regard to the Linux kernel could seek equitable relief in the form of an injunction, but equitable relief is viewed by courts as an extraordinary action. As a practical matter, unless you had Linus Torvalds standing behind you, your likelihood of getting anywhere with this approach would be low. And Linus wouldn't stand behind you, because he's not interested in spending his time fighting technical GPL violations.
The truth is, lack of source (for things the GPL compels release of source) is usually the least of our problems. Proprietary binary loadable kernel modules that break with every new kernel (because Linux doesn't have a stable ABI), and TIVO-ized phones with locked bootloaders that make possession of the source almost completely moot (*cough* just about every Motorola phone, ever *cough*) are the real problem.
The LKM problem is unlikely to be solved by Linus, because it's only a serious problem for Android. IMHO, a project to come up with binary wrappers that could be easily recompiled for new kernels to allow modules built for older kernels to work with new ones would be a massively worthwhile project for XDA that would mitigate, if not solve, the first problem.
The bootloader and locked-hardware problem is pretty much insurmountable absent government regulation that's unlikely to be favorable for us anyway. Android was released under GPL2 and Apache, neither of which prohibit the practice. GPL3 prohibits it, but it would be almost impossible to virally infect Android with it. If new GPL3-only code became part of the Linux kernel, there are now enough Android devices that manufacturers would just branch off with the last GPL2 code, quit calling it "Linux", and go their own way. As a practical matter, this (almost) happened anyway, and you could argue about whether we're in a de-facto state of it now. Officially, though, nobody wants to see an official schism between Android and Linux.
At the end of the day, Linus Torvalds hates political conflict, and just doesn't get worked up over licensing issues. He's not going to bend over backwards to accommodate Android, but he'll never draw a line in the sand and dare Android to cross it (the way Stallman would). He's said, in so many words, that he's content to leave Google in charge as Android's neighborhood watchman/kernel cop. He doesn't agree with everything Google does, but his disagreements aren't big enough to motivate him to put the rest of his life on hold and fight over.
Please use the Q&A Forum for questions &
Read the Forum Rules Ref Posting
Moving to Q&A
My device also not boots up with kernel because it did not have lollipop support.
Well i started a thread about how we need source and everyones favorite mod sgt.slaughter came in and broke up the keyboard warrior fest and shed some light on us and told us to all start asking about source using the example of the folks in the 3d forums who teamed up to get a bootloader unlock which while its kinda half assed, at least they did something.
Many users interested in the development on HTC devices have recently been becoming more and more frustrated with HTC's policy on kernel source code releases. While other companys such as Samsung release their kernel source the same day as a phone is released or an update is pushed to a device, HTC follows a different path. HTC while is supporting development via their bootloader unlocking tools, which we are thankful for, they seem to not care when it comes to how long after an update is pushed or a phone is released that it takes them to release their source code. By doing this they are hindering development on their own devices and tempting developers to leave HTC and move on to Samsung due to the greater support for developers of samsung devices.
The GPL states that the source must be released within 14 of a request of such code. However, it doesn't state a grace period or a timeline for which it has to be released. HTC says that "HTC will normally publish this within 90 to 120 days" (HTCDEV) and in this time they claim that they are still complying with the rules and regulations of the GPL v2.0. This wait is far too long however because after this time and they finally release the source code it may be out of date by 2 maybe 3 updates. This hinders the development on said devices because once a phone is updated, the only source they have to work with is outdated and may be either very hard to work into the new update or even impossible to use on the new software.
Others have alread tried to change the ways of HTC in the past with no success. The below quoted info is from the creator of gpl-violations.org (Harald Welte) and explains his attempts to alter HTC's policy with no success:
"There have been various reports and blog posts about HTC again committing copyright infringement by not fulfilling the GPLv2 license conditions in their latest Android phone, the G2.
While at this point I haven't studied the situation enough in order to confirm or deny any actual violations, let me state this: The number of GPL Violation reports/allegations that we receive at gpl-violations.org on HTC by far outnumber the reports that we have ever received about any other case or company.
In addition, HTC seems to have had a long trail of problems with GPL compliance in their devices. Ever since they have started to ship Android devices containing the Linux kernel, licensed under GPLv2+, we have received those reports.
The reason I have never taken any legal action is merely a result of the fact that HTC seems to first introduce their new devices in the US, then at some point release the corresponding source code before shipping those devices into Europe and Germany. So by the time the devices are sold over here, the legal issues appear to have been resolved before.
Nonetheless, I think it is outrageous for a company of this size and significance in the market to consistently commit copyright violation (or at least walk borderline with it) and thus mistreat the very copyright holders that have created the operating system kernel they use in their devices. The linux kernel developers and the Free Software community as a whole deserve fair treatment.
Also, the competitors of HTC deserve fair treatment: Samsung, e.g. is very forthcoming with their Android phone source code releases. If I was them and would see HTC to fail to comply with the GPL, I would consider filing a unfair competition lawsuit..." (Harald Welte)
This is a follow up post on his blog where he explains more:
"The Taiwanese smart phone maker HTC is widely known to be delaying its Linux kernel source code releases of their Android products. Initially, this has been described to to the requirement for source code review, and making sure that no proprietary portions are ending up in the release.
While the point is sort-of moot from the beginning (there should be no proprietary portions inside the Linux kernel for a product that wants to avoid entering any legal grey zone in the first place), I was willing to accept/tolerate it for some time.
At one point more than one year ago, gpl-violations.org actually had the opportunity to speak in person to senior HTC staff about this. I made it very clear that this delay is not acceptable, and that they should quickly fix their processes in order to make sure they reduce that delay, eventually down to zero.
Recently, I received news that the opposite is happening. HTC still has the same delays, and they are now actually claiming that even a 120 days delay is in compliance with the license.
I do think neither the paying HTC customers, nor tha Free Software community as a whole have to tolerate those delays. It is true that the GPLv2 doesn't list a deadline until when the source code has to be provided, but it is at the same also very clear what the license wants: To enable people to study the program source code. Especially in todays rapid smart phone product cycles, 120 days is a very long time.
So I hereby declare my patience has ended here. I am determined to bring those outrageous delays to an end. This will be one of my new year resolutions for 2012: Use whatever means possible to make HTC understand that this is not how you can treat Free Software, the community, its customers, the GPL and in the end, copyright itself." (Harald Welte)
The goal of this petition is not to bring down HTC but rather to have them change their ways when it comes to releasing source code. We would like to see source the same day as updates and phone releases so that developers can make use of this code; play with it, learn from it, and promote future development on HTC devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Anyway lets get to the point. Below there is links to their email, twitter, facebook, etc and you guys message them and post what you said below and i will add it to the op here so others can use that message.
also, as sgt.slaughter said, DONT ASK ABOUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN SOURCE. We need to stick to the point here. Don't threaten them or rage at them.
Spread this to other HTC Device forums that aren't getting source if you know of any, the more people we get to the better.
Mods i will update this as often as possible if people actually follow it so perhaps a temp sticky?
Also don't flood this with a bunch of "I won't buy HTC again" talk. It will just make this harder.
Petition Link
Link: http://www.change.org/petitions/htc-htc-needs-to-speed-up-kernel-source-releases?share_id=sLjvObpqne
Personal Contacts [thanks sgt.slaughter]
[email protected]; Senior Director Enterprise Business Unit Americas
[email protected]; Chairman
[email protected]; Chief Marketing Officer, HTC Corporation
[email protected]; Senior Public Relations Manager at HTC 425-679-5328
[email protected]; COO of HTC
[email protected]; Board Member of HTC
[email protected]; CEO
[email protected]; VP HTC
[email protected]; Chief Innovation Officer
Brent Groome, Chief Executive-Customer Operations, at 843-369-8393 or [email protected]
To email all of them at once, copy and paste this:
PHP:
[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected]
HTC
Twitter: https://twitter.com/htc
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/HTC
Email: http://www.htc.com/us/support/email-support
HTCDEV
Twitter: https://twitter.com/htcdev
Facebook: Don't think they have one
Email: http://www.htcdev.com/contact
HTC USA
Twitter: https://twitter.com/HTCUSA
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/htcusa
Updates:
Today 8/9/12 i received an email back from HTC giving me the same B.S. they give everyone about the 90 days. Heres the email.
Dear Mike Malloy,
Thank you for contacting HTC regarding Kernel Source code. I know that this code is important to the development community and I will be happy to assist you with the correct information regarding this.
HTC will release source code in accordance with any applicable open source license terms, i.e. GPL v2.0. HTC will typically publish on http://developer.htc.com or htcdev.com the Kernel open source code for recently released devices as soon as possible. HTC will normally publish this within 90 to 120 days. This time frame is within the requirements of the open source community. Other source codes, which are not required to be disclosed by the open source license terms, unfortunately cannot be disclosed by HTC as they may be proprietary to HTC or its licensor.
I hope you enjoy the rest of your week, Mike.
If this answers your comment or question, please click here to complete the process.
To submit another comment, please click here.
Sincerely,
The HTCDev Team
--------------------------- then i sent this
No where in the GPL does it state that you guys have 90 days to release the source code nor does it give you a grace period. you guys have the code already all that has to be done is a simple upload. samsung does it, motorola does it, why can't HTC release their code within a few days of an update? a petition is being started on xda-developers where there is a lot of people that feel the same way and it will only get bigger. you guys will be hearing a lot from us soon.
--------------------------------their reply
Dear Mike Malloy,
Thank you for your reply. Your feedback has been forwarded to the appropriate department for documentation. I hope you enjoy your week!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quotes from you guys:
Racer Of All said:
Hello and thank you for writing in.
Since we are discussing the Linux Kernel, I will refer to version 2 of
the GPL. GPLv2 lays out the terms under which a party can distribute a
work in "object code or executable form" in section 3. The party in
question must do so in one of three ways, but for commercial entities
such as HTC only the first two are relevant: Accompany the binary with
the source (section 3.a), or accompany the binary with a written offer
to provide the source (section 3.b).
Complying with section 3 via subsection (a) is the fastest, safest and
easiest way since section 3 compliance is achieved immediately; you get
the binary and the source together. But according to your description
HTC has opted for section 3.b instead. It is true that section 3.b
doesn't spell out exactly how fast the offer for the corresponding
source code must be deal with, but note that it doesn't explicitly state
a grace-period either. So in order to be in compliance with distribution
under section 3.b, a timely response would be best.
I hope this answer is of help. If you have further questions, please
feel free to write back.
--
I am not a lawyer, the above is not legal advice
* *Regards, Your Name Here
Above is in reference to this post: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=29932331&postcount=27
A whole bunch or useful information thanks to Racer of All :http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=29940548&postcount=9
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
premo15 said:
Hello,
I am writing to address the current business practice adopted by HTC in which source code is made available to the development community up to 120 days after the official consumer release. While I am a staunch supporter of HTC and its products, I feel that collaboration with the development community can be somewhat lacking in comparison with other manufactures in the same market space. For example, Samsung frequently releases source code prior to or at the same time as the official consumer release of their products and OTA updates. As a result, the open source development for their devices is able to advance much more quickly in comparison to the competing HTC handsets. I have seen this particular issue cause frustration with other users and developers and has influenced some to switch from the EVO 4G LTE to the Samsung Galaxy S3 in order to enjoy the comparatively expedited release of source code from the manufacturer.
I believe one of the main strengths of the Android platform is its open source nature and the fact that there are so many developers willing to provide features and enhancements for those that desire them. Many users share this belief and it is a key factor in their decision to purchase an Android handset. However, in order for the development community to thrive, a timely release of source code is needed. I personally would like to see HTC devices become even more pervasive and I believe that adhering to the GNU General Public License by releasing source code at the same time as, or even prior to, the generally available OTAs would greatly increase the likelihood of acheiving this.
Thank you for your time.
Original Post: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=29951917&postcount=13
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have been posting this on their facebook walls fee free to use it.
----------------------------
HTC when are you going to follow the GPL and stop using the 90 day excuse? No where does the GPL state that you have 90 days to release it nor does it give a grace period. Use samsung as an example. They release their source code within a few hours of an update if not prior to one. Why can't you do the same? All that your hesitation causes is frustration among the developer community and hinder development for your devices. We know you take some ideas from us because you have decided to swap the recent apps key and use it as a menu which the developers have done on the evo lte within a week of the phones release. We scratch your back, you scratch ours.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In order to get the sweeping changes we want (to get source released as soon as device is dropped like samsung does) we will need more than our EVO 4G LTE users.
We need all HTC users behind this. Anyway we can get this up on their sections of the forum as well?
true, perhaps submit this to the xda portal and then maybe expand to other sites such as engadget? i already started spreading it to themikmik but only in the evo lte section so far. add me on google talk and we will collaborate. ill send my email via pm
I posted a section on android forums where I am a guide. I'll spread the word there.
I'll hit you up tomorrow
Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2
ive sent messages to rootzwiki, themikmik, and xda portal to see if they will write about this and help spread the word. for now im going to bed since its 2a.m.
I emailed AP, lets see.
Hopefully this catches on when everyone sees this thread tomorrow.
This needs to be done/
Rxpert said:
I emailed AP, lets see.
Hopefully this catches on when everyone sees this thread tomorrow.
This needs to be done/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I will try to get this done this afternoon when I come home from work.
I passed the word on to android central.
nice job!
need to toss in examples of how HTC is failing compared to the other manufacturers in terms of time they release source...cite Samsung and Motorola and time of OTA released to devices, and then time they released their source code...Show HTC that they are the ONLY one's playing this 90day rule bs crap and its hurting the development community greatly, in turn causing people to leave...
I will be sending emails to the aforementioned news sources as well as my tech friends. It really is a shame companies like HTC can get away with violating the GPL like this. If only we could convince a person with copyright on part of the Linux kernel to join our ranks we could win overnight
Oh in addition to the above email I send them I also found another one that was between a head dev of red hat Linux, I'll see if I can dig it up.
EDIT: Found it, post by Matthew Garrett, developer of red hat linux posted the next couple of entries. They are very interesting reads about the entire situation:
HTC is Willfully Violating the GPL by Matthew Garrett:
As has been discussed before, HTC have a somewhat "interesting" interpretation of the GPL that allows them to claim they don't need to provide source code until between 90 and 120 days after the release of binaries. It's probably noteworthy that the FSF (who, you know, wrote the license and all) disagree with this interpretation, as do the kernel copyright holders (who, you know, wrote the code that the license covers) I've talked to about it. Anyway, after a pile of screaming and shouting from all sides HTC have tended to release their source code in a timely manner. So things seemed better.
HTC released the Thunderbolt last week and we're back to the 90-120 day song and dance. It's probably worth remembering that by behaving in this way HTC gain a competitive advantage over any vendors who obey the terms of their license - HTC can incorporate improvements made by others without releasing their own until through a significant portion of the lifecycle of their phone.
As far as I'm concerned, every single Thunderbolt sold so far embodies a copyright infringement. Wilfully engaging in copyright infringement for commercial benefit is typically frowned upon by courts, especially if by doing so a foreign company is gaining commercial advantage over a domestic one. If you think Microsoft's patent assault on Android is a problem, just imagine what they could do if they hired one significant Linux kernel developer and used their copyrights to attack the overwhelming majority of Android vendors who fail to comply with the GPL. It probably wouldn't be industry ending (companies would merely have improve their compliance procedures) but it'd do a huge deal of damage in the short term. It's insane for companies to behave this way. Don't reward them by giving them your money.
I'll be talking about this at the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit next month, along with an update on my study of the compliance of Android tablets. I'm hoping that there'll be further developments after that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
These two entries are also by Matthew Garrett but they're more a generalized point of view about GPL violations in general and why it's an incentive to do so:
The economic incentive to violate the GPL
The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement
Also let me make this clear (because I've seen people bring this up before): people here aren't complaining that without source we can't do anything or that our devs REQUIRE it. The point is that the Linux kernel is licensed under the GPL and that our devs SHOULDN'T NEED to work without it. It's free open sourced code. We don't care for the "but HTC has hundreds of phones to support please give them [email protected]!" argument either. The GPL is pretty clear, you can use anything licensed under it but if you release a commercial product with it, source MUST be released and source code is easier to distribute than the binary they built using it. It's a non-issue for them.
Sorry for the massive edit. I just love open source software and the advantages it provides for technology and by proxy -- society. I mean, open source is literally everywhere and I can't stand companies with big bucks being able to "buy" their way out of what open source stands for. If you use something licensed under the GPL you MUST provide source. You don't have a day, you don't have a week. You have to either release it alongside the binary or provide it upon request.
I'm done
Sent from my Nexus 7
Glad to wake up and see this thread!
Thanks for getting this going. But it may be difficult without a direct line to one of the higher-ups. It's taken HTC 3 weeks (and counting) to tell me if the EVO's wifi radio can support channel bonding and short guard intervals on the 5ghz band...which I assumed would be an easy, straight forward question. So that doesn't bode well for a hefty request such as this. Nonetheless, I will join you.
Sent from my EVO LTE
Give me source or give me death!!
Sent from my EVO using xda app-developers app
Getting ready to send my message out to HTC, how's the tone? Any critiques?
Hello,
I am writing to address the current business practice adopted by HTC in which source code is made available to the development community up to 120 days after the official consumer release. While I am a staunch supporter of HTC and its products, I feel that collaboration with the development community can be somewhat lacking in comparison with other manufactures in the same market space. For example, Samsung frequently releases source code prior to or at the same time as the official consumer release of their products and OTA updates. As a result, the open source development for their devices is able to advance much more quickly in comparison to the competing HTC handsets. I have seen this particular issue cause frustration with other users and developers and has influenced some to switch from the EVO 4G LTE to the Samsung Galaxy S3 in order to enjoy the comparatively expedited release of source code from the manufacturer.
I believe one of the main strengths of the Android platform is its open source nature and the fact that there are so many developers willing to provide features and enhancements for those that desire them. Many users share this belief and it is a key factor in their decision to purchase an Android handset. However, in order for the development community to thrive, a timely release of source code is needed. I personally would like to see HTC devices become even more pervasive and I believe that adhering to the GNU General Public License by releasing source code at the same time as, or even prior to, the generally available OTAs would greatly increase the likelihood of acheiving this.
Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
premo15 said:
Getting ready to send my message out to HTC, how's the tone? Any critiques?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My 2 cent review? Leave out the first paragraph entirely and just send the second. The tone is good, and it says everything you want to say while still being quick and to the point.
fachadick said:
My 2 cent review? Leave out the first paragraph entirely and just send the second. The tone is good, and it says everything you want to say while still being quick and to the point.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Na they need to hear it from customers that they recognize that HTC's competitors are releasing their source code much earlier. leave that stuff in there...
sgt. slaughter said:
Na they need to hear it from customers that they recognize that HTC's competitors are releasing their source code much earlier. leave that stuff in there...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fair enough, but do you really think that they don't already know that the other guys are releasing their source code earlier? I think that first paragraph creates a "Samsung is better than you guys" tone that will unnecessarily put them on the defensive in a marketing and pr sense. It will make them address the email as if it's an htc vs samsung scenario, instead of keeping the focus on releasing source earlier and following gpl guidelines. My $0.02 anyway.
fachadick said:
Fair enough, but do you really think that they don't already know that the other guys are releasing their source code earlier? I think that first paragraph creates a "Samsung is better than you guys" tone that will unnecessarily put them on the defensive in a marketing and pr sense. It will make them address the email as if it's an htc vs samsung scenario, instead of keeping the focus on releasing source earlier and following gpl guidelines. My $0.02 anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If I recall thats how we took the bootloader unlock to them too...Samsung allows unlocking, and HTC used to not be encrypted at least....then they encrypted and all hell broke loose, and their facebook was completely blowing up for weeks straight....so much that they couldnt' manage all the negative posts on there and eventually released a comment on it and changed their ways...
working on starting a petition now. will update the op with it shortly.
EDIT: still working on it. i set one up but i think it has to be approved first before being put on their site. will update as soon as possible
premo15 said:
Thanks for getting this going. But it may be difficult without a direct line to one of the higher-ups. It's taken HTC 3 weeks (and counting) to tell me if the EVO's wifi radio can support channel bonding and short guard intervals on the 5ghz band...which I assumed would be an easy, straight forward question. So that doesn't bode well for a hefty request such as this. Nonetheless, I will join you.
Sent from my EVO LTE
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
got that covered, check the op. has direct contacts now
My canned response from HTC DEV
:Thank you for contacting HTC regarding Kernel Source code. I know that this code is important to the development community and I will be happy to assist you with the correct information regarding this.
HTC will release source code in accordance with any applicable open source license terms, i.e. GPL v2.0. HTC will typically publish on http://developer.htc.com or htcdev.com the Kernel open source code for recently released devices as soon as possible. HTC will normally publish this within 90 to 120 days. This time frame is within the requirements of the open source community. Other source codes, which are not required to be disclosed by the open source license terms, unfortunately cannot be disclosed by HTC as they may be proprietary to HTC or its licensor.
I hope you enjoy the rest of your week
The purpose of this thread is to check interest as to whether or not this would be worth my time. I am the developer of an Android/Windows Phone Tapatalk alternative app called Forum Fiend (there is a thread about it here: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2733755 ) that uses the Tapatalk API and can access most Tapatalk powered forums, without having to go through all of the standard Tapatalk nonsense.
At this point in the project I have pretty much implemented the full scope of the Tapatalk API's features and am basically working on improving the interface and squashing bugs. Afterwards, I was planning on offering a reasonably priced BYO service costing a reasonable one time fee of $30 per build (vs the $70/month that Tapa charges). Anyway, the BYO was going to be how I would make money on the project. Since I do not have any employees to pay like Tapa and I make most of my money on other apps, I really don't need to gouge customers with extreme fees.
Anyway, all was well until representatives from Tapatalk contacted me implying that they would take legal actions against me if I offered a BYO service based on their API. Anyway, I am certainly no legal expert, so I do not know how realistic their threats are, but I really do not have any desire to challenge Tapatalk or try to compete with them in any way.
At this point, I believe that Forum Fiend is dead as a commercial product. So I had the thought of converting it into an open source project and letting the community get involved. This way other people could help me out with the development of the project, plus forum owners could essentially "build their own" forum apps for free, without even going through Tapatalk. It seems like it would be a win-win for everybody.
The problem is that I am not completely familiar with the open source process or how to establish such a project. I also do not know if this would help me get around the Tapatalk legal issues. Their API is also open source (see it on github: https://github.com/tapatalk?tab=repositories ), so I wonder if I could just fork their project, call it the Forum Fiend API, and suddenly I am no longer using the Tapatalk API at all, thus removing them from the equation completely. Of course, I do not know if that is legit or not.
So the purpose of this thread is really to get suggestions/advice/check interest for such a project. Does anybody know anything about open source projects? If it would be ok to fork their API? If anybody would be willing to contribute to such a project? Would anybody even care about such a project? Any information/advice would be awesome. Thanks.
I am for all things open source and would love to see this app on github or something similar.
I'm not sure of Tapatalk's API licensing, but if it is under a GPL license and you release a product/service that incorporates it, you are legally NOT allowed to sell it or make money off of it. If it is a BSD license, that is another issue.
Like I said, I'd love to see this open sourced! You might even consider submitting it to FDroid to make it more accessible and give it a wider audience. Just my two cents.
There aren't any repos at https://github.com/tapatalk. Anyway there aren't any restrictions on using GPL code in commercial apps.
I think there would be great interest in such a project. The thing to do would be to set up an 'organization' on Github or Gitlab and allow people to contribute. I don't think that would land you in legal difficulty nor require much of your time.,especially as any mention of Tapatalk will have been purged from the API code and and the Android app code. As long as the code that you have for the API is under a free software licence then it should be OK.
Given the importance you might want to ask the Free Software Foundation for advice before proceeding.
"if it is under a GPL license and you release a product/service that incorporates it, you are legally NOT allowed to sell it or make money off of it."
What a load of crap.
The right to sell copies and use for any purpose, including commercially, are part of the very definition of Free Software.
It's it the damned FAQ, even.
Sorry, but I'm sick of dullards misrepresenting Free Software and the GNU GPL when they don't even know the first thing about it.